Thursday, 26 May 1988 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that: 1. There is no legal barrier to the importation of X-rated videos in the A.C.T. or to their sale in the A.C.T. 2. The Government has ignored the repeated protests of the Senate and the people of Canberra on this situation. 3. As a result X-rated videos are being sold from Canberra to other States, although they are banned in all States. Your petitioners therefore ask the Senate to put pressure on the Government to ban the importation and sale of X-rated video material in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Peter Baume (from 23 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate of the Commonwealth Parliament assembled. The petition of these residents of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation provides the citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia with the only nation-wide, independent radio and television service that the independence of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation must be preserved in the interests of the citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia that the introduction of commercial sponsorship or any form of advertising material from commercial sources, would destroy the independence of the Corporation. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Honourable Senators will oppose the introduction of any form of sponsorship or advertising material from commercial sources into the programmes of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Gareth Evans (from 89 citizens) and Giles (from 41 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament. Your petitioners are concerned that the Australian Federal Government may enter into a treaty with the United Soviet Socialist Republics which would provide Soviet vessels with fishing rights in Australian waters and berthing rights in Australian ports, noting that the Federal Government itself has warned Pacific island states against entering into fishing agreements with the USSR. Your petitioners humbly request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, reject any fishing treaty or related agreement between Australia and the USSR. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator McGauran (from 130 citizens). Petitions received. 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, Notice of Motion No. 1 standing in my name for the next day of sitting for the disallowance of certain export control orders and Notices of Motion Nos 2 and 3 standing in my name for two sitting days hence for disallowance of certain statutory rules and meat inspection orders. I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Senator COLLINS —The Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances has obtained satisfactory explanations from the Ministers giving reasons for the level of certain fees, explaining why an Australian Capital Territory police advisory body has been wound up and describing the extent of certain Administrative Appeal Tribunal review rights. The Committee thanks the Ministers, Senator Cook and Gary Punch, M.P., for their cooperation with our scrutiny of their legislation. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a brief description of the Committee's scrutiny and part of the Committee's correspondence with Senator Cook. Leave granted. The documents read as follows- Export Control (Fees) Orders No. 19 of 1987 These orders increase the fees for chemical residue inspection for solipeds from 16 cents to 170 cents per carcass. The Committee, noting that this was almost an eleven-fold increase in the level of fees, invited the Minister for Resources, Senator the Hon. Peter Cook, to explain the reasons for the change. The Committee's concern was to ensure that the increased fee continued unequivocally to represent a fee for services rendered and to satisfy itself that the increase was reasonable and justified. In pursuing this issue the Committee was not concerned with the Minister's policy decision to increase the fee. Rather the Committee wished to determine that the fee increase was not so large that no reasonable Minister could have contemplated making it. The Committee's approach to this issue of ``reasonableness'' is described in paragraph 4.139 of its Eightieth Report (P.P. No. 241/1986) and at page 29 of its Eighty-third Report (April 1988). In order not interfere with ministerial policy discretions, the Committee, in adopting this approach, applies a very broad test of ``reasonableness''. In this instance the Minister explained in detail that fees were calculated by determining 50% of the testing cost of each animal, including proportional computer assessment costs. This total cost was divided by the estimated number of solipeds slaughtered at export registered premises. The Minister pointed out that the increased fees took into account increased costs arising from the significant upgrading of the National Residue Survey testing program. The Minister also assured the Committee that the fees related exclusively to services rendered and in no way represented taxation. The Committee is grateful to the Minister for the very helpful and detailed way in which he helped it to resolve its concerns about these Orders. Australian Federal Police (Police Liaison Advisory Committee for the Australian Capital Territory) Regulations (Repeal) These Regulations abolished the Police Liaison Advisory Committee in the A.C.T. The Minister for the Arts and Territories, the Hon. Gary Punch, M.P., explained that the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 had been amended by the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1988 which removed the obligation to establish an Advisory Committee. The Minister pointed out that since the abolition of the A.C.T. House of Assembly the Advisory Committee had not operated effectively. However, Police/Community Liaison in the A.C.T. was maintained through a local weekly television broadcast, various police public relations programmes and the neighbourhood watch scheme. The Committee was grateful to the Minister for providing it with this information. Meat Inspection (Victoria) Orders (Export Control Orders 1/1988) The Minister for Resources assisted the Committee with its scrutiny of these Orders by explaining the scope of AAT review rights. The Committee appreciates the Minister's assistance. 22 March 1988 Senator the Hon. Peter Cook, Minister for Resources Parliament House CANBERRA A.C.T. 2600 Dear Minister, At its meeting on 17 March 1988 the Committee considered the Export Control (Fees) Orders As Amended (Amendment) (being Export Control Orders No. 19 of 1987 tabled in the Senate on 25 February 1988). The Committee seeks your advice about the reasons for changes to the levels of certain fees. The amended Section V of the Schedule displays carcass inspection fees for certain animals. Cross referencing the displayed table in Section V of the Schedule in Export Control Orders No. 17 of 1987 with the latest table, it appears as if the inspection fees for solipeds has risen from ``0.16 per carcass'' to ``170 cents per carcass'' and for pigs from 0.07 per carcass'' to ``22 cents per carcass''. Notwithstanding the reference to chemical residue inspections, the explanatory statement accompanying the new Orders does not fully explain to Parliament why these fees, in particular the fee for solipeds, have risen so dramatically between 27 October 1987 (the date of Export Control Orders No. 17 of 1987) and 20 December 1987 (the date of Export Control Order No. 19 of 1987). Without background information of a kind that is sometimes included in an explanatory statement, the Committee is not in a position to make an informed judgement that, in all the circumstances of a particular case, a particular fee increase is so unreasonably large that no reasonable Minister would have imposed it, and no Parliament would have intended its delegated powers to be exercised in such an unusual and unexpected way. You will see that the test which the Committee under its Principles applies to increases of fees, charges, penalties and other quantities, is a very broad one designed to allow a Minister to have maximum latitude to pursue policy goals while also enabling the Committee to protect the rights of individuals from demonstrable excesses. (The Committee's approach to this issue of ``reasonableness'' is described at paragraph 4.139 of its Eightieth Report (October 1969) P. P. No. 241/1986). The Committee is also concerned to ensure that where fees and charges are imposed there is no doubt that these are unequivocally fees for services rendered and that they in no way represent taxation of any kind. (Matthews v Chicory Marketing Board (Vict.) [1937-1938] 60 C. L. R. 263; and Marsh v Shire of Serpentine Jarrahdale [1966] 120 C. L. R. 572) It would be very helpful to the Committee if you would examine the latest fee changes and let the Committee know the basis on which they were determined and how they operate exclusively to off-set administrative expenses. Yours sincerely, Bob Collins Chairman 25 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 dated 22 March 1988 on behalf of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances seeking advice about the reasons for changes to the levels of certain fees contained in Export Control Orders No. 19 of 1987. The Committee has sought advice on the reasons for the increases in chemical residue inspection fees for solipeds from 16 cents to 170 cents per carcase and for pigs from 7 cents to 22 cents per carcase. The taking and testing of samples of meat for chemical residues under the National Residue Survey is carried out for the purpose of ensuring that the Export Control Orders and also importing country certification requirements are complied with. The fees were calculated by determining 50% of the testing costs of each animal species, including proportional computer assessment costs, and dividing that cost by the estimated slaughterings for that particular species at export registered premises. The increased fees, which took effect on 1 January 1988, take into account the increased costs associated with the significant upgrading of the National Residue Survey testing program, including costs for new computing facilities used in assessing sample test results. In calculating the fees, the Government has been most careful to ensure they relate exclusively to the services rendered, so that it is clear they in no way represent taxation of any kind. Details of how the fees were calculated are set out in the attachment to this letter. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify this matter for the Committee. Yours sincerely Peter Cook 1 FEES FROM 1 NOVEMBER 1987 A. Costs to be recovered 1/11/87 to 31/12/87 Testing Costs Computing Costs Total Pigs $85,000 $4,000 $89,000 Solipeds $3,300 . . $3,300 B. Calculation of fees applied from 1 November 1987 (I) Pigs (I) Fees = Costs of NRS (Pigs) x 50% Recovery 2 mths estimated slaughterings = 89,000 x 0.5 656,000 = approx 7c per carcase (II) Solipeds (II) Fees = Costs of NRS (Solipeds) x 50% Recovery 2 mths estimated slaughterings = 3,300 x 0.5 10,000 = approx 16c per carcase (Estimated slaughtering based on 1987/88 12 month estimates of: Pigs 3,934,000 Solipeds 60,000 (Source: BAE, AQIS and AMLC) 2 REVISED FEES FROM 1 JANUARY 1988 DUE TO ENHANCED NRS PROGRAM A. Costs to be recovered 1/11/88 to 30/9/88 Testing Costs Computing Costs Total Pigs $584,000 $169,725 $754,000 Solipeds $110,300 $41,850 $152,565 (I) Pigs (I) Fees = 9 mths Costs of NRS (Pigs) x 50% Recovery 9 mths estimated slaughterings = 754,000 x 0.5 1,707,000 = approx 22c per carcase (II) Solipeds (II) Fees = 9 mths Costs of NRS (Solipeds) x 50% Recovery 9 mths estimated slaughterings = 154,565 x 0.5 45,000 = approx $1.70 per carcase (Estimated slaughtering based on 1988 estimates of: 9 Months 12 Months Pigs 1,707,000 2,276,000 Solipeds 45,000 60,000 (Source: BAE, AQIS and AMLC) Senator COLLINS —Mr President, I also seek leave to table the remaining correspondence for the information of honourable senators and others. Leave granted. Senator COLLINS —I thank the Senate. Motion (by Senator Cooney) agreed to: That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs: The social and fiduciary duties and responsibilities of company directors. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) put: That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Sessional Orders, the times of sitting on Thursday, 26 May 1988, and Tuesday, 31 May 1988, be as follows: Thursday, 26 May 1988- 10 a.m. to 6.30 p.m. 8 p.m. to 10.30 p.m. Tuesday, 31 May 1988- 10 a.m. to 12.45 p.m. 2 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. 8 p.m. to 10.30 p.m. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 8 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 51 —— Alston, R. K. R. Hill, R. M.Archer, B. R. Knowles, S. C.Aulich, T. G. Lewis, A. W. R.Baume, Michael McGauran, J. J.Baume, Peter MacGibbon, D. J.Beahan, M. E. McKiernan, J. P. (Teller)Bishop, B. K. McMullan, R. F.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Maguire. G. R.Black, J. R. Messner, A. J.Bolkus, N. Morris, J. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Newman, J. M.Brownhill, D. G. C. Panizza, J. H.Burns, B. R. Parer, W. R.Calvert, P. H. Puplick, C. J. L.Chaney, F. M. Ray, RobertChapman, H. G. P. Reid, M. E.Childs, B. K. Reynolds, M.Coates, J. Richardson, G. F.Collins, R. L. Schacht, C. C.Colston, M. A. Sheil, G.Cook, P. F. S. Short, J. R.Cooney, B. C. Sibraa, K. W.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Tambling, G. E. J.Devereux, J. R. Tate, M. C.Devlin, A. R. Teague, B. C.Durack, P. D. Vanstone, A. E.Evans, Gareth Walters, M. S.Foreman, D. J. Watson, J. O. W.Gietzelt, A. T. Zakharov, A. O.Giles, P. J. Coulter, J. R. McLean, P. A.Haines, J. Macklin, M. J. (Teller)Harradine, B. Powell, J. F.Jenkins, J. A. Sanders, N. K. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Aulich)-by leave-agreed to: That intervening business be postponed till after consideration of General Business, Order of the Day No. 44 relating to a reference to the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training. Debate resumed from 20 May, on motion by Senator Aulich: That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training: Priorities for reform in higher education. Senator AULICH(Tasmania) —I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a statement relating to the reference to the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- The Committee wishes to seek the views of the Australian community on what should be the priorities for reform in higher education. The Committee's interests include the matters covered in the Green Paper and the White Paper on higher education but submissions will also be welcome on other aspects of higher education. Possible topics for investigation might include: course outcomes which produce a capacity for critical analysis and adaptability policies to provide for enrolment growth ways of encouraging quality and effectiveness in teaching the interaction between the humanities and the sciences/technologies vocational training, including relationships with business and industry policies concerning research funding the role of adult and continuing education in higher education ways of achieving the best use of resources within institutions the new advisory arrangements at Federal level. The Committee will invite submissions on these or any other issues which are perceived by the Australian community as priorities for reform in higher education. The Committee intends to hold a series of public hearings on a range of issues raised in submissions. Contributions will be sought from those outside the higher education sector as well as those within it. A report will be tabled in the Senate in early 1989. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Tate) agreed to: That Government Business, order of the day No. 1-Call of the Senate, be postponed until after consideration of Government Business, order of the day No. 2-Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill 1988; General Business order of the day No. 10-Constitution Alteration (Electors' Initiative) Bill 1987 and Government Business orders of the day No. 3-Constitution Alteration (Fair Elections) Bill 1988; No. 4-Constitution Alteration (Local Government) Bill 1988; and No. 5-Constitution Alteration (Rights and Freedoms) Bill 1988. [COGNATE BILLS: CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (FAIR ELECTIONS) BILL 1988 CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (LOCAL GOVERNMENT) BILL 1988 CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS) BILL 1988] Debate resumed from 25 May, on motions by Senator Tate and Senator Macklin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(10.14) —When the debate was interrupted I had been outlining the reality of the local government issue and since that time a most interesting article has been written in the Australian by Mr George Winterton, Associate Professor of Law at the University of New South Wales. The article underlines the points that I was making about the lack of case presented by the Government for the inclusion of local government in the Constitution by means of this referendum. This article pointed out that the Constitutional Commission Advisory Committee on the Distribution of Powers opposed such recognition. The point made in the article is: Each State surely should be free to decide for themselves- that is, the voters in each State- whether or not they wish to implement a system of local government and, if so, in what form. Accordingly, the appropriate place for any constitutional recognition of local government is the State Constitution where in recent years local government has in fact achieved recognition in all States except Queensland and Tasmania. Professor Geoffrey Sawer wrote in 1973: `It is a reasonable political inference from s.106 (of the Commonwealth Constitution) and from the course of Australian history that the Commonwealth should not intervene in State constitutional questions except to the extent that the enlargement of Commonwealth competence and the changing of Commonwealth-State interrelations pursuant to s.128 necessarily does so. I stress the words `necessarily does so'. Another point made by Associate Professor Winterton is: The second ground for opposing the proposal to `recognise' local government in the federal Constitution is that the proposed new S.119a, which would ultimately be interpreted and applied by the High Court, could lead to numerous difficulties far outweighing any benefit to be derived from such `recognition'. The section- that is, proposed new section 119a- does not define the term `local government'. How on earth can one legislate to recognise local government when one does not define it? Yet, as Associate Professor Winterton points out: . . . that term, which is obviously central to it, lacks inherent meaning and its uncertainty could lead to all sorts of arguments alleging that different types of local or regional government are constitutionally entrenched. Of course, this creates a massive scope for litigation and it could lead to a situation in which this Government could pretend that it has some sort of capacity to damage massively the power of the States and State governments while saying that it should increase the powers of or create new regional organisations, which it may say it is entitled to do because of the lack of definition in this legislation about what `local governments' means. I believe that this is yet another of the serious flaws in this legislation. Another point raised by Associate Professor Winterton is this: What recourse would there be against a State- by the Federal Government- that decided to abolish local government, either wholly or partially? It could be as a result of getting a mandate at an election to do so. Whatever the basis on which a State government decided to abolish it, what powers would this referendum give the Federal Government to exercise in this area? Professor Winterton asks: Could the Commonwealth enforce a High Court declaration or order on the subject? He replies: (Surely not.) If it could, how would it do so? In other words, what is the meaning of this proposal? What powers does it really give the Federal Government in respect of local government? Does it really do any more than I suggested yesterday-that is, simply limit this recognition to no more than acknowledging the role of local government within the laws of each State, in which case it is meaningless or, as has been suggested, could in effect be dangerous, in that it could open to litigation issues which are at present free from it? Of course, there is the risk that the difficulties and complexities that this proposal introduced into Australian government could far outweigh any argued benefits. I use the word `argued' because we have not seen any benefits yet. Senator Calvert —The Minister does not know. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —And the Minister for Local Government (Senator Reynolds) certainly does not know, as she demonstrated yesterday. I want briefly to conclude by saying that I am opposed to all the other elements of this referendum. I think it is disgraceful that this Government has so deviously misrepresented the issues and has sought to deceive the Australian people into believing that what they are being asked to vote for is something beneficial. For example, I am in favour of a four-year term for the House of Representatives, but I do not favour reducing the term of the Senate which diminishes the Senate's power. I find it ludicrous to suggest, as the Government does, that malapportionment-in other words, having too many voters in one seat-necessarily leads to gerrymander. It does not. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Burns) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(10.20) —We are debating a package of Bills, the Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Fair Elections) Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Local Government) Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Rights and Freedoms) Bill, and the Constitution Alteration (Electors' Initiative) Bill, all intended and designed to provide a mechanism for amending the Constitution. We are provided with 30 minutes to debate five crucial pieces of legislation and because the Government has introduced a contingent notice of motion the Opposition is required to debate them cognately. Senator Michael Baume —I could deal with only one issue. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —To me it is a reflection of the capricious lack of concern and care this Government has for the proper debating of legislation in the chamber. The first Bill before us is the Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill 1988. What an understatement the title is. As with question No. 2, the title of the Bill bears absolutely no resemblance to the intention or the effect of the legislation. The effect of the legislation, the intention of the legislation, is to gut the Senate of its powers, to reduce its reasons for existence, to provide the Prime Minister of the day with an opportunity to have an election whenever he so wishes without being fettered or constrained by the Senate. The effect of the proposal is to increase the maximum term of the House of Representatives to four years and to reduce the terms of senators from six years to four years and, in so doing, to make the terms of senators and the House of Representatives equal, providing the Parliament with simultaneous elections or at least having the Senate hold its elections on the same day as the House of Representatives. This will dissolve the fixed terms of the Senate and provide that the Senate shall have elections on a date to be chosen henceforth by the Prime Minister. The Government claims that the proposal will lead to fewer elections, but the truth can be found elsewhere. Under this proposal the Prime Minister of the day will no longer be fettered by a fixed term Senate. He will no longer need to concern himself with being confronted by a half-Senate election if he chooses to have an early election out of kilter with it. Now that the Prime Minister can call out the Senate to an election on the same day as the House of Representatives he will have no hesitation in calling early elections whenever he so chooses. The proposal, therefore, can only give greater encouragement to the Prime Minister to be more capricious and to be less restricted in the timing of elections. What impertinence, what cheek, what crass hypocrisy it is for this Government to be going to the people asking for a four-year term for the House of Representatives when it does not even use its three-year term. At the first available opportunity in 1987 it promptly went to the people for an early election because it seemed at the time politically wise. It was nothing to do with the Constitution. It was nothing to do with good government. It was nothing to do with what was in the best interests of Australia. It was simply the best time, in the judgment of this Government, to go to an election in terms of its prospects of being re-elected. The real effect of this legislation, the real intention of this legislation, is to destroy the power, the influence and the role of the Senate, something that, as Senator Chaney said a day or two ago, Senator Gareth Evans has never disguised as his intention. Without retracing all of the well established facts in regard to the intended role and functions of the Senate, I remind the Senate of section 53 of the Constitution, which reads in part: Except as provided in this section, the Senate shall have equal power with the House of Representatives in respect of all proposed laws. The section refers not to more power, not to less power, but to equal power. If the Senate is to be subject to elections because of events in the House of Representatives, of course it immediately loses that status. The moment it is dependent on the House of Representatives for its life or its term it is no longer an equal partner. It automatically loses that status. It becomes an appendage, a poor relation, a weak shadow, meekly following the House of Representatives. It must be subject to every whim, wish, action or convulsion that takes place in the House of Representatives. Its very survival from now on will be in the hands of the Prime Minister. By the very nature of this proposed amendment it is intended that the Senate will be inextricably tied to the House of Representatives and it will no longer be able to have independence of mind or action. Accordingly, its functions as a States House will be thoroughly dissolved. It will rely upon the political fortunes of the government of the day in the House of Representatives. Affairs and matters in the House of Representatives which have absolutely no bearing on the Senate will dictate its duration and its composition. In the event of a political convulsion in the House of Representatives which causes, for whatever reason, the Prime Minister of the day to call an election for that House, the Senate will be compelled for no good reason to be subject to a premature election. If, for example, the government of the day loses the confidence of the House of Representatives to overcome that problem which is peculiar and particular to the House of Representatives the Senate will be dragged inexorably and inevitably into the crisis. Why should a crisis in the House of Representatives in which, for example, the Australian Democrats and Senator Harradine have no representation and over which they have no influence or control, cause their terms in the Senate to be terminated by forcing them to go to the polls? Why should an event in the House of Representatives affect parties in this chamber which play no part in the events in the House of Representatives? It ought to be remembered that we need not have a political crisis in the House of Representatives for the Senate to be affected. If, for purely pragmatic political reasons, the Prime Minister of the day decides that his fortunes or the fortunes of the government are best served by an early election in the House of Representatives, the Senate, for no good, valid or legitimate reason will be required to go to the polls. The Senate will be required to go to the polls to serve the short term benefit of the government of the day. That immediately draws into question the stability, independence, continuity and smooth functioning of the Senate. Those attributes will be totally destroyed and the power of the Senate and its reason for existence-its reason for being established-will be very much diluted. Should the Senate choose to exhibit its inherent characteristics, such as those of rejecting legislation, rejecting Supply or amending legislation in a way that is unacceptable to the Government, we will no longer have the section 57 mechanism which resolved these deadlocks. The government of the day will simply call a double dissolution. Given that the Senate was provided with such distinct characteristics and powers, section 7 was put in the Constitution to overcome any problems, and now it is possible for that to be bypassed. Constitutional amendments which are at the heart of this proposal have already been rejected twice by the people of Australia. Constitutional amendments designed to tie the House of Representatives and the Senate together have already been rejected by the people of Australia because they understand quite clearly that it is intended to dilute the powers and authority, the independence and the standing of the Senate. I can understand why there is some ambivalence on the part of New South Wales and Victoria about these proposals, but there is a very good reason for that: More than half the House of Representatives members come from New South Wales and Victoria. In fact, there are more members in outer metropolitan Sydney and Melbourne combined than there are in all the lesser States combined. So those States do not have the same concerns and same anxieties as the less populous States. I remind the Senate that it was no accident of history that section 7 of the Constitution is written the way it is. It was no accident of history that section 28 of the Constitution is written the way it is. Section 7 of the Constitution tells us that senators shall be chosen for a fixed term of six years. Section 28 reads: Every House of Representatives shall continue for three years from the first meeting of the House, and no longer, but may be sooner dissolved by the Governor-General. Of course, the distinction is quite clear: the Senate has a six-year fixed term; the House of Representatives has a three-year term or a lesser term if so dissolved by the Governor-General. If it was ever intended that the terms of the Senate be simply twice the length of the terms of the House of Representatives, the terms would never have been fixed and they would never have been for six years. It was a clear intention of our founding fathers, of the draftsmen of the Constitution, to ensure that the Senate was in no way tied to the House of Representatives, otherwise, as I say, we would have had two terms of the House of Representatives-no more and no less. Our founding fathers intended that the Senate be a States House, a House of review and a House of second deliberation in no way dependent upon the other chamber for its rights, responsibilities or existence. It was intended to be unfettered and insulated from the machinations and the political fortunes of the political parties in the House of Representatives. It was intended to have stability and continuity. That was a feature which was available to the Senate which is not available to the House of Representatives. The Senate with a term of six years by rotation provides both a continuity and a reflection of contemporary community attitudes. One only has to note the number of double dissolutions we have had in the last 10 years to see that already the continuity has been disrupted. The rotating process has been so expedited that the flow of senators through this chamber has meant that we do not have the continuity that we previously had. On our side of politics I think Senator Durack is the only senator who was here in 1975, and of those on the other side, in the Government, I think only Senator Gietzelt was here in 1975. We have but two senators out of 76-- Senator Sheil —I was here. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Senator Sheil was here, but he left for a short time and came back. So that institutional memory, that understanding of the machinations-I refer to those who had contemporary experience of the events of 1975-is lost to this chamber with the exception of three senators. That has the effect of making us more and more like the House of Representatives, a weak, mere shadow of the House of Representatives. Senator McKiernan —That is right. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Yes, that is quite right. Once we have the characteristics of the House of Representatives, once we lose our unique character, soul and reason for being, there is no purpose in having two chambers. We may as well have a unicameral system. There will simply be no point in having a Senate if it is gutted of its powers and functions. Senator Lewis —Why bother to have a Senate? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Why bother to have a Senate at all? Senator Lewis is absolutely right. If the Senate is to fulfil its functions, obligations and responsibilities, it must be able to do so independently of the House of Representatives. Individual senators must have a capacity to reflect their independence. No doubt the founding fathers did not expect that we would have a political party that would expel any senator who dared to vote against his own party. Not even they would have had the wisdom to arrive at that conclusion. So to the extent that we have a caucused political party on one side of the chamber, that independence is lost. The Bill now before us is not about having House of Representatives elections on the same day as those of the Senate; it is about having Senate elections on the same day as the House of Representatives. Whenever the Prime Minister so wishes, at any capricious moment, at any moment of political expediency, under these proposals he will be able to drag the Senate out to an early, premature and totally unnecessary election. The aim of that cunningly designed constitutional amendment, which seems to be the lifelong ambition of the Australian Labor Party, is to destroy the powers of the Senate. For that reason this referendum will fail. The less populous States will not accept that their voice and representation in the Federal Parliament are to be diluted. The sooner we dismiss and reject this legislation, the sooner we can get back again to addressing ourselves to the more important matters of State. I move on to the second Bill before us, the Constitution Alteration (Fair Elections) Bill 1988. Obviously I am not going to complete my remarks on that, given the 30-minute time limit and the fact that these Bills are being debated cognately. If ever there was a fraud perpetrated upon the Australian public, it is the title of this Bill, which is: An Act to alter the Constitution to provide for fair and democratic parliamentary elections throughout Australia. It is so blatantly dishonest, so blatantly misleading and so blatantly intended to induce a `Yes' vote that it is absolutely breathtaking in its audacity. If for no other reason, this proposal deserves to fail because of its dishonesty and its deception. This Parliament, but more particularly this Government, has at the very least an inherent and intrinsic responsibility to the people of Australia to present to them a fair, objective and honest proposition-not some shonky and phoney question which has absolutely no relevance to the proposed constitutional amendment. If this Government cannot be trusted to present a referendum question honestly, what can it be trusted with? The hallmark of this Government is stamped all over this referendum. It does not do what it says it will do, and it does not say what it intends to do. It is a crude, clumsy interference with the State electoral laws-another example of this Government's knowing better than the State legislators. I have to say that the Government is objective about that, at least. It is saying that it has more wisdom, more knowledge and more sensitivity and understanding of the State constituents of not only National Party governments and Liberal Party governments, but even its socialist mates in the States. We have this arrogant Government telling the States what is good for them. We have this hypocritical, centralist, socialist Labor Government imposing by dishonest and immoral means its perverse moral, social and political standards upon the States which make up this Federation. Senator Gareth Evans —That was a mouthful. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —They are the very States which gave this Federal Parliament its powers and responsibilities to manage affairs of a national and interstate nature. As Senator Gareth Evans well knows, it was never the intention of the States in coming together, in creating the Federation, that this Parliament in any way impinge upon the unique responsibilities and rights of the States. The very States which came together to fashion and to breathe life into a Federation and a Federal Parliament are now being squeezed and throttled by the monster to which they gave birth some 80-plus years ago. This Government knows that if it asked the Australian people the real question, the true question-`Do you want the Commonwealth to make electoral laws for the States?'-the answer would be no. Of course it would be no. What have the States themselves said? Let us look at Western Australia, that Labor State, for the moment. Mr Bryce, the Deputy Premier-- Senator McKiernan —Former. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Thank you-the former Deputy Premier. He said: I would like to conclude my comments by repeating to you that the Government of this State believes that the State Parliament is the best and most appropriate place to see fair and legitimate electoral laws established for the election of members to the Western Australian Parliament. Mr Brian Burke, the Premier of Western Australia-- Senator McKiernan —Former Premier-now a pensioner. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —A former Premier, now a pensioner and soon to be Ambassador to Ireland-following that long line of ex-parliamentary members of the Labor Party, going off for a job with the boys. What did he say before he took his three-quarters of a million dollars and ran? The Burke Labor Government advised the Joint Committee on Electoral Matters that it believed `the State Parliament was the appropriate place for amendment of State electoral laws'. It went on to say that if this proposal goes ahead: Western Australians could find themselves ordered to conduct the next election under a system not enacted by their State Parliament. This possibility- I love this coy expression- is seen as undesirable by the State Government. So, we even have the Labor States telling this arrogant Government that they do not want its interference. Yet it marches on, forever forward, seeking to impose its will upon the States of the Commonwealth of Australia. Turning to the particulars of this Bill, there is one irrefutable and inescapable fact: This Bill does not provide for fair and democratic parliamentary elections throughout Australia. It certainly interferes with the elections throughout Australia, but it does not provide for fair and democratic elections throughout Australia. If this Government said what it meant and meant what it said, it would extend its own integrity to its own legislation. If this Government believes so passionately in one vote one value to the extent that it is prepared to crush the rights of the States, including those which have Labor governments and in spite, as I say, of the whimpering and whining of its own Labor Premiers, why does it not apply the principle of one vote one value to the Senate? Why does it not seek to impose the same moral and political standards on its own chambers that it would seek to impose on the State parliaments? If this issue is so moral, if it is so fundamental and so imperative, why do we not start with the Senate, that very House which the Government wishes to abolish? The Government sees the Senate as trivial and irrelevant. Why does not it start with that House whose powers it is seeking to gut, that House that it believes to be an anachronism? This Government's handiwork, were it prepared to impose its own moral standards on this Parliament, would provide, on the basis of one vote one value, 25 senators in New South Wales, 19 in Victoria, 12 in Queensland, seven in South Australia, six in Western Australia, two in Tasmania, one in the Northern Territory and one in the Australian Capital Territory. That would be the effect of one vote one value which this Government holds dear to its bosom as a cornerstone of its political integrity. Why does this Government not amend section 24 of the Constitution, which says that irrespective of the population, each of the founding or original States shall have a minimum of five members of the House of Representatives. Surely this is an anachronism. Surely, by the standards of this Government, it is something that could be done away with now that we have the Constitution in place. Why does the Government not do so? The effect, of course, would be to take three members of the House of Representatives away from Tasmania. Why is the Government not prepared to apply the principle of one vote one value to the House of Representatives and to the Senate? Why does it allow the present situation to continue where senators from Tasmania represent 350,000 people and senators from New South Wales represent 3.5 million people? Is that fair; is that democratic; is that in accordance with the principle of one vote one value? Is that what this Government believes in? The Labor Party cannot claim that it is not changing the system because it sees the Senate as a House of review or a States House. To claim that it is a States House and therefore represents a special and unique community or local view in each State is to dismantle the very plank upon which this referendum question is mounted. If we accept that Tasmania deserves more than its normal entitlement, if we accept that Western Australia should have more senators than it is entitled to under the principle of one vote one value, we are then accepting that one vote one value is not the one and only cornerstone or hallmark of what is a fair election and what is fair representation. Inasmuch as this Government has no regard for this Senate, inasmuch as Prime Minister Mr Bob Hawke says that he believes that the States ought to be abolished, inasmuch as Bill Hayden has said that States ought to be abolished, inasmuch as the Australian Democrats, through Don Chipp, have said that the States are geographically an accident of history, surely there is no reason for maintaining equal representation from each State. Surely the Government does not believe so passionately in the interests of Western Australia. So, on the grounds of logic there is no excuse for applying the principle of one vote one value to the States and not to the Commonwealth. It is interesting that the Government has made no distinction about the state upper Houses. I hear cries, belly-aching and bitching because the principle of one vote one value is not applied to the upper House in Western Australia. Yet what do we hear about the Federal upper House? We hear that it is unique, that it is special, that it has to provide representation in a way that ensures that everybody has an equal voice in this chamber. But that same moral standard is not good enough for the State upper Houses. Mr Acting Deputy President, I see that I am quickly running out of time. I can only say to you that I will have to continue these arguments during the committee and third reading stages of the Bills. Senator SHEIL(Queensland)(10.50) —The founding fathers who gave us our Constitution were well aware of the dangers to the people and the States of big government, totalitarian government, aristocratic government, despotic government, dictatorships-any autocratic government-and they gave us a Constitution to make sure that the people and the States of Australia had their freedom. Freedom is not free; it must be fought for. I would like to draw the attention of the Senate to the motto of the Returned Services League, which is, `The price of freedom is eternal vigilance', and that must be maintained. Nobody can define `freedom' very well because it is a word like `love'; there are many different sorts of love-brotherly love, sisterly love, the love of parents for their children, the love of children for their parents and the love of a man for a woman. So it is with freedom; there are many sorts of it. A Bantu, for example, would have a different idea of freedom from an Eskimo. An Indian would have a different view of freedom from an Arab. We in Australia have our own particular kind of freedom, and it has developed because of the Constitution that our founding fathers gave us. I have noticed that the socialists never seem to be able to abide by the rules; they have to either change the rules or change the playing field, particularly when they feel they are at some sort of disadvantage because the people reject them. I notice that the so-called Queensland gerrymander has been referred to a lot in this Parliament and in this debate. Even though the Australian Labor Party put it into place, members of that Party are saying, `We recognise we made a mistake in putting in that zonal system up there; we want to correct that sort of thing'. At one time the Labor Party held all the western seats of Queensland. The National Party in Queensland did not gripe about zonal systems or gerrymanders. It went out and preached industrial politics. It did not promise welfare, like the Labor Party does; it preached industrial politics to all those people in the western seats and the National Party won the seats. Those seats are still available for the Labor Party to win if it wants to go out and win them, but it does not have the policies that are attractive to the people, and that is why it is out of government in Queensland. It has nothing to do with the electoral system. If the Labor Party had a decent set of policies, it could easily win back those seats. Another attack the Labor Party is making on the Constitution is the denigration of the founding fathers. It says that they are not contemporary, they are old hat and their ideas do not apply today. Members of the Labor Party say the founding fathers were not a representative group, that they were mainly landed gentry and people with estates and money, that no women, Aborigines or Islanders were involved, that no disadvantaged people were involved, that no migrants with difficulties with English and probably no homosexuals were involved. They go on and on, saying our founding fathers were not representative and should not have written the Constitution. But that is not the important thing. The important thing is the Constitution that they wrote. The document they came up with was a recipe for freedom. They were concerned to dissolve power, to provide for the peace, order and good government of the country, to preserve our freedom and to prevent anybody from taking over the government. They settled on a constitutional monarchy. The Labor Party keeps trying to reduce the role of the monarch. The three tiers of government are, of course, the Queen, the Senate and the House of Representatives. Most States also have three tiers; they have an upper House, a lower House and local government. Dissolution of power in Australia is very wide and effective. As I say, the Labor Party keeps trying to reduce the role of the monarch in the three-tier system, but it would not dare try to strip the Queen of her role as Queen of Australia. She is the head of all our great institutions of state; she is the head of our Parliament, the head of our judiciary and the head of our defence forces. The importance of that fact is that while she is the head, nobody else can be the head. In other words, by that fact, Australia is protected from coups and takeovers. Every Act of Parliament that is passed starts with the words: Be it enacted by the Queen, the Senate and the House of Representatives . . . So the three tiers of government were most important in the construction of our Constitution. The founding fathers constructed two separate Houses of parliament. The Houses were supposed to be separate and they were supposed to be different. Except for the money power of the Senate, the two Houses are equal in power, but they are separate and different and they are supposed to be. For a start, they represent different electorates. They have different voting rules and different terms in the Parliament. There is a fixed nexus between the Senate and the House of Representatives. In other words, the two Houses are supposed to be different and are supposed to have different functions. They are supposed to be independent of each other and, of course, they have different interests. The Senate is the watchdog for the people and the States to see that they are not robbed of any of their rights or freedoms. It is the people's insurance or safety valve. It is the House of review for all legislation. As said in Odgers' book, two sieves are better than one-and they are. I stress that the Senate is supposed to be different and independent and have different interests. Senator Crichton-Browne —That is how the founding fathers drew the Constitution. Senator SHEIL —The founding fathers gave us the most powerful upper House of any in the world, and that was by design. Prime Minister after Prime Minister has tried to crack our Constitution and reduce the role of the Senate. They see it as an obstruction to their rule and their power, and it is and it is supposed to be. But any Senate that was acting capriciously or wantonly would very soon be disciplined by the people. The Opposition senators found that out in the early years of the Whitlam Government when the Senate was amending his legislation. A deluge of revolutionary legislation was coming through and the Liberal and National parties in the Senate were amending it and acting as if we were a government in exile. We very soon lost public support and we had to change our attitude and say, `The Whitlam Government was elected; it is supposed to govern'; we let a lot of those Bills go through. We promised to repeal a lot of them when we won government, but we never did. The Bills are still on the statute book. Various Prime Ministers have tried other ways to bypass the Senate. The use of referenda is one way; another is to bash legislation through and have it tested in the High Court of Australia. The treaty power can be used whereby the Government has signed a treaty with the United Nations or a particular country and then it says it has a responsibility to implement the requirements of the treaty and bypass the Senate, the States and the people. Another way to bypass the Senate is by the capricious use of double dissolutions. The double dissolution provision was put in the Constitution as an emergency procedure if there were a direct conflict between the two Houses. But we have seen Prime Ministers stack up a lot of Bills and put them all in a double dissolution situation. We have seen them wait months and months between the time the Bills were blocked and the time the double dissolution was called. In other words, it was a capricious use of the double dissolution power. This proposed alteration to the Constitution of the four-year terms will make every election a double dissolution, and that is specifically precluded by the Constitution. But it is a mechanism by which the Prime Minister of the day can have greater power over the Senate. If he finds the Senate has disagreed with him, he may decide to have an election and force the whole Senate to the people. If that happens, the continuity of memory that was given to the Senate will be lost because only half the Senate is supposed to go to the people at any one election. That provision is most important and one of the protections for the people and the States. Fundamentally the Labor Government wants to destroy the federal system as we know it. It wants to get rid of the Senate; it wants to get rid of the States; and it wants to get rid of local government in its fond hope for utopia. It wants to have a big uncontrolled and uncontrollable Federal Government in Canberra, a series of regional developments around Australia and all strings tied to Canberra. If honourable senators do not think the Government means that, they should look at what it is doing now with Aboriginal administration. It is making 40 regional development areas for Aborigines, and it will tie all the strings to Canberra and bypass the States. That is a portent of things to come. Successive Prime Ministers have always tried to put sugar coating on referendum proposals that they put to the people, and so it is with this one. Two of the proposals have barbs and the other two proposals are the poison pills with sugar coating but on close examination, they are just as dangerous as the first two. I am surprised to find that some local governments are actively campaigning and collecting funds to campaign in favour of the proposal for recognition of local governments by State governments. If they are going to sup with the devil, they had better have a long spoon. I suppose local governments feel like unrequited lovers because of the difficulties they have been placed in mainly by this Federal Government. Those difficulties are quite severe. The Federal Government has cut their funds. These growth taxes have been cut. For example, the 2c a litre petrol tax has been reduced by 25 per cent. That is an enormous loss for local governments. Their sharing in the personal income tax was guaranteed at 2 per cent and this growth tax has been cut to 1.6. Therefore, local governments are starving. In the May statement last night road funds were cut by $50m again. They should not feel they will get much comfort from the Federal Government. The importance of the proposal to have in our Constitution a clause that says that the Federal Government will recognise local government means that the Federal Government is accepting responsibility for local government. The Federal Government is saying that it is simply asking the States to recognise local government yet the fact remains that, if the Bill is passed, recognition of local government by the Federal Government will be contained in our Constitution. Having done that, the Federal Government can say that it has a responsibility towards local government. If it tries to assume control over local government, it will say, `Right, we will test it in the High Court', and knowing the High Court as it is today it will probably say that, because recognition of local government is mentioned in the Constitution, of course the Federal Government has a responsibility for local government. Thereby the Federal Government can assume a whole range of powers over local governments and I do not think local government will find that a comfort. Can honourable senators imagine how local government would feel? Take as an example the Shire of Paroo. I do not think many bureaucrats in Canberra have ever hear of Paroo. Local governments are the children of State governments, which are close to them. This is very important. The State governments give them their names, their boundaries, their wards, their responsibilities and their funding. Largely the relationship between the States and their local governments is harmonious. One can imagine the disruption caused if local governments had their strings tied directly to Canberra. Some local governments even operate under their own Acts of State parliament. Can one imagine the Federal Parliament bringing in a separate Act for a local government that obviously requires that kind of administration? The referendum proposals are the first step down the road to interference in local government by Canberra. The last provision covers freedom of religion, trial by jury and just compensation for government acquisition of private property. There are many forms of religion-for example, Islam. The religion of the Islamic people is the same as their politics. They have many customs that Australians may find offensive: for example, cutting of the clitoris of young girls, flogging, stoning, the custom of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, and smiting or cutting off hands for theft. They are current practices in Islamic countries. If the Constitution recognises that these people are free to practise their religion and if we try to stop any practice that we regard as barbaric, we would be interfering with their religion. They would have a constitutional claim to practise their religion. Therefore, that recognition is more dangerous than most people would perceive. The recognition of freedom of religion could have enormous consequences for religious schools or established churches. One has only to consider the situation in the United States of America where freedom of religion is practised. Its governing bodies have so many religions that they cannot have prayers because any one prayer may offend other groups and, similarly, the US cannot have religious education in schools if they receive government funding. The provision is dangerous. With regard to the provision for trial by jury, Australians already have that guarantee, if one goes to court. The biggest problem is the delay in the courts. The Government should take action to try to rid the courts of backlogs but trial by jury is not a problem in Australia. The same holds for the provision of just compensation for government acquisition of private property. Provisions exist in Australia to guarantee that. There has been no great outcry from the people that they need a special referendum proposal on it. It is just fairy floss and sugar coating to convince the people to vote yes to the referendum. Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of the referendum proposals is that they will have people believing the proposals are reasonable and plausible so that they will vote yes. People will believe the proposals will not cause a problem. I shall campaign vigorously against all four proposals. I consider them dangerous to the country, despite all the rhetoric that they are reasonable and plausible. Each one has a sting in its tail. They represent a danger to the people of Australia and a threat to our freedom in this country today. (Quorum formed) Senator KNOWLES(Western Australia)(11.12) —Today we are debating the Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill 1988, the Constitution Alteration (Fair Elections) Bill 1988, the Constitution Alteration (Local Government) Bill 1988, the Constitution Alteration (Rights and Freedoms) Bill 1988 and the Constitution Alteration (Electors' Initiative) Bill 1987, otherwise known as the referendum Bills. These Bills are particularly important for the future of Australia and parliamentary democracy and this Government has been quite dishonest in the way in which it has gone about this whole exercise. Firstly, it handpicked a selection of people to be on the Constitutional Commission, which was purely a $6m public relations exercise to convince the community that the Constitution was in need of drastic change. However, what is even more astounding is that the Government did not even wait for the Commission's full report before deciding on how it would change the Constitution. Following that decision, the Government then decided to name the manner in which it would do so in the most disguised way possible to get the answers that it wants. We all know that very often people can get whatever answer they want, depending upon the way in which they ask a question. Who would be surprised to receive yes answers if people were asked the following question: `Do you want to provide four-year terms for members of both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament?'. That really sounds fairly attractive, given that general elections have become something akin to a national sport in recent times considering the regularity with which they have been held. Therefore, anyone would accept that the basis of having fewer elections inferred in that question would be attractive. However, what answer would we get to this question: `Do you want to demolish the Senate and make it irrelevant?'. Many Australians who know and understand exactly how the Senate has been their saviour, particularly in recent times, would scream a resounding no. Then, of course, we get this question: `Do you want fair elections?'. Of course people will answer yes. Of course they want fair elections. But why can the Government not be honest and say exactly what it is trying to do? The only answer to that is that the Government knows that once Australians are aware of exactly what it is trying to do-in particular, override the States, dictate to the States and exclude itself from any change-that proposition also will be defeated. It is really a monumental bluff and a snow job on the people of Australia. How cheeky and how obnoxious can the Government get in attempting to dictate to the States what they should or should not do? Of course, this is the peculiar approach that this centralist and socialist Labor Government adopts whenever it has the opportunity. This question will be asked about local government: `Do you want to recognise local government?'. That sounds fairly innocuous. Once again the answer would be yes. If not, the answer would be, `Of course', if that answer were possible. Everyone knows that local government exists and plays its own role, so why not recognise it in the Constitution? That is a fair question. The problem is that it is not the position of this Labor Government to recognise it in the Federal Constitution. What the Government does not say in this question is that, yet again, it is the role of the States to recognise local government, not this Government. The Government also does not say in this proposal that it does nothing other than purely and simply recognise local government. It does not even go near to doing what local government wants; that is, to be protected from arbitrary dismissal or forced amalgamation. It does not provide any guarantee against abolition in various parts of individual States and, most importantly, it provides no guarantee of any financial sustenance. Why, then, is this referendum necessary when it does not achieve what local government wants but overrides the States? Local government is already recognised in four State constitutions; therefore, it is surely far more practical for the Government to get the two remaining States or take similar action, if recognition is what is wanted. Federal governments, especially socialist centralist Federal governments, have a passion to dabble in and fiddle with State issues and to seek more and more power and control for Canberra. That, in a nutshell, is really what all these proposals are about. In relation to the last question of whether people want a right to trial by jury, freedom of religion and fair compensation for property acquired by any government, who in his right mind would say no to that bland question? People in their right mind would agree with the principle but, once again, that would be only until such time as they realised that it was simply a back door version of a Bill of Rights which so many people in this country fought so hard to ensure would never eventuate. We all know full well that Australians have freedom of religion now and always have had. We all have the right to be Catholic, Baptist, Anglican, or whatever we wish. Even the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has the right to be an atheist. It is a well known and documented fact that, once any government starts listing rights that people have, without doubt there will be rights that are not mentioned. During the five long years that the Hawke Government has been in office it has displayed that many of its senior members have little or no respect whatsoever for religion. Originally, I believe, there was to be no religious recognition for the opening of the new Parliament House-a significant event for this country. What an absolute insult! Only 18 months ago there were proposals that prayers be no longer said at the commencement of a parliamentary sitting day. Fortunately, I suppose, for all of us, these hare-brained ideas were squashed by Opposition senators and members and by public outrage. This really highlights the opinion of Mr Gary Morgan of Morgan gallup poll fame that if public opinion polls were conducted asking questions `as blatantly biased as the Government proposes', they would completely lose credibility. But this Government plans to ask these questions in such a biased fashion that people almost will be forced, unless educated and unless informed, to give a yes answer. I come back to the first of these Bills, which proposes that a four-year maximum term for members of both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament be put in place. Most Australians would know that it has long been the desire of the Australian Labor Party to abolish the Senate. The Labor Party used to have it in its constitution and platform; it used to have it in everything. But one day someone woke up to the fact that it was actually a bit over the top to have that written into the Party's documents and the Party got the bright idea of taking it out and trying to camouflage it by saying that that was not the Party's real intention. But what was not removed was the Labor Party's desire to mute the Senate. We are now witnessing a demolition which is being made very subtle for the public's eyes, but it is a blatant and calculated initiative to make sure that the Senate loses all power. The Government knows full well that the Opposition has always stated that if there is a move to increase the term of the House of Representatives we would support it, as long as the Senate term remains double. It also knows full well that it deliberately did not seek bipartisan agreement on this question because of its desire to weaken the powers of the Senate. It knows full well that it did not seek bipartisan terms. It has known from time immemorial that we are quite happy to extend the House of Representatives term, but only on the basis that the Senate term remains double. The Government's excuse for reducing the term of the Senate is to remove the Senate's right to force a House of Representatives election without submitting itself to the people. Once again, that is so much of a furphy it is almost unbelievable. It is clearly a phoney excuse. That can be demonstrated by the fact that in 1984 the Labor Party voted against a Liberal proposal for a referendum to require the Senate to go to the people if it forced a premature House of Representatives election. It is an absolutely phoney excuse and, people know it is a phoney excuse. They will be told time and time again between now and the referendum date how phoney it is. The Government is constantly saying that we have not come to any bipartisan agreement, yet the most sensible agreements and proposals that have been put up have been rejected by this Government. How much fairer can one get than proposing that if the Senate forces a premature House of Representatives election we, the Senate, will take ourselves out as well? All of the millions of people who vigorously oppose the Bill of Rights and the ID card will not be bluffed for one moment by this Government. They have a firm belief how effective the Senate is. They know how effective it is. They do not want the Senate's powers reduced. They also know that they would have a Bill of Rights and an ID card by now if it were not for the Senate. To add to that, they probably would have had some very punitive industrial relations legislation introduced prior to the last election had it not been for the Senate. This proposal is purely an exercise in blackmail by the Prime Minister of the Australian electorate. Whenever he has the urge to call an election he will force the Senate out too. Where does that leave the Senate in terms of having the independence and freedom to do what is right and proper in protecting the community from undesirable intrusive, unwarranted legislation? We have seen all of that. We have had a smorgasbord of that type of legislation under this Government. Thankfully, due to the Senate, a lot of it has never seen the ultimate light of day. This Government wants to remove that power from the Senate. People know that without the Senate they will not have a leg to stand on. The Senate, along with the House of Representatives, will be controlled and dictated to by the Prime Minister. We cannot afford that, especially under this Prime Minister. He promised that there would not be early elections. When he was first elected he promised that his term of office would go full term. What happened? We had an early election. After the next election he said, `We will run full term'. Then we had another early election. The Prime Minister also said that we would not have a capital gains tax. We cannot trust him. He goes on and on. That is why people must not believe that this proposal will mean fewer elections. It will mean more elections, particularly under a Labor Government which makes a pragmatic decision, at any given time of the day, week, month or year, to have an election when it thinks that it can win. If ever there was any need to substantiate the Labor Party's attitude to the Senate it was done in crystal clear terms on 5 December 1987 when Senator Walsh agreed with Mr Keating's assessment that the Senate was the swill of Australian politics. Senator Vanstone —He is at the very bottom of it. Senator KNOWLES —That is quite right. He is at the very bottom of it. Whilst all Australians have become accustomed to both Senator Walsh's and Mr Keating's foul mouths, maybe it was simply the case that it would have been rather hypocritical of Senator Walsh, in particular, to disagree with Mr Keating's assessment. A further example came from Senator Evans, another senior Minister, who, in his maiden speech, said that the way to muzzle the Senate was to white-ant it from within. Three senior Ministers in this Labor Government have quite clearly demonstrated, and demonstrated repeatedly, how they want to finish the Senate, how they want to wipe it out. Once the public really knows and understands what is going on I am sure that they will not be bluffed into these proposals. Senator Walsh and Senator Evans have demonstrated such contempt for the Senate, yet they continue to stay here. They obviously despise the place, but it is too good for them to leave. What else would they do? Senator Walsh was a failed farmer in Western Australia, in my own State, so I suppose that his options are very restricted. This proposal does not mean what many people would assume, that there will be fewer elections. Quite the contrary, as I have said before. It allows for more elections of both Houses. The proposition must be defeated. I am confident that the real motives will be exposed prior to the people registering their vote later this year. I now wish to refer to the second question, `Do you approve of a Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution to provide for fair and democratic parliamentary elections throughout Australia?'. As I mentioned before, if anyone wanted a biased question he has it in this question. Of course people will say that they want fair and democratic parliamentary elections throughout Australia. However, what needs to be recognised is the effect of this legislation on the Government's track record in the area of fair elections. The Government has yet again attempted Federal intervention in State matters. That is the effect. The rules and procedures that apply to State elections should properly be matters for people who live and vote in the States. How can anyone justify putting a proposal to the people of New South Wales or Victoria that is going to decide what electoral system the people of Western Australia will have? That is what this proposal does. The people in the populated States will be dictating to those in the less populated States what their electoral systems are to be. If the people in any State are unhappy with their own State electoral laws or boundaries, then it is up to them to force the change. Canberra should keep its grubby little hands off them and let the States do what they want to do. Even the Labor Party's golden-haired boy, Brian Burke-he used to be the Labor Party's golden-haired boy when he was Premier; I am not too sure now that he is-said back in September 1985 that he wanted the Federal Labor Government to keep its grubby little hands off State electoral laws. The Government did not listen to him. It will not listen to the Opposition. Maybe it will be forced to listen to the people of Australia when they give the Government a crystal clear message of rejection at the ballot box. This Government is talking about supposedly fair and democratic elections, yet it cannot even ensure at Federal level-let alone at State level-that fair and democratic elections are held. At the last Federal election, the Liberal and National parties combined got a higher percentage of the vote and yet they lost seats. This Government is touting itself to be the masters of fair electoral systems. The percentage that was needed by Mr Greiner to win at the last New South Wales State election was 52 per cent. Those boundaries, the electoral system, were set up by a Labor government. The coalition needed 52 per cent to win. The same applies in South Australia: the coalition needs 52.3 per cent to win. What is the political persuasion of the Government that is in power in South Australia? It is another Labor government. Senator Maguire —Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I draw your attention to the remarks being made by Senator Knowles about electoral boundaries in the States. I ask that she be called to order on that point because in South Australia the boundaries are drawn by an independent commission, one of whose members is a Supreme Court judge. I ask that she withdraw those remarks because she is reflecting on a Supreme Court judge. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator MacGibbon) —There is no point of order. Senator KNOWLES —I am pleased that the honourable senator took that point of order because it obviously demonstrates the Government's sensitivity about what Labor governments have done throughout this country, while pretending to be pure and lily white in advocating fair and democratic elections. As I said, the Government enjoys touting Queensland as being the master of the gerrymander. Yet Queensland is far nearer to the 50-50 bracket than the Labor-dominated States. We have had abuse up hill and down dale in this place and in the other place-particularly in this place from Senator Walsh-about the Queensland system. Dare Labor senators look at the New South Wales system, the Western Australian system or the South Australian system under Labor governments? No, not at all. This proposal for fair and democratic elections is a total fraud. The question is totally dishonest and it, too, will be recognised for exactly what it is. Local government recognition is, unfortunately, purely a sop to attempt to win the Government political support. I think that is a shame. I believe that local government plays a good, important and vital role in the communities of Australia. It is important that local government is recognised in the State Constitutions. It is currently recognised in four out of the six State Constitutions. If local government wishes to have further recognition, it is up to local government to approach the States and make sure that the States which do not have it enshrined in their Constitutions do so without too much delay. I mentioned before that it does not give any of the guarantees to local government that local government has sought and it is way out of the area of responsibility of a Federal government. In relation to the fourth question concerning rights, I remind the Senate what a former Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, Sir Harry Gibbs, once said about a Bill of Rights. He said: If society is tolerant and rational it does not need a Bill of Rights. If it is not, no Bill of Rights will preserve it. That says it all. That quote was used repeatedly during the debate on the Bill of Rights. The people of Australia decided that they did not want a Bill of Rights. We are seeing here the backdoor version of the Bill of Rights. We are seeing the thin end of the wedge. As was discussed, debated and rejected at the time that the Bill of Rights was debated in this place, once one starts writing down a few rights for the people, one starts putting restrictions on people's rights because there are inevitably rights that will be left out. No-one is suggesting that Australians do not have religious freedom now. No-one is suggesting that, except this Government. No-one is suggesting that our jury system is wrong, except this Government. Our common law approach will continue to protect those fundamental practices. We do not need this socialist Government to tell what our rights are. We know what our rights are; our rights are quite clear. Our founding fathers made sure that our rights were quite clear when the Constitution was put in place at Federation. The proposal regarding freedom of religion is especially dangerous. For a start, the proposal will amend the section of the Constitution which was originally inserted, not as a guarantee of religious freedom, but as a guarantee that there would not be an established church in Australia. The wording of the proposed new section of the Constitution omits the current reference to the making of a law. The result is that under the literal terms of the proposed new section any act of any government in Australia requiring any form of religious observance could be prohibited. This is an example of giving a right that has the potential to remove rights. This might potentially prevent religious observance in certain schools and raise doubts about normally accepted religious ceremonies associated with public events. I have already mentioned that there was originally a proposal not to have any religious recognition of the opening of the new Parliament House. How absurd, how outrageous and how rude to the Australian public! A similar situation has arisen in the United States. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that there is not a possibility that it will happen here in Australia. The best protection for human rights is to have strong democratic institutions-a vigorous parliamentary system, one that has not been demolished by this Government in trying to remove the powers of the Senate; a free Press; and an incorruptible judiciary. They are the things that will protect human rights in Australia, not the types of proposals that have been put forward by this Government. The entire motive for the fourth question is not to enhance human rights but to sneak in through the back door a Bill of Rights which the Parliament and the people of Australia have so clearly defeated. When will the Government learn? Formal constitutional guarantees will never prevail against an erosion of the institutions that I referred to in terms of the democratic institutions, the parliamentary system and the judiciary. The Constitution is something that we should not tamper with. We should not fiddle with it and we should not conduct public relations exercises about it. We should make sure that there is a firm commitment for all Australians to know what their rights are, to know what the parliamentary system is and to have a fair parliamentary system. This is purely a $35m Labor campaign designed to concentrate more and more power in Canberra. I do not believe that the best interests of Australians are served by centralising power in Canberra. I firmly believe that we have to make sure that there are States rights, that this remains a States House and a House of review. Once we have eroded that, we have seen the demolition of democratic governments in Australia. In the Government's $35m campaign to get more power in Canberra, part of its reasoning is to direct attention away from a government that has induced so many ills to the ordinary community. These ills were not even addressed in last night's economic statement in terms of the family. I think it is a great tragedy that these four Bills are being debated cognately so that none of us really have the opportunity to debate them fully. They are four very important issues. I think they should have been debated individually to make sure that the people of Australia know well and truly what the Government's aims and ambitions are in hoodwinking them over this $35m exercise. Senator McLEAN(New South Wales)(11.40) —One could be forgiven for believing that there are only four Bills being debated cognately in the chamber at the moment but of course there are five. The debate has concentrated for almost two days now on the first four of those five Bills-the ones in relation to parliamentary terms, fair elections, the acknowledgment of local government's rights and the rights and freedoms of individuals. The fifth Bill is the Macklin Bill-to give it its full name, the Constitution Alteration (Electors' Initiative) Bill 1987. I would like to address my remarks to the last of the five Bills. I think the Senate is aware that the Australian Democrats will be supporting all four former Bills. Albeit that they are imperfect, we believe that we should advance those propositions to the Australian people for their reaction. I would like to deliberate a little more closely on the fifth Bill in relation to the concept of citizens' initiative. We believe that the concept of citizens' initiative is one of the most vital proposals that we could put before the Australian people. It was certainly my experience when I was involved in the social action movement as a social planner and a community developer-in other words an action agent in the community-that citizens were quite capable and very responsible when taking their own initiative. Power to the people is a very healthy and appropriate concept in a democracy. Citizens' initiative is all about power to the people. I passed the comment in my maiden speech that the experience of witnessing and assisting in the process of people power in the community was one of the most enriching experiences I have had. During my period as a social planner and community developer, I used to use the analogy which I refer to as the Totalisator Agency Board (TAB) analogy. It captures, in my view, the essence of what citizens' initiative should be all about. I will quote this TAB analogy just once more because I think it is a very potent one. It is possible, Mr Acting Deputy President, that you and I or, in fact, any Australian could go now to a special place which exists in almost any major town in Australia called the TAB, pull off the wall a piece of paper and cast an opinion about possibly the most irrelevant of matters such as what horse will get up in the third at Randwick on Saturday. It is a process of opinion sampling that occurs in TABs. That process of opinion sampling will go into the most sophisticated computer in the land and will be processed. The results of that opinion sampling will appear on television screens in every household in Australia that night in the form of TAB odds. Australians do it all over the nation every day. They go to TABs and offer their opinion about the most irrelevant of things. This process they actually support with their dollars. In New South Wales $40m a week goes through TABs and yet we cannot have a say about whether we want fluoride in our water, nuclear-powered vessels in our harbours or American bases on our shores. That is the very essence of what citizens' initiative is all about-people influencing decisions that effect their daily lives. It is the most fundamental of concepts in a democracy. Unless we address ourselves to this process of people power, eventually we are going to have trouble on our hands. We have created a near literate, near numerate society which we feed on absolute garbage. We ask people to switch off and be disinterested, yet over generations, hundreds of years, we have spent literally hundreds of billions of dollars to create an informed, literate society and we have not put in parallel the processes by which they can express their opinion about things which affect their daily lives. Unless we address that profound question now, we are heading into decades of trouble because we are not prepared to deliver the democratic goods, we are not prepared to deliver to people the power to influence their lives. That is what citizens' initiative is about. There is a growing support for it; in fact, I suggest that of the five propositions that we are now debating, this proposition of citizens' initiative has the most popular support in the community. Yet it is the one that is being ignored in this chamber in this debate now. We are even anticipating that a motion will be moved later in the day that the debate on citizens initiative actually be stopped in this chamber. I have been ringing small business organisations this morning urging that they induce among senators here today a greater concern with this particular issue. We should bring it alive and debate it now because it is absolutely vital. It is true that the Australian Democrats have put citizens' initiative Bills before this chamber on three occasions. They have been lying on the table to be debated for almost 10 years. The concept of people power has actually been voted on only three times and on each occasion it has been voted against by the combined vote of the Opposition and the Government. Out in the community at the moment there is a growing concern, a growing identification with the concept of citizens' initiative. People in the community are learning what it is about. Senator Chaney told us the other day that we should not vote on it because people do not know what it is about. Senator Jenkins —Rubbish! Senator McLEAN —It is a whole lot of rubbish. In fact, literally hundreds of thousands of people are debating the question and the essence of citizens' initiative in small and large gatherings around the community week by week. There is a growing knowledge that the time is right to put the concept of citizens' initiative before the Australian people. We should at least give them the chance to deliberate on it and become educated about it. We should not constantly be truncating debates and refusing even to debate it in this chamber. What then is meant by the idea of citizens' initiative? Is it a new idea? Put in its simplest terms, it means giving power to the people, the right to initiate the process of consultation or law making on certain critical issues. It does not mean on all issues. The experience has been that people do not want to initiate on all issues; they really want to initiate only on crucial issues. In the 1850s it was introduced in Switzerland. It is now in place in a number of European countries. People do not go running off to the ballot box every week. Several times a year they go to the ballot box and cast their opinion about a series of critical issues. Twenty-eight of the 50 States of the United States of America have the power of citizens' initiative. It is not a new concept. It need not be a frightening concept; in fact, it is a vital concept in any dynamic democracy. Let us look at some of the pluses and minuses of the issues of citizens' initiative. Governments in Australia today are elected to be dictatorships for a certain period. We elect a Federal government and we say, `Dictate to us what we should be doing and what will happen in our daily lives for a certain period. If we do not like what you lay on us we will throw you out'. It is called representative democracy. We assume that the people we elect to represent us will do it well; we assume that the process is adequate and we assume that the process will deliver the goods that we want. The experience is that it does not do that. Quite often it does the opposite. Yet we do not have a reactive capacity, we do not have a capacity to respond to what is being laid upon us until three years later when we are conned in the period just before we go to the polls; we are sweetened, promised and softened up. We fall for it again and we present ourselves yet again as subjects to this inadequate process. The imperfections can be rectified; the process can be improved. That is what these Bills are all about. It is particularly what the citizens' initiative Bill is about. The concept is then that people can initiate or put before the elected representatives certain ideas and say, `Think about these because we demand that you think about them'. They can put these questions to the community because they demand that they be put to the community. If the community responds in a certain way, the demand and obligation are placed upon legislatures, chambers such as this, at least to deliberate over those issues and to address themselves to them. What are some of the advantages? If we look at the Australian community today we see that there is apathy. We ask ourselves: Why do Australians not participate? Why are they not interested? Why do they keep on canning politicians? They do that because of the process we have created. If we free it up and make it healthier, the apathy will go away or at least begin to dissipate, although it may not ever completely go away, a vitality will begin to emerge and the alienation or anger between the electorate and the elected will at least be put into perspective. The United States experience is that that is exactly what happens. The United States does not have compulsory voting; it has voluntary voting. Senator Vanstone —Is your electorate angry with you? Senator McLEAN —My electorate is probably angry with me about certain things. It is certainly angry with the Opposition and the Government about certain things. We would be living in an ivory tower if we imagined there is not distrust, anger and disillusionment out there. What we have not got in place are the mechanisms by which the community can express itself in a constructive way. So we have got apathy and alienation. Citizens' initiative at least addresses itself to that phenomenon in the community. The United States experience is that where there is people power, the people get out and use it. The States which had experienced turnout levels of 25 to 35 per cent doubled that level when people were given citizens' initiative, because their interest and commitment was heightened and their knowledge and education were enhanced. The process of accountability is also enhanced. Governments are really accountable only in the final analysis on the one occasion, and that is on the one day in every two, three or four years, depending on how they want to manipulate the process, when the people walk up to the ballot boxes and send the only significant letter to Canberra, and that is the one posted through the ballot box. That is when accountability occurs now. So there is accountability through the ballot box. But there is not an ongoing month by month, quarter by quarter, year by year real accountability to the electorate. Government can be called to account in a chamber like this in Question Time and through other processes of accountability, but they are imperfect processes. In the final analysis ducking and weaving is effective. It is only at the one point, at the ballot box, that accountability becomes a reality. The third major advantage of the process of citizens' initiative is the openness of the debate and the process of public education. It is a fact that in electorates where there is a process of citizens' initiative, people do not focus on trivial issues. The ratbags do not get up and run. In fact they tend to be put down and silenced. People tend to define quite clearly the hierarchy of issues which they see as important, running down to trivial things. Even if they do not actually go to the polls and vote on those issues, at least the arrangement in order of priority occurs because people are deliberating over, thinking about, communicating on and defining priorities in relation to issues. What are some of the criticisms that tend to emerge in relation to this process of giving power back to the people? The first and most obvious one stems from the fear of elected representatives. People such as ourselves who have been elected to represent, albeit not always perfectly, immediately feel threatened by this process of citizens' initiative. We say, `But we are the ones who have been given the power to legislate'. That is the whole concept of representative democracy. Of course it is, and the threat level immediately comes up. But the experience is not that the legislatures decline under the process of citizens' initiative. In fact it is the very opposite. The experience is that legislatures in fact are grateful for having the priorities set. They are grateful for not having to wallow in a whole lot of issues which really are not relevant to the people. They are grateful for the fact that they can direct their attention, energy and limited resources of time and other resources to matters of consequence. So the overseas experience is that it does not give rise to a decline in the status of the legislatures. On the contrary, people become aware of the responsibilities that are placed upon the people in the legislatures. The second objection that is often offered is that the issues are trivialised. As I said earlier, providing the mechanism is a safe one-and the Macklin Bill proposed that it is necessary to get 500,000 signatures, half a million signatures, and to the best of my knowledge the proposed Australia Card issue did not evoke even half a million signatures on petitions-there need be no such objection. There is a requirement under the provisions of this Bill that half a million Australians have to support a proposition before it goes to the people. In the final analysis, the remainder of the Australians can give it the thumbs up or the thumbs down. The overseas experience is that, because of the nature of that requirement, trivial issues do not get up and running. If an issue is trivial it cannot get the support of half a million Australians. If an issue has the support of half a million Australians, it is not trivial. So triviality is a non-consequence. It is of no consequence in this debate regarding the merits or otherwise of citizens' initiative. We often hear in debates that citizens' initiative gives rise to unsound legislation and focuses on technical issues. Once again, the final test is that the issue has to go before the people. In the final analysis everybody gets their say. If everybody supports the issue, I think it is very difficult in a democracy to say that that piece of legislation is unsound. To say that is to deny the wisdom, albeit imperfect, of the democratic process. Nobody claims the democratic process always gives rise to decisions which are 100 per cent right. I think that sort of debate is very naive anyway. But if we accept the concept of democracy and of having trust in the process of informing and educating and then consulting, it does not follow logically that we would judge the outcome to be unsound. To do so is to condemn the process as being unsound. Obviously we as a community do not place that condemnation on the democratic process. In the final analysis we believe that the concept of citizens' initiative has a great deal going for it. That is why 10 years ago my predecessor, Senator Colin Mason, was the first to place before this chamber the concept of citizens' initiative. Although we believe that earlier in the history of our foundation there were attempts to bring such legislation before chambers, they were unsuccessful. I believe the concept of citizens' initiative was addressed in Queensland in the 1920s. Ironically, in the 1920s, the people of Queensland chose to do away with their State upper House and sadly, ever since, they have been living with the consequences of not having a House of review. So informed and thoughtful Australians have addressed themselves to the concept of citizens' initiative in the past. We placed it before this chamber 10 years ago and we have ensured that such a Bill has been lying on the table ever since. The fact that the Senate has not chosen to address it seriously is to us a matter of some concern. The fact that there may even be an attempt to truncate such a debate in this chamber today is a matter of grave concern to us, because we are aware of the fact that out in the community there is a growing support for the concept of citizens' initiative. That is why it is back on the table as a result of the Macklin private member's Bill today. That is why in recent weeks I have spoken to a series of small business meetings on the issue of citizens' initiative. That is why our telephones are ringing today with calls from organisations such as the Australian Small Business Association and small business people, and logos to say `Keep pushing ahead with this concept'. That is why we believe it is vital that the concept of citizens' initiative goes before the Australian people as one of five questions-not merely just the other four questions-when we go to the polls in October. Senator Robert Ray —You wouldn't have to vote on anything tough then, would you? Senator McLEAN —We would be asking the Australian people frequently to vote on tough issues. Citizens' initiative is not about avoiding tough issues; it is about addressing them. So, I believe that it has been essential for me, as one of only two people who have spoken in this cognate debate so far, to address my remarks principally to the Macklin Bill, the fifth of the cognate Bills that are being addressed here today. It is a Bill that sadly has been neglected by both sides of the House and, I believe, when it is voted on it will probably sadly, be voted against yet again by the combined vote of the Opposition and the Government. Senator TAMBLING(Northern Territory)(12.02) —In addressing the constitutional referendum package of legislation that is before the Senate today and has been before this Parliament in the last week or so, I should like to highlight the fact that once again we are seeing very important constitutional concepts pushed through by a cowardly Labor Government. I wonder why it is running scared in the way in which it really wants to deal with such very fundamental and important issues that affect the Constitution. Why is the Government scared of proper parliamentary consideration? We are looking at four pieces of legislation that have been picked up by the Government. What we should be dealing with today is a comprehensive debate of the report of the Constitutional Commission that was tabled in this place on 6 May. But of course we saw this legislation introduced on 10 May in order to pre-empt and to sidetrack and take away the very real and proper consideration that should be given to the first report of the Constitutional Commission. Volume 1 and volume 2 of that report extend to 824 pages. The summary booklet distributed with it, which looks at the recommendations of the Commission, includes by my counting some 51 recommendations. There are four recommendations to do with the preamble to the Constitution; six to do with democratic rights and parliamentary elections; 15 relating to the parliaments; nine with regard to executive government; one with regard to new States; one with regard to local government; seven with regard to rights and freedoms; seven with regard to the distribution of powers; and one with regard to areas of the Constitution which are outmoded. Fifty-one recommendations of the Constitutional Commission were presented here on 6 May, and the Labor Party has given them scant regard. It has not addressed any of those. It is addressing only four of the issues, which it is now picking up and running with for blatantly political reasons. The proper consideration of these matters is being thwarted. Let me take the Senate back to 1973, during the Whitlam Government. At that time we saw the tabling of the report of the Woodward Aboriginal Land Rights Commission, a matter of equally significant constitutional import. The first report of the Woodward Commission was tabled on 22 August 1973, and the second report was tabled on 17 July 1974. Again, the Labor Party chickened out and did not debate these reports in this Parliament properly and comprehensively. It merely picked up points that it wanted to run and it subsequently introduced Aboriginal land rights legislation, which subsequently the Fraser Government also picked up and ran with. But the weaknesses of that Aboriginal land legislation have now been apparent in the decade or so since then, and we are continually having major revisions of it. Why? It is because of the fundamental flaw that the recommendations of a very good commission report were not properly debated and given the consideration that they should have been given. The Constitutional Commission has been working solidly for over two years on this area. It received some 4,000 public submissions to its various advisory committees. Its five advisory committees reported to this Parliament in 1987. They reported on matters concerning trade and national economic management, on individual and democratic rights, on executive government-it is no wonder that this Government does not want that matter put on for public debate-on the Australian judicial system, and on the distribution of powers. What debate has ensued since in an organised and fundamental way that addressed all of these issues? What debate is the Government now inviting with regard to the 51 recommendations that the Constitutional Commission has put forward? What about the areas of industrial relations, family law, Aboriginal affairs, social services, nuclear energy, territorial self-government and so on? They are issues that are fundamental to this constitutional review, but we are being invited to consider only four Bills that the Labor Party wants to look at, Bills that go back to its gospel, to its determination to try to neuter the effectiveness of this Senate and the Parliament. What about the interrelationships of the future of government, of future financing, of the implications for States? All of these things were properly addressed, both in the advisory committee reports in 1987 and in the report tabled here on 6 May. But we are not being given the appropriate opportunity to deal with them as we ought, as serious parliamentarians. What about the various issues that have been raised, and the many which are still to come in the final report of the Constitutional Commission, which will, obviously now, be tabled here in August, or perhaps after 3 September when the referendum questions have been put to the vote? What about the judicial system? What about the relationships between State parliaments and the Federal Parliament, between the economy and the business environment, and between the river systems of Australia? The Constitutional Commission has flagged to us that it is still to include its recommendations in those areas in final reports to be put forward here. I turn to some of the specifics of this legislation, to which we have to turn our attention. The Constitution Alteration (Rights and Freedoms) Bill relates to what can probably be loosely termed `human rights'-in effect, it is a camouflaged new Bill of Rights. What are the weaknesses in the particular areas relating to fair compensation for people whose property is acquired, to freedom of religion and to trial by jury? I had thought that if we were properly addressing something in the area of human rights, we would be seeing fundamental guarantees that would entrench in the Constitution something important, something vital, and of concern to all Australians. What does one find when one turns to the area of fair compensation for people whose property is to be acquired by the Government? There are exceptions to suit the convenience of the Labor Government. The exceptions of convenience, if certain areas are to be excluded, are a prostitution of the fundamental principle of all Australians. The Commonwealth has legislatively imposed a requirement on the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly to provide just terms for acquisition under Territory law. On several occasions in recent years, the Commonwealth has legislated to avoid payment of compensation on specific Territory acquisitions, for example, Aboriginal land granted out of Territory land, the Kakadu National Park, the ban on mining operations in Kakadu and the Petermann land boundaries. Yet one finds that because the Territory is a body politic this legislation specifically excludes it. One should look particularly at the explanatory memorandum where it says: It should be noted, however, that the proposed section 115b does not require the provision of just terms where the property to be acquired is the property of a Territory as a body politic. Good grief! No wonder it has brought out the ire of the Northern Territory Government. It has raised serious considerations for those Australian citizens who can now not sit back with any confidence that they are considered by the Labor Government to be equal citizens. The Commonwealth can compulsorily acquire any property vested in the Northern Territory of Australia. Obviously, there are implications in that for the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. It is a typical example of the Commonwealth imposing severe restrictions on the power of the States and Territories while providing nice exceptions for itself. There are important implications with regard to Aboriginal antecedent native title. That has implications as the Northern Territory proceeds constitutionally towards statehood. Those issues have to be addressed. When situations such as this arise where there are exceptions to the rule, it is a disgrace to the Government. Mr Acting Deputy President, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a copy of a telex from the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, Mr Steve Hatton, to the Prime Minister, the Hon. R. J. L. Hawke, and a number of other senators and members in this place. It relates to the Constitution Alteration (Rights and Freedoms) Bill. Leave granted. The document read as follows- I must express to you my extreme alarm and concern at one proposal contained in the proposed package of constitutional referenda which would appear to discriminate against the Northern Territory in a totally unjustified manner. Clause 3 of the Constitution Alteration (Rights and Freedoms) Bill 1988 would constitutionally guarantee to everyone in Australia protection against acquisition of their property by the Commonwealth, by the States or by Territories without compensation, except, and I repeat except, the property of a self-governing body politic such as the Northern Territory. There can be no basis for the Northern Territory Government to be singled out in this discriminatory way. This is contrary to every concept of equal treatment and fair play. What is constitutionally good enough for every other person, body or government in Australia must surely be good enough for the Northern Territory. I certainly do not accept that this provision can be justified by the reasons given by the Constitutional Commission (first report, April 1988, vol. 11 pages 616-617, as adopted by the explanatory memorandum to the referendum Bill, p. 6). These just do not stand up to scrutiny against the need for equal and fair treatment under the Constitution. If the Commonwealth wants to transfer property to a new self-governing Territory, it can decide in advance what property it wishes to retain. It does not need an express exception to a constitutional guarantee of just terms of general application to any property in the Territory, operating for an unlimited period of time, to do this. In the case of the Northern Territory, the Commonwealth had one year to acquire property back from the Territory after the grant of self-government. This period has expired. There is no need to continue any exception as to the requirement of just terms in the case of the Northern Territory for this purpose. If the reason for the exception is to avoid the need for the Commonwealth to pay just terms to the Territory for any Territory land granted by the Commonwealth as Aboriginal land, then the question must be asked-Why should not the Commonwealth be liable for compensation in the same way as it would in the States? Apart from Aboriginal land, there would be nothing to stop the Commonwealth, at any time in the future, acquiring back any Territory Government property for any purpose without payment if this referendum Bill is passed in its present form. It would have the potential to destroy the Territory as a self-governing entity to the detriment of all Territorians and their public assets. The referendum Bill should not proceed in its present form unless this discriminatory constitutional provision aimed specifically at Territory Government, and no-one else in Australia, is removed. Senator TAMBLING —That is a most important issue that relates to the whole fundamental principle of where the weaknesses are so apparent in these particular Bills that are put forward. The issue of freedom of religion is more appropriately one for the States and for State law in so far as it relates to non-Commonwealth matters. I am concerned and, when the Minister addresses this problem, I seek to know what are the implications of this legislation for religious schools and organisations. I feel it is most important that freedom of religion should be properly addressed and carefully looked at. There is no guarantee of freedom of religion if by this sort of legislation bodies seeking to carry out educational and other functions are tied up. As to the issues relating to trial by jury in the proposed amendment, the right does not depend upon the mode of trial but rather on the actual penalty that may be imposed on the accused. If that penalty is imprisonment for more than two years or any form of corporal punishment, the entitlement exists. It is suggested that these whole areas need to be very carefully looked at because the proposed amendment extends to trials of Commonwealth, State and territorial matters under consideration. The wording of the proposed Commonwealth amendment provides that protection operates where the penalty for imprisonment is for more than two years. This proposed amendment will cause problems for the legislation of the Northern Territory and, I would suggest, many of the States. It really is much more appropriate that jury trial is a matter for the law of the State or Territory concerned. Local government is another area where we again see the blatant hypocrisy of the Australian Labor Party in how it is seeking to address and establish some fundamental points on this matter. There are no worthwhile guarantees under the Constitution Alteration (Local Government) Bill or the proposed referendum that give any heart to local government. It is merely a form of words with regard to what has always been recognised in local government as its appropriate function as the third tier of government. Local government does now and always will-even if this referendum is carried-enjoy its validity as something subordinate to the laws of the State. Once again, a group of Australian citizens are particularly excluded from any enjoyment under these referendum proposals because the Bill specifically excludes the Northern Territory. There is no benefit to the people there. Of course, the Northern Territory already has and enjoys executive authority and legislative power in respect of local government. In fact, in the Northern Territory, peculiar systems of community government have already been successfully developed for Aboriginal communities. This legislation does nothing in that regard. In fact, I go back to the reports of the Constitutional Commission, which the Senate has not debated, as I said earlier. The Commission had before it two conflicting views from its own advisory committees with regard to this matter. The fact that the Commission came down and accepted one view was fine, but there was considerable debate. The Distribution of Powers Advisory Committee advised against recognising local government in the Commonwealth Constitution, stating that it would be undesirable to entrench another level of government which would be in competition with the States. The details of local government will be left to the States so nothing is being achieved by what is being said here. The Government is not putting up any guarantees of additional or special funding for local government. The explanatory memorandum to the legislation states that a State would not be obliged to have local government throughout the whole State and that it would be for the State to determine what was appropriate. Come on; where is the fundamental principle? As I said earlier, the legislation expressly does not operate in the Northern Territory so there is a complication in that area. There has been considerable debate in this chamber in the last week with regard to the Government's independent, separate proposals to form some type of compact with Aboriginal people. Proposals are being canvassed for an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, many of the functions of which will pick up local-government type functions. They are not addressed by this referendum. The very proposals being put forward by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Hand, with regard to the new councils to be formed under that body certainly do not fall into line with the very principles of this referendum, one vote one value, fair elections or anything like that. The proposals being put forward by Mr Hand will be way outside any tolerance of 10 per cent that might be being suggested in the voting proposals for this. So we have two separate sets of principles. In September or October we will be asked to debate another issue, in effect, forming a quasi black parliament in Australia. From what the Minister said in his document Foundations for the Future, we will be asked to accept totally contrary, totally different sets of principles and guidelines for Aboriginal people from what is now the case in this particular area and for us throughout Australia. The fair elections area needs to be properly addressed in respect of the qualifications for voting. What the Government is now seeking to do is to make State and Territory laws on qualifications of electors subject to the new constitutional provisions. Restrictions will be imposed on the States. There will be the new 10 per cent rule on electoral divisions and how they will come into effect. The redistribution on this 10 per cent basis must take place before general elections which must be held under this referendum within one year of the commencement of the provision. This will compel redistributions in State areas of administration. It will have a dramatic impact in the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory Legislative Assembly has 25 seats. Under the Northern Territory self-government Act, an Act of this Parliament, there is a 20 per cent tolerance. In my look at the recent electoral figures that apply to those 25 seats in the Northern Territory, I found that if these provisions are put through with the 10 per cent tolerance, some seven seats will need to be redistributed. Of course, there have been special provisions for distributions in the Northern Territory that recognise the difference of that electorate and that the Aboriginal people also need to have a very specific say in the governing of the Northern Territory. A number of those electorates for Aborigines in the Northern Territory will now be caught up in these particular provisions and how they will apply. The restrictions are certainly getting into the area that is properly the power of the States. They are encroaching in those particular areas. I should also like to turn attention to the ambitions and objectives of the Government in undermining the role of the Senate when it seeks to create four-year terms of Parliament. It annoys me that the provisions that have been picked up in the legislation do not reflect the recommendations in the report of the Constitutional Commission, the report which I said the Government has not had the decency to give us an opportunity to debate and to discuss properly in full detail. With all of the background that the Commission has put into this work in the past two years and with all of its advisory committees, the Labor Caucus or perhaps Cabinet has just picked up some of the areas it wants to include with regard to the terms of senators and members of the House of Representatives. I do not particularly object to the provisions that Parliament should move towards a four-year term but I should like to see the issue addressed with regard to any partially fixed term. That issue was not addressed, yet it was a recommendation of the Constitutional Commission. The terms of State senators would be the same as those for the House of Representatives. In effect, that would guarantee a double dissolution at each and every general election. This does not particularly concern me because, as a Territory senator, I do not go to the polls with each general House of Representatives election as do my other colleagues from the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. However, the special provisions that are now being imposed create the view that there is little doubt that the proposal, if carried, would increase the power of the House of Representatives and this Government over the Senate. There is no argument that this would lead to a more stable government; in fact, the possibility exists that because the party distribution between the House of Representatives and the Senate may differ from each election, there could be occasions when this could lead to much more frequent elections than we have had in the past, especially when the Government is unhappy about the composition that it has in the Senate after such a general election, or perhaps the minority group that the Labor Party seeks to control such as the Democrats and other fringe people with the peace movements and so on. If we move down this track the Senate will have a much more unstable environment and I forecast that this will lead to more, not fewer, elections. The fact that the Government has chosen to ignore the recommendations of the Constitutional Commission for the retention of the rotational system stands out as just one area where it is so blatant in what it is seeking to do. As I said at the start, I believe that the Labor Government has insulted all of the fine people it appointed to the Constitutional Commission and those advisory committees. It has insulted this Parliament by not having the guts to debate properly the report of the Commission in the interests of the Australian community. There are approximately 51 recommendations by the Commission on constitutional changes and we have been asked to address four particular party political issues with which the Labor Party wants to run. We are not debating the future of Parliament or the future of government; we are debating the future of the Australian Labor Party. The Government is seeking to engineer its future domination of this particular Parliament. That is not on. On 3 September the people of Australia will vote no and slap this Government right down. Senator ALSTON(Victoria)(12.27) —I wish to contribute to the debate on the referendum Bills because I believe any constitutional debate in this country needs to be taken very seriously. If any government puts forward proposals that involve the expenditure of large sums of money-in the order of $35m to $40m in this instance-the proposals need to be examined carefully to ascertain whether the people are getting value for money but, more importantly, to ascertain whether the Bills, if passed, will bring any significant contribution to the well-being of the nation. The starting point in any constitutional debate is to consider whether the present document is serving the nation well. One could say that a number of areas in the present Constitution contain language that is outmoded and that, because of the passage of time since 1901, the document contains a number of obsolete provisions. There are some contentious areas where powers are limited; for example, the powers relating to industrial disputes that extend across the boundaries of States. A good argument exists for saying that a uniform approach should be taken and that industrial relations powers should not be duplicated at Federal and State levels. That may be one of the great issues of our time, just as the transfer of powers between the States and the Commonwealth is also an important matter because there may well be significant agreement between the States and the Federal Government on powers, which do not presently reside with one party or another, that could be properly transferred. Those debates have been pushed to one side but they happen to be meritorious and may well make a significant difference to the way the country is run. It should be borne in mind that the Labor Government has now been in power for more than five years. In all that time it has never been suggested that its capacity to govern, its capacity to regulate the economy or its capacity to deliver what the people require have been in any way impaired. If the ultimate test or the bottom line is success at elections, the Labor Government has been successful on two occasions. The result is that it cannot complain that it is getting a raw deal by the way the Constitution is currently worded. If that is the situation, one must ask why the Government deems it necessary to bring on four proposals, which one could charitably describe as unmeritorious and opportunistic. The reality is that the Government hopes that there will be sufficient bicentennial euphoria for the people of Australia to be prepared to go along with these propositions. I do not believe that that is valid any more than I think the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) thought that bicentennial euphoria was something that would result in electoral capital, otherwise he would have waited until this year to hold the premature election of last July. So that cannot be an explanation. Another fairly plausible explanation is that the Australian Labor Party has been bedevilled by a number of internal ideological disputes over issues such as privatisation. If we have regard to an article written by its former Federal Secretary, now Senator Bob McMullan, we can see that he was offering very strong advice to his colleagues that they really had to stop the internecine squabbling; they had to find an agenda that would be much less threatening; they had to get back to the grass roots; that somehow there were a number of matters that were too hard; and that one low cost, low risk area of reform was in relation to the Constitution. That is a fairly cynical statement; nonetheless, that is what he said. If we take that at its face value we have an understanding of why the Government has chosen to put these matters before the people. The Government has done so in indecent haste. I know that a number of my colleagues have already drawn attention to this aspect, but it is really quite breathtaking that the Government established a Constitutional Commission after many long years of labouring and all of a sudden, before the Constitutional Commission was even in a position to deliver its final report, the Government had a desperate need to tell the people that there would be a referendum, doing so even before it had defined the questions and even before it had had advice from the Constitutional Commission as to the proper form of those questions. Let me take one small example. In relation to local government, the Constitutional Commission recommended that there be recognition of the establishment and continuance of local government bodies. The Government, in its indecent haste to table the proposal, has included the term `a system of local government'. Clearly, that has a very different connotation. It is clearly there for a particular purpose. That opens up all the old difficulties that one has in relying on the High Court of Australia, with the best will, to interpret what it really means. The inevitable likelihood is that the High Court will give it an expansive interpretation, which will create a number of serious difficulties and uncertainties and, no doubt, make it much more difficult for State governments not simply to dismiss incompetent or dishonest councils but also to replace them readily with administrators. But more importantly than that perhaps is that if we take the words `a system' at their face value there would be nothing to stop the High Court from defining the system as having a number of inherent characteristics, one of which might be a minimum level of funding. In other words, the High Court could then embark upon the exercise of defining what should be the minimum level of funding for local government. Just as easily, one could set out to define the minimum level of services that should be provided before one ceases to have a system of local government. It could define the form of elections that should take place with local government. It could well attempt to regulate the way in which local government exercises its powers. I am not a resident of Queensland but my understanding is that the Brisbane City Council is a macro-council in every respect. It covers the largest geographical territory of any council-certainly municipal council-and it has vast powers that normally reside with State governments in other places. What we might find here is that a prescription for a uniform system of local government could very much restrict the way in which the Brisbane City Council presently operates or, conversely, give to other local governments around the nation the sorts of powers that the Brisbane City Council might have. The reality is that diversity has been an essential ingredient of local government. There are very many who place a great deal more emphasis on human resource delivery than others and they are not matters that should be subject to universal prescriptions in the way that there would be a clear invitation to the High Court to lay out. Therefore, I think we deserve an explanation not only from the Minister for Local Government (Senator Reynolds), who is in the Senate at present, but also from the Government at large as to why the Government chose to ignore the recommendation of the Constitutional Commission simply to recognise local government bodies and instead inserted the expression `a system of local government'. The expression is there for a purpose and we have not been told what it is. It may be sloppy draftsmanship, but I doubt it. It is more likely to have some form of hidden agenda which will only become apparent long after the Labor Party has ceased to sit on that side of the chamber. Of course, it creates the very uncertainties in judicial interpretation for which people often criticise lawyers. In other words, we really do not need to be beholden to some court in the future to decide the fundamental parameters of local government. We need local governments to have the security and tenure that they presently have to get on with the job that they are capable of doing. To the extent that they need specific legislative assistance, they should certainly derive it from State governments. If they feel a compelling need for genuflection, they can get it by having recognition in the State constitutions. There are two that presently do not have it. There is no good reason why they should not come to the party and I am confident that they will in the not too distant future. If that is the case, local government has all the recognition it requires. In many ways it could then start to complain that it does not have the sort of serious charter for which many of its spokespeople argued so vociferously before the Constitutional Commission and in other places. But somehow to settle suddenly for that glib acknowledgment seems to me to be selling ourselves cheaply. To embark upon an area of uncertainty when it comes to an expression such as `system' could well rebound to their disadvantage. A great deal has already been said in this debate about not simply the difficulties that emerge from the first two referendum questions but also, in many ways, the very sinister connotations that flow. I think there is little doubt, given the appalling and consistent cynicism of the current Prime Minister over a period of five years, that he is intent on nothing other than electoral advantage. We heard no better example of that than this morning on A.M. The Prime Minister made what could only be described as a blatant distortion of the truth when he said that the Government did not even have in mind the next election when it chose to set the timing for cuts in the personal income tax rates for the next financial year. That is simply unbelievable. To the extent that he still has any credibility, it casts an even darker shadow over any suggestions that somehow these referendum questions are not designed to restrict the role of the Senate or to give the Prime Minister more power to regulate the calling of elections. It undoubtedly increases his power. I am not one who, simply for the sake of it, accuses the Government of wanting to emasculate the Senate, not because I think it has seen the light but because it recognises that there would be overwhelming opposition to that ideological position that the Labor Party has held for so long. I do not think it is a realistic agenda item. But that is not to say that there are not a number of people-certainly the likes of Senator Walsh, Senator Button and Senator Evans-who on many occasions happen to have indicated their desire to weaken the role of the chamber and to denigrate its powers. To that extent, I think it is very valid to say that this is simply another broadside at the Senate. I think the most obvious explanation is that the Prime Minister simply wants to have maximum flexibility for the calling of elections. He does not want to be constrained by the fixed term of six years and then the notion of short and long term senators that presently restricts him to the least possible extent. He simply wants to have an unbridled flexibility to determine that he can go to the people whenever he is able to fabricate a justification for doing so. I think that is the clear motivation of the Government in relation to that matter, but it obviously has all those other deleterious consequences that have been well identified by honourable senators on this side of the chamber. It does away with the rotation of senators and the inherent safeguard that that was intended by the founding fathers to provide. It is obvious that by effecting simultaneous elections we could have a groundswell of public opinion which may be only temporary but which could throw out the whole of the chamber, in the very way that the founding fathers foresaw and did not intend. We need to have a very good explanation provided as to why that should suddenly be a preferable approach to take to the way in which the Parliament is convoked and prorogued. Again, it has nothing to do with the merits of the argument. It is sheer political expediency. There are a number of other equally valid criticisms of this referendum question. I do not know that one needs to dwell on them to any great extent, but I note from reading Senator Chaney's contribution in this debate that he quoted, with approval, the assessment of Paddy McGuinness in the Australian Financial Review, a well known commentator, not one who is nationally known for having conservative values and sympathies. Yet Mr McGuinness says that one can only describe each of the four questions as dishonest and misleading. He suggests a more appropriate form of asking each of the questions. He characterises the first question as, `Do you agree to weakening the power and status of the Senate?'. That is clearly the effect, even if it is not the intention. He secondly asks, `Do you want to stop the National Party gerrymandering electorate boundaries, especially in Queensland?'. That, no doubt, is one view of the world, but again it fails to recognise some of the real difficulties that derive from attempting to impose a prescription around the nation. It does very little to rectify the gerrymander that, no doubt, would continue to exist in Queensland and elsewhere. It is simply a glib solution to a difficult problem, one that is best resolved by the State parties themselves and perhaps even by the Liberal and Labor parties acting in concert in Queensland, a solution that has not yet commended itself to my Liberal colleagues in Queensland, but one which has a lot going for it. Certainly, if there is overwhelming public revulsion at the extent of the malapportionment and gerrymander in Queensland, that would be one simple way of rectifying the problem. To the extent that it has not come about to date suggests that the parties themselves do not see it as of overwhelming importance. I have touched on the third question to some extent, that is, the local government question. It is simply intended to be a token gesture but, as I have endeavoured to indicate, the use of the expression `a system of local government' may well prove to be a trojan horse which local government will come to regret. Introducing that element of uncertainty demonstrates the difficulties that derive from attempting to put token gestures into a Federal Constitution. Inevitably, as Dr Cheryl Saunders and others have spelt out, the High Court will find itself irresistibly moved to applying expansive interpretations and, as a result, there will be a lawyers field day. I do not have any brief for lawyers exploiting the system in that way. I do not think that the Government would have had their welfare in mind. But certainly it is likely to be a consequence of that provision. The fourth question has not been dealt with in any great detail to date in this debate. I want to make a few remarks about two of the three questions contained in the fourth question. There is no good reason why the Government should not have taken these matters separately. Question No. 4 involves disparate subject matter. There is absolutely no reason why the Government could not have invited people to exercise their right to choose between each of the questions. But one is given a choice of all or nothing. So, if one chooses to say no to any one of the three questions, presumably one would vote no to the lot. That is a very unfair position to put people in. The Government, no doubt, would then run around saying that everyone who voted no to the fourth question was somehow a classic reactionary, when the reality might be that they wanted to support two of the three questions. So, procedurally it is a devious approach to take. It is quite unnecessary. It is difficult to understand why the Government was minded to do what it has done. Debate interrupted. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Burns) —Order! It being 12.45 p.m., pursuant to sessional order I call on matters of public interest. Senator CHAPMAN(South Australia)(12.45) —Mr Acting Deputy President, it is a matter of public interest, indeed of national concern, that the Bureau of Rural Science, established by the Hawke Labor Government early in 1987, has so far failed to achieve any of its objectives or functions. The objective of the Bureau is to advise the Government about developments in science, technology and resource management affecting the efficiency and competitiveness of Australian rural, forestry and fishing industries. The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) apparently established the Bureau because he was not satisfied with the type and quality of advice he was receiving from the then Department of Primary Industry and from other sources. The Bureau is supposed to research and analyse relevant scientific and technological developments in Australia's natural resources and provide resource management advice to relevant industries and communities as well as the Department of Primary Industries and Energy and the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. I understand that up until now the Bureau has not provided any advice to the Government or the rural community and has undertaken almost no research. The Bureau is also required to execute specific programs requiring strong and continued scientific and technological input. This it has not done. The Bureau is to inject its advice on the formulation of government policies affecting rural industries. This has not been done. The Bureau is to commission independent research. This has not been done. The Bureau is to publish and disseminate widely the results of investigations and analyses. I understand that the Bureau has prepared a compendium of diseases, although this has not been widely disseminated nor has it culminated in any policy advice. So, in this respect, I believe that the Bureau has also failed to live up to expectations. What is the cause of the Bureau's failure? Due to austerity and restructuring measures, the Bureau was to use the existing resources of the Department of Primary Industries and Energy. These resources were to have been used more effectively and appropriately. About 25 staff positions were initially identified for transfer from the Department to the Bureau. Apparently, about half of these have been allocated, although in most cases the transferees have been found to be unsuitable for the Bureau's requirements. Suitable remaining transferees have not yet been found. Based on this, the Director, who was appointed in March 1987, was promised 12 new additional appointments. However, despite advertising and finding suitable applicants, he has not been allowed to appoint them. It is reported that the Director believes that he requires at least 100 specialists of his choosing in order to fulfil the charter and objectives set for him. This situation leads one to the conclusion that the Bureau was doomed before it started. The Department was not in support of its creation because of professional animosity and because resources had to be found within the Department's budget. It appears that the Department then deliberately set about destroying the Bureau. It deliberately provided its expendable individuals for transfer and fought and won the battle for control of the forestry and land resources branch which was vital for the Bureau to achieve its objectives. Further, the type of structure being imposed on the Bureau is deemed quite inappropriate for its proper functioning. The Department of Primary Industries and Energy appears to have very cynically and deliberately lumbered the fledgling Bureau with a range of unwanted, troublesome and quite inappropriate administrative functions. These include the administrative functions of patents and bodies such as the Australian Plague Locust Commission. The Bureau cannot possibly function effectively when its Director is burdened with these inappropriate duties. If the Bureau is currently staffed with unwanted ex-departmental people who are not performing adequately, it should get rid of them. If the Government will not provide more funds and the Bureau must operate within the Department's budget, it would seem that sections of the Department should be axed and preference given to what should be a more effective use of resources in the Bureau. If this does not happen, the Government will have set up a useless Bureau with no chance of success. The only option then would be to axe the Bureau-a deplorable waste of resources. Senator McGauran —Yes. Senator CHAPMAN —I thank the honourable senator for his support. The need for the Bureau is well established. The requirement for independent, professional advice in our most vital of industries is without question. The fact that this level of advice was not forthcoming from pre-existing bodies is also widely recognised. I believe that a more independent Bureau of Rural Science with more and better resources is required-something like the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics. The ideal organisation would be able to commission rural research by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation or other scientific organisations and provide the policy advice that is so important to technological development and economic progress in this country. I understand this is what the Minister intended, but what happened to this ideal? Is it yet another case of the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy getting rolled in Cabinet over the provision of warranted and adequate resources to the rural sector? The fact is that this Hawke Labor Government has no concern for rural people. This is despite the fact that the 46 per cent increase in the value of rural production-a $5 billion increase-in the first two years of the Hawke Labor Government, compared with the last two years of the Fraser coalition Government, which occurred as a direct result of the breaking of the disastrous two-year drought, gave the Australian economy an enormous kickstart in 1983 and 1984 and gave the Hawke Government its early popularity. Senator Panizza —They claim the credit for breaking the drought. Senator CHAPMAN —They claim the credit for breaking the drought and for other things, credit which is entirely unwarranted. It was the productive rural sector, once it got reasonable seasons with the breaking of the drought, not any economic magic on the part of this Government, which caused strong growth in our economy and which at that time allowed the Government some early popularity. More recently, improved wool prices have restored economic demand to keep Australia afloat, despite Labor's appalling economic management which has caused an ever-rising tide of international debt. Yet, the reward for rural people from this Government is to be ignored or, even worse, kicked in the guts. This is clearly evident in last night's economic statement by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) where the rural sector has been singled out to bear more than its fair share of the cost of the Government's so-called restructuring of the economy. It is also clearly evident in the Government's neglect of the Bureau of Rural Science, as I have demonstrated in my remarks today. Unless the Minister shows some strength and ensures that the Bureau is provided with the resources necessary to fulfil its charter, he will stand condemned and the Government's already very limited remaining credibility in the bush will completely evaporate. Motion (by Senator Robert Ray) agreed to: (1) That discussion of Matters of Public Interest be not further proceeded with this day. (2) That intervening Government Business be postponed till after consideration of Government Business, Orders of the Day Nos 25 to 30, namely, Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 1988, Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 1988, Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill 1988, Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1988 and Crimes (Torture) Bill 1988. (3) That this Order have effect till 2.00 p.m. this day. Debate resumed from 19 May, on motion by Senator Reynolds: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(12.55) —The Senate is debating the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 1988, which passed through the House of Representatives with unseemly haste last week. The Minister for Local Government (Senator Reynolds) claimed in her second reading speech that a major part of the Bill implements the recommendations of the report on the Scrutiny Review of the Mercantile Marine Office Functions. But where is the report? Why was such an important report not distributed to parliamentarians? Why was it circulated to unions and to others outside the Parliament? It is especially important that all honourable senators should have had access to this scrutiny review because the Bill covers the functions of the Mercantile Marine Office, in particular, as well as a number of other aspects of shipping and aviation. In the shipping industry, this Bill ends government involvement in the engagement and discharge of seamen and makes for greater self-regulation by the maritime industry. It also makes it easier for owners of offshore industry vessels to bring their vessels under the Navigation Act. It eliminates from the Navigation Act all references to `apprentices', which is now an anachronism. In aviation, this Bill clarifies the powers and procedures of the Federal Airports Corporation and gives it power to establish superannuation schemes for its permanent and contract staff. Looking at the Bill in more detail, I would like to deal first with those arrangements dealing with offshore industry vessels-such as fixed platforms, drill units or ships used in exploration of the seabed, oil and gas exploration, mineral exploration and so on. Since 1979 there has been an agreement that jurisdiction over offshore industry vessels would normally be exercised by the States and the Northern Territory. However, under the Navigation Act the owner of an offshore vessel has always had the right to apply to the Federal Minister to bring his vessel under the Navigation Act. But there were limitations to the Minister's power-he could only make a declaration after consultation with State or Territory authorities and he could only make it for three years. The amendment to this Bill will allow the Minister to make the declaration without consulting the State or Territory authorities and it will remove the three-year limitation. The Opposition has no quarrel with these amendments. The next amendments relate to the Mercantile Marine Office and have arisen from the scrutiny review. The review estimates that its recommendations, if implemented, would save about $1.3m a year and result in the Australian shipping industry fully meeting all future costs of these services. What are the services provided by the Mercantile Marine Office? This is the body which regulates the employment of seafarers on Australian ships engaged in international and coastal trade and in our offshore industry. Under schedule X of the Maritime Industry Seagoing Award, the Secretary to the Department of Transport and Communications is responsible for the administration of the so-called `engagement system' for seamen, even though the Department itself is not a party to the award. In practice, though, the role of the Department has been limited merely to facilitating negotiations between shipowners and the unions to fill vacant positions with eligible seamen. Other functions of the Office relate to the administration of part II of the Navigation Act. For instance, the Office has a legislative requirement to supervise articles of agreements, such as a six-monthly contract between the master of a vessel and a seaman. Some functions of the Office are performed because of administrative convenience or, in the case of visiting British and Commonwealth ships, in accordance with the former British Commonwealth Merchant Shipping Agreement. The Office has also been serving to discharge Australia's obligations under international conventions. The administration of the engagement system fulfils provisions under the International Labour Organisation and the International Maritime Organisation Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping Convention. However, government involvement in the regulation of the employment of seamen is greater in Australia than in other countries. The Australian system was originally modelled largely on the British system, but the British Government has devolved much of its responsibility onto the shipping industry. Other countries, such as Norway and the Netherlands, have government-run employment arrangements specifically for seafarers, but administered by departments which have responsibility for general employment. For the information of the Senate, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard an attachment to the report on the scrutiny review which sets out in a table the comparison of current and proposed Mercantile Marine Office functions. This table shows each of the present functions of the Mercantile Marine Office and the proposed change in the function. Leave granted. The document read as follows- COMPARISON OF CURRENT AND PROPOSED MERCANTILE MARINE OFFICE FUNCTIONS Function Current duties Proposed duties 1. Administration of Engagement System * The daily operation of an Engagement System to fill vacancies in Australian ships for seamen, cooks and stewards by a Chief Superintendent (Canberra) and Superintendents at 8 specified ports. * No change to level of service - however if industry unwilling to meet full costs, reduce level of service by withdrawing from Port Kembla and Newcastle and centralising NSW operations in Sydney - integrate regional records and convert to ADP system to improve efficiency and reduce duplication 2. Supervision of Articles of Agreement * Witness and approve the engagement of crew in ships. * Virtual elimination of involvement by Department in the function except for * Issue Certificate of Discharge and witness a release on termination of service. - approval of a standard form of the articles of agreement. * Receive from Master of ship reports of change in crew. - receive notification by Master of intention to enter agreement * Check all entries made in the articles of agreement for each ship. - receive and file terminated agreements. 3. Maintenance of General Register of Seamen * Maintain a statutory register which contains a comprehensive record of all seafarers subject to the current MMO procedures including - personal particulars - qualifications - detailed particulars of sea service - medical reports - discipline reports - transactions related to the operation of the Engagement System for seamen, cooks and stewards * Reduce records maintained to those necessary to support continuing functions, i.e. - personal particulars - qualifications (on separate facility) - medical records - discipline reports - Engagement System trans- actions. * Integrate through computer `dial up' facility with Regional records. * Provide particulars from those records to authorised persons. * Provide historical data on request - and extract information from expired agreements on demand (for a fee). 4. Issue of Marine Qualifications/Oversight Medical Fitness * Issue and renewal of Marine Qualification Certificates to Masters, Officers and Seamen. * Continue issue and renewal of Certificates and arranging of medical examinations. * Check currency of medical fitness and qualification certificates of all crew prior to engagement in a ship. * Master of ship responsible for medical fitness and qualifications of crew prior to engagement * Arrange medical fitness examinations for seafarers. - provide information to assist the Master 5. Protection of Seafarer's Welfare * Oversight and administration of various provisions in the Navigation Act related to - seaman's rights to payment of wages - complaints by crew about water and provisions - entitlements to wages and benefits after suffering illness/injury - providing assistance to seamen in distress - property of deceased seamen. * Provide informal counselling service to seafarers. * Legislation to be amended to reflect today's needs and where possible place responsibility on the employer to meet obligations in respect of any seafarers employed. * Counselling service will decline as contact with seafarers is reduced - and be confined to provision of a referral service only 6. Dealing with Discipline Offences and Appeals * Prepare a report on incidents reported by the Master of a ship under the Code of Conduct - to assist Marine Council in its consideration of the occurrence. * Hear appeals lodged by seafarer -relating to imposition of a sanction by the Master. * No change. * Master of ship responsible for ensuring unsuitable seafarer not employed - provide information to assist the Master. 7. Inquiries into death/injury/illness * Conduct an inquiry into the death of any person carried on the ship - except where a Coroner holds an Inquest. * Inquire into any illness or injury that incapacitates a member of the crew of a ship. * No change pending legal advice on whether Coroner can be made responsible for all such death inquiries. * Inquiries into injury/illness will continue in order to establish nature of incident and determine whether seafarer should be referred for medical examination. 8. Control of Vessel Manning Standards * Issue a Certificate of Clearance to Master of ship prior to departure from a port. * Issue Manning Exemptions to permit ship to sail short of prescribed level of manning. * check entries made in Official Log-Books by Master of a ship. * Discontinue function except for central check of Log-Books when returned to Department on termination. 9. Miscellaneous Functions * Handling inquiries relating to the recruitment of seafarers (other than in connection with Engagement System) - maintain an employment register. * Discontinue - a responsibility of shipowners and unions. * Functions performed on behalf of State, U.K. and Commonwealth Governments in relation to crews of ships. * No change but current fee for service to be set at full cost recovery. * Supply of service details and issue of Campaign Awards. * No change. * Provision of information in connection with Seamen's Compensation Act. * No change for time being - currently under review by Department of Social Security. 10. Non-MMO Duties * Provide contact point in connection with transactions under Shipping Registration Act. * No change * Provide cashier service for collection of fees. * Transfer function to finance area of RHQ where possible. * Support for other areas of DoT responsibility - e.g. Marine Survey, Commonwealth Lighthouse Service ships * Transfer officers concerned to appropriate area where non-MMO duties predominate. Senator HAMER —I thank the Senate. I will outline just one of the items included in this schedule-an item that causes me concern. According to function 8, the Mercantile Marine Office controls vessel manning standards, which means issuing a certificate of clearance to the master of a ship prior to departure from a port, issuing manning exemptions to permit a ship to sail short of the prescribed level of manning, and checking entries made in the ship's logbook. The proposal now is that this function be completely discontinued, except for the central check of logbooks returned to the Department on termination. This was the first recommendation of the scrutiny review and, with the qualification I will come to in a moment, it is acceptable. The second recommendation was to recover all costs incurred by the Government in providing the services to the Australian shipping industry. Thirdly, the scrutiny review recommended a variation in the departmental budget allocations based on the implementation of the new proposals. Fourthly, the scrutiny review recommended that the Department of Transport continue to administer the marine cooks, marine stewards and seamen's engagement system under the appropriate awards but that this should be reviewed in the event of changes to industry arrangements such as the replacement of industry employment with company employment. That would be a dramatically important change. However, it is one that the Government has not grasped. Fifthly, the review recommended that the Department continue the linking of its central office and regional mercantile marine operations by a computer facility and integrate its regional mercantile marine operation with its other regional activities. The review recommended that legislation be introduced as quickly as possible to amend the Navigation Act to incorporate the new arrangements. Some hope! Despite the final recommendation, the Government has been slow to respond. The report was completed in March 1987 and it has taken over a year since then for this legislation to come before us. I do want to say a little more on the engagement system as it stands at present in Australia. I was delighted that the scrutiny review floated the possibility of a change from industry employment of seamen to company employment. I was also delighted to see that a recent Industries Assistance Commission report on coastal shipping also criticised the present engagement system, because our present engagement system is a disaster. Unlike almost every other industry in Australia and all shipping industries overseas, ratings in Australia are employed by the industry as a whole through a pooling arrangement and not by individual shipping companies, although ships' officers are permanent company employees. Ratings are assigned to vessels according to a roster operated by the Seamen's Union of Australia and the Stewards Union. Ratings not assigned to a ship are paid attendance money, which is roughly equivalent to the unemployment benefit and is financed by levies on Australian shipowners and ship operators. This engagement system is not only very costly-approximately $3m a year-but also highly inefficient. Ratings may be assigned to any ship, so there is no feeling of loyalty or dedication by a rating for his employer of the moment. Besides, the rating is safe in the knowledge that if the company that is operating the ship on which he is serving goes out of business, he simply will return to the pool to await relocation to a ship of another company. There is no way to weed out unsuitable and substandard seamen. There is no incentive for the shipowner to provide expensive training for seamen because the benefit of this training is lost when they are assigned to another ship. This Bill does nothing at all about this very serious problem. The other amendments to the Navigation Act in this Bill are mostly of a minor nature. They eliminate anachronisms, such as the word `apprentice', and update other sections of the Act relating to penalties and contracts of sea service. Likewise, the amendments to the Shipping Registration Act and the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act are mainly designed to correct anomalies and update procedures. I now turn to the amendments that relate to air navigation charges and the Federal Airports Corporation. When this Act was introduced into the House of Representatives the shadow Minister for transport, Mr Beale, asked a number of questions of the Minister in that House but he did not receive an answer to any of them. Therefore, I would like to repeat these questions here and seek some answers from the Minister of Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) on the queries and concerns of the Opposition. If the Minister is worried about the questions, they are identical to those that were asked by Mr Beale in the House of Representatives and not responded to. Senator Gareth Evans —For good reason, no doubt. Senator HAMER —The good reason was that the Minister in the other place did not know the answers, but I hope Senator Evans will. Firstly, what is the basis in legislation that enabled the Federal Airports Corporation to levy charges on the industry from its vesting day of 1 January 1988 to the present if the Government now proposes to introduce amendments to clarify who will be charged and for what services? Why does the Government need these amendments to clarify who will be charged for what services provided by the Federal Airports Corporation? Secondly, has this resulted in anyone refusing to pay charges levied by the Federal Airports Corporation? If so, have any charges been able to be avoided quite legitimately by users of the Federal Airports Corporation facilities? Thirdly, is the Minister aware that there have been cases of this matter being raised by users of the Federal Airports Corporation facilities, and have the people who have raised these matters with the Corporation had their charges remitted to them? Are the amendments to the Federal Airports Corporation legislation before us an admission by the Government that the entire Federal Airports Corporation Act is riddled with drafting errors and has unintended consequences? Fourthly, does the Minister maintain that there is no question of the Federal Airports Corporation being able to levy and enforce charges on the industry? If so, why is the Government introducing the amendment? If not, what is the intent of the amendment? Finally, if the Government admits that once again it has been proven wrong and has rushed ahead without really knowing the implications of its action, of its legislation, is it not the case that all charges levied by the Federal Airports Corporation since its inception on 1 January 1988 will be returned to the industry upon the industry applying for remission of these charges? Are the amendments being put forward now because the legislation is so flawed that all users of Federal Airports Corporation facilities will have remitted to them, on application to the Corporation, all charges that it has levied on them? There are examples where users of the facilities have pointed out the apparent anomaly to the Department of Transport and Communications and the Federal Airports Corporation and have been granted full remission. Why were some users given remissions? Was it to buy the silence of those particular users until these amendments could be pushed through the Parliament? The Government has, I understand, given a guarantee to the Australian Democrats that these amendments will not involve retrospectivity. Does that mean that there is some credibility in the arguments that these amendments are, in fact, retrospective in nature? I understand that Senator Sanders, on behalf of the Australian Democrats, will be moving amendments to eliminate possible retrospective aspects and the Opposition will be supporting these amendments. The Opposition opposed the Federal Airports Corporation Bill when it first came before the Parliament in November 1985. We opposed it because we believe that there are far too many quangos or statutory authorities in Australia and we believe that the structural limitations and restrictions of such authorities make them an inappropriate structure for a commercial business enterprise. The Opposition would have preferred an airport company with all the shares owned by the Commonwealth. This would have provided genuine separation from ministerial direction and the Public Service and would have allowed complete commercial freedom. We also opposed the original Bill because it was contrary to the findings of the Bosch Independent Inquiry into Aviation Cost Recovery which recommended that the Corporation should be given as much commercial freedom as possible in undertaking its operations. None of the recommendations of that report were accepted or incorporated. The Opposition was also concerned that the combination of corporation charges and new airways charges would in total be higher than at present and would force up air fares. The Opposition believed then and still believes that the policy of separate accountable airport management is superior to the arrangements under the Federal Airports Corporation Act. Because the Opposition does have certain misgivings about this legislation and, more particularly, about the attitude of the Government towards the appalling state of Australia's shipping industry, I move: At end of motion, add ``, but the Senate condemns the Government for its failure in the transport and aviation areas, and in particular for its failure to: (a) provide an appropriate capital base for the two government-owned airlines; and (b) address immediately the rorts and inefficiencies on Australian ships and the waterfront''. Before I conclude, I would like to mention some of the rorts which are causing immense harm to the whole Australian economy. I have mentioned one that is covered by this Bill but is not tackled by it, and that is the system of engagement whereby people are not engaged by the companies that employ them. Another that is mentioned often is the practice of giving a generous leave entitlement of virtually one day's leave for every day served. This is twice as much leave as that enjoyed by a West German and four times as much as is given to British or Japanese seamen who come from countries which have higher national incomes than ours. First class accommodation and first class air travel are provided for changeover crews. Very few employees in the Australian work force and, as far as I can determine, no overseas crews of foreign countries are entitled to such a provision. In addition to having to pay first class air fares, the cost is further increased by the fact that crew members are paid award rates for days spent travelling to and from their ship. The cost is further inflated because of the inflexibility of the crew roster system which dictates that crew changes take place at six-week intervals, regardless of where the ship is. Medical expenses are also very high. For example, a seaman who is sick for more than seven days is entitled to a further seven days leave even after he has recovered. That provision is unique, not only in Australian industry, but I think throughout the world. In addition, a certain number of crew are required to fill each berth. We require 2.2 people to fill each crew berth as compared with 1.6 in typical comparable foreign countries. It is very important to our whole economy that savings be made by bringing these practices into line with those of comparable wealthy nations. The question of manning levels has been dealt with many times in this chamber. Those levels are still far too high. Even though they are coming down, they are still far higher than those of comparable nations. Something should be done under this legislation to deal with at least these inefficiencies. When is the Government going to take serious action in respect of inefficiency on our waterfront and the inefficiency of our shipping which are great economic liabilities for this country. All that the Government does is wring its hands and say, `It takes time. There must be consultation, not confrontation'. One does not end the monopoly by timid negotiations. One has to end the monopoly either by introducing enforceable laws or by introducing competition. This Government is constantly addressing problems, to use the words of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), but it very rarely does anything about them. It is becoming more and more clear that, in this crucial area of the Australian economy, the Government has neither the will nor the intention to do anything effective about it. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(1.12) —The Australian Democrats are in broad agreement with the thrust of the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 1988. We note that Senator Hamer has criticised certain aspects of the way the industry is managed by the Government. We agree that improvements need to be made. But we feel that, in general, the Government, in terms of its transportation policies, is really trying to do the best thing possible for the Australian people. I take a bit of exception to the part of this Bill which amends the Federal Airports Corporation Act 1986. As Senator Hamer has already said, we will be moving amendments to this part of the Bill at the committee stage. The Federal Airports Corporation (FAC) was established to break up the monolithic control over aviation that has been exhibited over the years by the Department of Aviation. The Department is seen universally by everyone in the industry, including pilots in general aviation, as an organisation which is no longer interested in aviation safety or, in fact, anything to do with the common good. In fact, it is seen as an organisation which has grown in the Parkinsonian sense to a stage where it is interested only in its own survival. The Government has seen this and has responded to the many complaints of organisations and individuals such as Dick Smith. Indeed, some 700 or 800 people made submissions-I made submissions as a pilot-to the inquiry which came about as a result of Dick Smith's efforts. Senator MacGibbon —You might as well have saved your time. Senator SANDERS —As Senator MacGibbon says, `We might as well have saved our time'. But hope springs eternal in the human breast and the Government is trying to do something about it. All of us who watch Yes, Minister or Yes, Prime Minister know the resilience of bureaucrats. However, the Government is doing its best. All of us in the aviation area are sceptical about the FAC which was established by the Government. We hope that it will work. We are a bit worried about the way it collects its funds, we are worried about retrospectivity and we are worried about our rights in general. I will go into the reasons for this scepticism in greater detail in the upcoming debate on the Civil Aviation Bill 1988. So at this stage I would like to say that we do support in broad terms the Bill under discussion and indicate that we will be moving amendments at the committee stage. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(1.15) —I thank the Senate for its support of this measure even though sometimes that support was couched with some rather churlish asides. But I do not think it is appropriate to spend the time of the Senate going into that in any detail. Senator MacGibbon —You want to clean up the FAC and get some honest people at the top. Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not think there is any doubt about the honesty of the people at the top of the aviation administration. Senator MacGibbon —No, the FAC. You have people there of dubious honesty. Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not think that is a very reasonable thing to say, Senator MacGibbon, under cover of parliamentary privilege without substantial supporting evidence. If the honourable senator does have any such evidence, I would obviously be willing to receive it and to treat it on its merits. But I do not think it is acceptable behaviour simply to make an assertion like that and expect it to be taken other than in the way that I just have. I will reserve my fire on that until I see what he comes up with. The measure before us is effectively uncontroversial. We have had some complaint by Senator Hamer about the insufficiently wide distribution of the Block review report on the administration of mercantile marine offices, which underlies the first set of amendments in the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 1988. I simply remind him that he, among others, had no difficulty in obtaining the document in question when he asked for it and there has been no suggestion of any secrecy by the Government in its willingness to make the document available to anyone with an interest in it. I should say at the outset that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Hamer is, of course, rejected by the Government. We do not accept that we failed to provide an appropriate capital base for the two government-owned airlines. It is a matter of ongoing discussion as to how that capital base can best be provided. But it is quite premature to make any judgment of that kind. As to the question of alleged rorts and inefficiencies on Australian ships and the waterfront, no-one who has any knowledge or experience of this industry could deny that there are areas of inefficiency and, arguably even in some instances, rorting left in the industry. But I can assure honourable senators that these matters are being addressed with vigour and effectiveness. Any complaint about manning levels in Australian shipping needs to be made against the background that right up until the early 1980s, and certainly under the stewardship of the Liberal and National Party Administration, the average manning levels in Australian ships were of the order of 38 people. Now, under the arrangements that have been introduced in the course of our Government, those levels are down to 21 and, hopefully, there will be opportunities for further manning efficiencies in the future, contingent upon the further development of the Australian shipping industry which we all hope will occur. There are many other specific points that I could make, but I think the only ones that I really need to address in any detail are those made by Senator Hamer in respect of the Federal Airports Corporation (FAC) legislation. The honourable senator repeated a series of quite specific questions that were asked in the other place. I think the best way of answering those questions is compendiously in the following way: The amendments in question have been prepared by the Government, at my request, really in response to the FAC's request to clarify the aeronautical charges provisions of the FAC Act in so far as the power of the Corporation to specify in determinations of aeronautical charges the persons by whom charges are payable and the times when the charges are due and payable. The issue arose as a result of letters sent to me and the FAC by one Mr B. Candler, a fairly indefatigable pursuer of the public, and perhaps even, indeed, the private interest in these matters, who considers the FAC's current determination of charges to be invalid and has refused to pay charges levied on him. Fairly mountainous correspondence in respect of this matter has now accumulated and I am advised that the amount in issue is $34.72. The basic question concerns the validity of the determination made by the FAC. The proposed amendments to section 56 merely serve to clarify, as I have already said, the FAC's powers. I am advised that the FAC made a commercial decision to waive the charges rather than become involved in actions being initiated by Mr Candler under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. Should other operators attempt to evade the payment of aeronautical charges levied by the FAC, in the first instance it would be a matter for the FAC to decide on commercial grounds what action it should take to recover its costs and fulfil its financial obligations to the Commonwealth. It should not be assumed, in other words, that in the future anyone with an outstanding charge of $34.72 or less can resist the payment of that charge with impunity. Senator Sanders —It helps if he is a member of a particular profession. Senator GARETH EVANS —There is an element of truth about that, but it is a relationship I am not very keen publicly to own up to any longer. The inclusion of a provision in the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill that amendments to the FAC Act included in the Bill be taken to have commenced at the commencement of the FAC Act was intended to encompass within the Corporation's capital, as defined by the Act, a determination made by Ministers in December 1987 of the amount of liability for accrued staff entitlements transferred by the Commonwealth to the Corporation. I hope that explains why the timing of the start-up is as it is. While the Minister's involvement in the timing and level of charges does not arise until a specific determination has been submitted to him, the FAC has advised that it is not its intention to seek to introduce a retrospective determination. However, to put that particular matter beyond doubt, I foreshadow that the Government has accepted the amendment to be moved in this respect by Senator Sanders in the committee stage. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(1.23) —by leave-I move: (1) Page 1, subclause 2 (1), after ``sections 4, 8, 9,'', insert ``13''. (2) Page 2, subclause 2 (2), leave out the subclause, insert the following subclause: ``(2) Sections 10, 11, 12, 14 and 15 shall be taken to have commenced at the commencement of the Federal Airports Corporation Act 1986.''. (3) Page 4, paragraph 13 (c), leave out the paragraph, insert the following paragraph: ``(c) by adding at the end the following subsection: `(10) An aeronautical charge shall not be fixed at an amount that exceeds the amount that is reasonably related to the expenses incurred or to be incurred by the Authority in relation to the matters in respect of which the charge is payable and shall not be such as to amount to taxation.'.''. Briefly, as was mentioned in the second reading debate, these amendments provide for protection against retrospectivity. Amendment (1) provides for the amendments to section 56 of the Federal Airports Corporation Act 1986 to operate from royal assent. It will prevent any possibility of aeronautical charges being imposed retrospectively by the Federal Airports Corporation. Amendment (2) is consequential upon amendment (1). Amendment (3) restores the second element of the protection against surreptitious revenue raising found in paragraph 26 (2) (ca) of the Air Navigation Act 1920, upon which this clause is modelled. I am not going to delay the Committee by giving any further explanation. I believe that the amendments are self-explanatory. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(1.24) —The Opposition will be supporting these amendments which are necessary, and in any case desirable, to clarify the issue. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(1.24) —The Government, I make clear for the record, does not oppose the amendments. Amendments agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a third time. [COGNATE BILL: INTERSTATE ROAD TRANSPORT AMENDMENT BILL 1988] Debate resumed from 23 May, on motion by Senator Tate: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications) —Mr Deputy President, I suggest that it might suit the convenience of the Senate for this Bill, the Interstate Road Transport Amendment Charge Bill 1988, to be debated cognately with the Interstate Road Transport Amendment Bill 1988, which is Order of the Day No. 27. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Is it the wish of the Senate to follow this course? There being no objection, it is so ordered. Senator PANIZZA(Western Australia)(1.26) —The Senate is debating the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 1988 and the Interstate Road Transport Amendment Bill 1988. The Bills seek to revise registration fees; increase the maximum loading or gross combination mass (GCM) to 42.5 tonne; increase the speed limits of heavy vehicles to 100 kilometres an hour, except in the case of road trains; revise driving hours in the eastern mainland States, but Western Australia is strangely omitted; and ban smoking on interstate buses. The coalition supports these measures as an aid to a very important industry. But I am disappointed to note that while the Government has seen fit to increase charges on interstate vehicles, it chooses to ignore the railway situation and the waterfront. I foreshadow an amendment in relation to the motion for the second reading of the Interstate Road Transport Amendment Bill, which I believe has been circulated on behalf of the Opposition. That amendment reads: At end of motion, add: ``, but the Senate condemns the Government for: (a) failing to provide adequate funding for roads; (b) failing to address the appalling state and low level of cost recovery of the Australian railway network; and (c) increasing taxes on the transport industry. The recently released Industries Assistance Commission report showed that inefficiencies on coastal shipping are costing the community between $500m and $700m a year. The railways of Australia, as stated in the report of the Inter-State Commission, are recovering only 70 per cent of costs while the road transport system is expected, under this Bill, to recover in excess of 100 per cent. This does not lead to fair competition. A more efficient railway across Australia, making more use of the piggy-back system, would improve the transport system. This would prevent damage to and improve the safety of the road across the Nullarbor. A lot of accidents have resulted from fatigue caused by the long distances involved. As one who has been actively involved with the transport industry over the past 30 years, both as a driver and proprietor, I would like to discuss some of the details in the time available to me. The lighter vehicle registration fees have remained as they were but heavier vehicle charges have risen dramatically. For prime movers up to 38 tonnes GCM, the charge has been set at $1,000, even though the review recommended that it go to $1,505. Prime movers over 38 tonnes GCM and up to the new 42.5 tonnes GCM will attract a charge of $3,135. This is a big hike when one considers that the previous limit was $600. With such a big jump in the last four and a half tonnes of GCM, it could have been quite easy for the Government to phase in the extra charge but it did not do so. There are a lot of other charges in addition to this $3,135 on prime movers-charges such as stamp duty on registration fees. These rises could be accepted by the industry. However, nothing has been done to increase the recovery of costs by the railways which are achieving recovery rates of 70 per cent on general freight and 30 per cent in the passenger area. The other point that the Government must address is that now Federal vehicles are registered and costs are being recovered, the States could be in a position to add their own charges. This point was highlighted in an inter-state Commission review, which I would go into in more detail if I had the time to do so. For instance, New South Wales could levy its own charges and thereby create a trade barrier against Victorian goods. New South Wales could impose a charge on Victorian transporters. This would increase the cost of freighting goods to New South Wales and thereby make the goods dearer and put New South Wales goods at an advantage. Of course this question has to be addressed by the Government once and for all to make sure that, having initiated a pretty good system of transport throughout Australia, the State governments will not start putting on their own charges willy-nilly. The question of permits in Western Australia also has to be addressed. The maximum GCM limit in Western Australia is 41 tonnes but a permit can be obtained to operate triaxle trailers of up to 42 1/2 tonnes. In some cases, federally registered vehicles which go across to Western Australia will have to obtain a permit. This does not allow for the free flow of the transport throughout Australia. One could probably say that one need obtain a permit only once. But this is a fiddly thing that we should not have to bother about. If 42 1/2 tonnes GCM is to be the upper limit for a prime mover with trailer-and this, incidentally, is welcomed by the transport industry-a properly registered truck should be able to travel anywhere without, as I have said, any further charges. The legislation sets down a very sensible set of driving hours. Those hours are: five hours per shift maximum; 15 hours per day maximum; and 75 hours per week maximum. Agreement has been reached with the industry on the hours, which are sensible. Yet, no provision has been made to enforce them in Western Australia. This means that a truck entering Western Australia has open slather in terms of driving hours and speed. Drivers who are tired after crossing the Nullarbor can cause a lot of accidents in the western wheat belt towns and the built-up areas of Perth. I have known of a driver who drove non-stop from Port Augusta to Merredin where he unfortunately went to sleep and had an accident. He went off the left hand side of the road. Not only did he kill himself, but he killed a motorist coming the other way. The log book system has been in use in the eastern States for quite a few years. But it simply does not work. The only reason interstate or intrastate drivers that I know do not have two books is that they have three. So there has to be a way of improving the system of policing truck drivers. If Western Australian police, or any other police force, are unwilling or unable to police driving hours-and, incidentally, driving hours are on the statute books in Western Australia, but they are totally ignored-government and industry should get together to adopt a different system. Probably they can look at the possibility of installing the tachograph system in prime movers. I know that this is not a popular move in Australia. But I have been able to see how the system works in Europe. I have ridden with transporters and seen it in operation at first hand. All details are recorded, such as speed, stops, time of starting and time of stopping. It is compulsory for drivers to keep the disc for one month and have it available for inspection. Drivers and operators can be fined for non-compliance with regulations. As I said, it may not be a popular move but, once it has been installed, I think the industry and drivers will accept it. After all, the system is installed in railway engines and aeroplanes. The decision to lift the speed limit to 100 kilometres an hour, except in the case of road trains, is a welcome move which will help to reduce the impatience of car drivers. A lot of accidents are caused by cars overtaking trucks. Drivers get impatient if they have to sit behind a truck travelling at 80 kilometres an hour. Now at least they will be able to travel at 100 kilometres an hour. Of course, the speed limit must be policed. I think the main abusers of speed limits are interstate bus drivers. I have personally clocked interstate buses at 140 kilometres an hour at night time and this sort of thing must be stopped. Once again, the tachograph could be helpful in ensuring that bus drivers obey the speed limits. As I said, the coalition supports most of the legislation, but the Government has many shortcomings in respect of the transport industry and roads. Because of time constraints, I will have to curtail my remarks somewhat. I would like to see the introduction of B-doubles which are a very efficient means of transporting bulk materials. This type of configuration involves the use of two trailers without a dolly in the middle. These trailers are very manoeuvrable and are pulled by one prime mover. However, they do not fall into the road train category. They have a high payload capacity compared with conventional vehicles. As a small example, one can haul a 35-tonne payload with only a 20-tonne tare. In fact the McColl Royal Commission into Grain Storage, Handling and Storage said that this could be an efficient way of moving things. Length could be a problem but one would need only an extension of the maximum length from 17 metres-- Senator Gareth Evans —Length is a problem just right now. Senator PANIZZA —I am getting towards the end of my speech. One would only need an extension from 17 metres to 23 metres. Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a chart showing the efficiencies of B-doubles in Australia. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Table 10.2 ESTIMATED COST SAVINGS AND ARTICULATED FLEET REDUCTIONS Operation Increase in Unit Operating Costs Increase in Unit Capacity Potential Reduction in Fleet Size Potential Cost Saving Estimated Fleet Reduction Estimated Cost Saving % % % % % % Tanker ... 25 71 42 28 21 14 Express Freight ... 18 47 32 20 9 6 General Freight ... 18 47 32 20 20 13 Dry Bulk Freight ... 19 67 40 29 40 29 Overall ... 18 47 32 20 23 17 Source: Based on ARTF submission Notes: Values are expressed as percentages of the equivalent for six-axle articulated vehicles. Senator PANIZZA —I thank the Senate. I would now like to touch on safety. The Australian transport industry should be looking at better braking methods. The Kershaw system that has been developed in Queensland has a lot going for it in terms of preventing jackknifing. Consideration should be given to fitting the ABS system into buses. If the Senate wants me to, I can go into a detailed analysis of how it works, but I will not at this stage. This system is used in Europe and it is certainly a great factor in preventing skidding. A driver uses his standard brakes for emergencies. One has to look at the roads and bridges that are used by transporters which will be heavier and faster. Having kept the road funding at $1.254 billion for four years, we have had a cut in real terms of 40 per cent. Of course, last night we had another cut of $50m. As has been said in the report of the Inter-State Commission, the total number of transport vehicles will increase by 60 per cent by the year 2000. If this is to be the sort of cut we can expect in road funding, it is a disaster. To add insult to injury, only 24 per cent of funds raised in the name of roads by way of a fuel tax is going back to roads. Take the case of the Australian bicentennial road development program. The Fraser Government set aside 2c a litre for road funding. Senator McKiernan —Oh! Senator PANIZZA —Senator McKiernan does not want to hear what I have to say, but I will give it to him again. This Government has aborted the system by keeping the indexed part of the 2c per litre in Consolidated Revenue. At present the Government is retaining 0.6832c per litre which could be going back into roads. I welcome the move to ban smoking on interstate buses. Some liaison will have to be carried out with States because a lot of buses are licensed for interstate and intrastate operation. It could be said that two passengers sitting next to each other could be under different rules-one could be smoking legally and the other one not. In conclusion, I believe that some good will come out of these two Bills. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(1.41) —I thank the Senate for its support of these measures. Senator Panizza has raised a number of interesting matters, but I share his conviction that this is not the time or place to pursue them further. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Debate resumed from 23 May, on motion by Senator Tate: That the Bill be now read a second time. Amendment (by Senator Panizza) negatived: At end of motion, add: ``, but the Senate condemns the Government for: (a) failing to provide adequate funding for roads; (b) failing to address the appalling state and low level of cost recovery of the Australian railway network; and (c) increasing taxes on the transport industry''. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. [COGNATE BILL: CRIMES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1988] Debate resumed from 13 April, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice) —I propose that the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill 1988 be debated cognately with the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1988. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Is it the wish of the Senate that the two Bills be taken together? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(1.44) —The Senate is debating two Bills, the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill 1988 and the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1988. The primary purpose of the first Bill, the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill, is to repeal section 63, the sunset clause of the National Crime Authority Act 1984; to allow the National Crime Authority's continued existence beyond 30 June 1989; and to make some related and consequential amendments to the terms of the office of the Chairman and members of the Authority. The Bill also contains a transitional provision which will enable the present Chairman, Mr Justice Stewart, an additional year-one year longer than the existing four-year limitation on the term of appointment of members-and clarify the position of judges operating under the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979. The Opposition parties support the thrust of the amendment Bill. The National Crime Authority has our full support and we support the repeal of the five-year sunset clause. Indeed, we initiated such a Bill on two occasions in the Senate only to see the Bills not debated. In 1980 the Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union was established with Mr Costigan as the Commissioner. The work of the Commission convinced the Fraser Government of the need for a body to investigate organised crime because of the concern that criminal law in Australia was ill equipped to deal with any organised basis for illegal activities. My colleague the then Attorney-General, Senator Durack, undertook extensive study of international law enforcement agencies and had consultations with the top law enforcement officers of the United States of America, the United Kingdom and Hong Kong and had subsequently close consultations with the Australian States at ministerial level. The end product was the National Crimes Commission Bill which was passed through Parliament at the end of 1982. The Commission had in fact not been established at the time of the 1983 election and the Hawke Government, always loath to accept the wisdom of the coalition parties, sought some alternatives but, ultimately, had to accept the fact that there was a need for an ongoing authority. This Bill puts the NCA on a permanent basis, but does not address the review of the legislation in the light of operational experience which the NCA recommended be undertaken in order that proposals for changes can be considered in time for inclusion in amending legislation. Clause 7 amends the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 to clarify the position of judges operating under the Act. Such judges will have the same protection and immunity as justices of the High Court have when acting in relation to proceedings in that Court. The major amendments of the second piece of legislation, the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1988 deal with five separate Acts. The amendment to the Customs Act 1901 will give the NCA the same power to use listening devices under that Act as is currently held by the Australian Federal Police and allow a wider range of information to be given by the NCA to law enforcement bodies. The amendments to the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1987 substitute a new definition of political offence with the same meaning as in the Extradition Act 1988 and clarify the immunities of people coming to Australia to give evidence. The amendments make it clear that such people will be immune from civil suits that a person could not be subject to, if that person were not in Australia. At present, the NCA may only distribute information either relating to a relevant criminal activity or gained in the course of its activities. This prevents the distribution of information to law enforcement agencies, which is relevant to those bodies, but which was not gained in either of those manners. I refer, for example, to the sort of information that the Authority might receive from an unsolicited tip-off. Clause 21 will amend section 59 of the National Crime Authority Act 1984 to allow the NCA to communicate all relevant information to law enforcement agencies. Provision is also made to extend the definition of Australian forfeiture order under the Proceeds of Crime Act for the forfeiture of property in respect of an offence against Australian law. This will enable overseas enforcement of such orders. The proposal in relation to the National Crime Authority (Status and Rights of Chairman) Act 1984 is consequential upon an amendment in the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill 1988 and their cognate debate emphasises the point of the complexity that is being created by this constant amendment of legislation every time someone in the Attorney-General's office gets a bright idea. The Government recently advised that the practice of introducing statute law miscellaneous provisions Bills to deal with technical and non-controversial amendments would cease. It is hoped that this package of sloppy amendments does not foreshadow a continued supply of equally sloppy portfolio-related omnibus Bills. While the Bills are not being opposed by the Opposition, the practice of constantly amending Bills smacks of some form of adhockery and bad work practices and not only adds to the complexity of the legislation but frankly adds substantially to compliance costs. As I have indicated, the Opposition will not, therefore, be opposing either of these Bills. Senator McGAURAN(Victoria)(1.50) —The two Crimes Legislation Amendment Bills before the Senate mark a very important step in the history of the fight against organised crime in Australia. The Bills not only extend the life of the National Crime Authority (NCA) by repealing the sunset clause but also extend the powers of the operation of the NCA. Probably the most important area of debate is the repeal of the sunset clause of the original National Crime Act. I give my full and wholehearted support to the extending of the life of the NCA. The NCA in principle and in action has a most important role in the health of Australian society. As the chamber is well aware, the NCA was established primarily due to the Costigan and Stewart royal commissions which gave enough evidence that such an Authority was sorely needed in this country. They said that a special agency was required because of the inadequacy of the existing criminal law to deal with organised crime and that normal police powers were not adequate enough. One of the reasons for this inadequacy, according to a recent report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the National Crime Authority, is that the State and Federal police lack sufficient resources. This should be an area of serious concern. Although we do have the NCA, if Australia is to succeed in its fight against organised crime in this country the law enforcement agencies of the States and the Federal police must have sufficient resources so that the NCA can rely on them. A great deal of praise must go to Senator Durack for the part he played and the contribution he made in the establishment of the NCA. Senator Durack, as the Attorney-General in 1980, undertook, as Senator Lewis pointed out, extensive international consultations as well as extensive State consultations. Senator Durack contributed greatly to the establishment of the NCA and when he was given the authority and responsibility of a person in public life he moved to protect and uphold the values of law and order in our society. I congratulate the NCA on its achievements, such as revealing and destroying the Cornwell-Bull drug syndicate. While it has been claimed that the NCA is yet to make progress in successfully prosecuting the Mr Bigs of crime, the arrest and successful prosecution rates of the NCA should not be underestimated in measuring the success of the NCA. Regardless of the so-called scalps or successful prosecutions, the establishment of the Authority does have a very strong and potent deterrent effect. By its very existence, it increases the fear and caution in the minds of those who might seek to enter the field of organised activity. Heaven knows what lengths organised crime would go to if unchecked by a body such as the NCA. Mr Frank Costigan, in a chapter of his report, argued that the ultimate objective must be to suppress organised crime. He said: It would be better to state that it be destroyed. However, from what I have observed in Australia and from what I have read of similar problems in other countries, it appears that its destruction is unattainable. I do not accept in full Mr Costigan's conclusions but, whatever the conclusions, we who serve this Parliament have the utmost responsibility in promoting measures to prevent the growth and perpetuation of crime in our society. Organised crime does erode the basic harmony of Australian society. It undermines the public's confidence in its representatives and institutions and, above all, destroys the future of young Australians. The problem of attacking organised crime presents a very legitimate concern to those of us who are defenders of civil liberty. Yet it must be remembered that the civil liberties of Australians are affected by the operations of the crime bosses. Moreover, the NCA believes it has identified the Australian equivalent of the mafia and triad organisations overseas. It believes that such groups do have links with the United States, Hong Kong and Italy. With evidence mounting daily that Australia is being absorbed into the international crime networks, we need to avoid acting on the defensive and instead be prepared to seize the initiative. It is, then, with concern that there is a strong body of opinion that the existing business migration program is increasingly being used as a vehicle to introduce crime networks into Australia and to allow the crime bosses entry to Australia. If this Government is genuine and serious about tackling organised crime and about accepting the very clear warnings of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the NCA, it would investigate the business migration program and carry out a review of that program-a review that would look at the existing abuse of the business migration program and a review that would recommend new and tighter laws governing the scheme. As it stands today, the security checks are nothing but a sham. It goes against all the good work that the NCA is attempting to do in this country. But, worse, the scheme is in danger of setting in concrete the networks of domestic crime groups with international crime groups. The Assistant Director of the Institute of Criminology is on record as saying that members of the triads are entering Australia via the business migration program under the false pretence of being genuine businessmen. Mr Bingham, one of the three founding members of the NCA, has called for more thorough checks on business migrants to prevent people involved in organised crime entering Australia. It has been reported in the Melbourne Age that the NCA has called also for more thorough checks under the business migration program. As Hong Kong migrants make up 40 per cent of this program, as Hong Kong is the centre of one of the worst forms of organised crime, namely, the triads, and as Communist China will be taking over Hong Kong in 1997, the Hong Kong applicants should be of particular concern. We do not want the rats, being the crime bosses, who are jumping off the ship in Hong Kong to be thrown the life raft by Australia. Clearly, tighter scrutiny is needed to prevent a fast track entry into Australia for the Chinese godfathers. At the present moment the procedures for checking abuse by criminals of the business migration program is useless to non-existent because the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs has handed its migrant screening procedures to private agents. Does this Government really believe that these agents in Hong Kong have the skills or indeed the resources to identify organised crime figures? Is this sham what the Government wants? After all, look at Australia's present immigration program for homosexuals. Legitimate, hard-working potential migrants with families are queued up to get into Australia, but we have reached the stage where homosexuals or crime bosses will probably have a better chance of being welcomed into this country than any working man applying to enter. What is clearly needed is a review of the business migration program. A formal monitoring program needs to be introduced. This will, of course, require closer links between the Immigration Department and the NCA; more formal links between the NCA and overseas organisations, such as the Hong Kong Serious and Organised Crime Unit; and, without a doubt, the scrapping of the accredited agents who handle applications under the business migration program. Policies need to be introduced to check the abuses of the program whereby the $500,000 required to enter turns out merely to be a loan to be channelled back to the home country once that migrant enters Australia. One model available for study by the Government is the migrant investor scheme used in Singapore. This scheme requires the business migrant to place a minimum of about $350,000 into a government approved interest bearing trust over five years to show his genuineness. The scheme would go some way to establishing the genuineness of the applicant. In conclusion, I give my support to this legislation but I do point out that there is serious concern about the effect of the business migration program on society and its ability to undermine the NCA's fight against organised crime. Debate interrupted. Senator CHANEY —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, as Minister representing the Prime Minister. Will the Minister confirm that, as reported by the respected commentator Mr Ross Gittins, in the next financial year the average wage earner on just under $500 a week will pay more than $13.60 extra a week in tax, of which $5.40 a week is due to bracket creep, and that the proportion of income going in tax to the Hawke Government will rise from 24.2c in the dollar to 25.2c? Is this putting in individual terms what the Treasurer meant last night in saying that reductions in personal income tax would have to be paid for in advance-presumably through continuing fiscal drag until at least 1989-90? How much of that extra tax take is the Government planning to give back in its so-called tax cuts before the next election? Senator BUTTON —I cannot confirm the precise figures which Senator Chaney put to me, but I certainly confirm that, as has happened historically with levels of inflation that we have had in this country over a number of years, there has been bracket creep, as it is called, in the taxation system. That applied under the previous Government-except for its abortive attempt to introduce tax indexation-and it has applied under this Government. I am surprised at Senator Chaney's concern about people in receipt of average weekly earnings, the Liberal Party and the Opposition having opposed 19 of the last 21 national wage increases which flowed to people on average weekly earnings and below. Senator Stone —Along with the inflation they produced. Senator BUTTON —That may be so. It is a fact, nonetheless. With regard to any undertaking or statement I can make about the personal income tax reductions which will be announced next year, of course I cannot do that. That will depend on a variety of circumstances and, as is indicated in the May statement, it will depend in part on the level of wage increases pertaining in the community. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I note the Minister's lack of knowledge about the impact of these matters on individuals in the community. I ask him, therefore, the same question in global terms. Does he agree that the total increase in taxation revenue over the next year attributable to fiscal drag, even on the Treasurer's unrealistically conservative assumption, will be at least $1.1 billion and, more likely, over $1.5 billion? Senator BUTTON —With regard to my knowledge of particular matters as they affect individual income earners, Senator Chaney asked whether I would confirm, on behalf of the Prime Minister, the figures presented in an article by Ross Gittins this morning. Senator Chaney —Don't you check these things? Senator BUTTON —Senator Chaney interjects, `Don't you check these things?'. What Senator Chaney does and what the Liberal Party does before deciding their attitude to any economic issue is to read what the commentators say and then try to fall into line with them. The thing that hurts most about Government economic statements is that they involve a strategy which is quite clear and which was never apparent in any period that I can remember in which a conservative government was in power. I will certainly try to get the aggregate figure confirmed if Senator Chaney regards that as important, but the point of his original question concerned the impact on individuals. Senator COLLINS —Has the Minister for Transport and Communications seen the assertion by the Opposition spokesman on communications, Senator Messner, that the new price capping system for regulating telecommunications prices is inconsistent with Australia's free market economy? Is this analysis by Senator Messner accurate? Senator GARETH EVANS —In the statement cobbled together by Senator Messner last night, in which he exposed the media to the full force of his obviously very considerable knowledge of the global telecommunications scene, at one point he remarked: These new price control mechanisms are more likely to be found in the heavily regulated Communist bloc countries rather than a free market economy like Australia. Although I am deeply gratified that some people at least still think after recent months that my left wing credentials are still intact, I am compelled to come clean and inform Senator Messner that the new price capping arrangements are loosely modelled on the system introduced in Mrs Thatcher's United Kingdom and which are administered by the British telecommunications regulatory authority, Oftel. The only other country which runs a system-the so-called `CPI minus X price' system-along the same lines as proposed for Austel is, to my knowledge, France. I do not know whether Senator Messner's appreciation of current geopolitics is such as to make him place President Mitterrand in the communist controlled bloc, but the analysis is an absurd one. The pricing mechanisms which the Government has decided on and which will be administered in Australia by the proposed new telecommunications authority, Austel, are aimed squarely at providing consumer benefits by guaranteeing that the productivity gains that can and will be achieved by the telecommunications carriers are passed on to consumers, both business and residential, in the form of lower prices. Under the arrangements that are proposed, both Telecom Australia and Overseas Telecommunications Commission (OTC) prices for standard services for businesses and residential consumers respectively will be regulated by formulas that are determined by the Minister for Transport and Communications-a formula which will limit the average price rises that are permissible for a given basket of services over a given period to a percentage which is less than, by a specified given amount, the rate of inflation. The formulas will be based on a basket of standard services such as, for the residential consumer, a combination of call charges, both local and subscriber trunk dialling, and rental charges. The average total bill that the average household or business will have to pay will, under this price cap mechanism, become progressively smaller as time goes by. There will be a real decline in telecommunications prices under this price cap system. Austel will also fulfil its watchdog role for consumers by closely monitoring Telecom's performance in areas such as the time taken for telephone installation and fault repairs and by its monitoring of the handling of complaints in individual cases that occurs through the agency of the Ombudsman. The further role that Austel will play will be effectively that of a policeman patrolling the boundary line between competition and monopoly, in the interests of guaranteeing the continuation of monopoly where that is justified, and in the interests of guaranteeing that a genuinely competitive environment will prevail in the very large number of areas where Telecom and OTC will provide services or products on a competitive basis with the rest of the private market economy. The Australian arrangements, in so far as the price cap system is concerned, bear some resemblance to the system that has operated in the United Kingdom for four years but will improve on the British model by ensuring that complete protection of ordinary residential consumers. Far from being a slide towards totalitarianism, the new arrangements are a major win for all Australian telecommunication users and, in particular, for ordinary average households. Senator STONE —My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance. I refer to the Prime Minister's opening statement at the Premiers Conference and Loan Council meetings on 12 May in which Mr Hawke said: I want to give you- that is, the Premiers- the assurance that as far as the Commonwealth is concerned, further substantial progress will be made in 1988-89 on our own account. That is, on our own account with regard to cutting spending. This was just after the Commonwealth had announced that it was cutting its grants to the States by $650m. I ask the Minister how he reconciles what might be called the `restraint with equity' undertaking, to use one of his phrases, with the reality of last night's expenditure reduction measures which saw payments to the States and local authorities in 1988-89 cut by at least $920m, whereas the reduction in the Commonwealth's own expenditure-that is, the expenditures administered by Commonwealth Ministers-was no more than $60m. I further ask the Minister whether he agrees that, when other reductions in specific purpose payments such as home and community care, education, nursing homes and so on are taken into account, the Commonwealth's own net contribution to expenditure restraint in 1988-89 is negligible. Senator WALSH —The Opposition cooked up a set of figures which purported to show that the Commonwealth's own purpose outlays had been reduced by only $112m. Senator Stone has got that down to zero apparently. There are obviously some rubbery figures floating around. The figures can be interpreted in various ways, but I do note that Senator Stone has claimed reductions in some areas where, of course, there are no reductions. There are increases in Commonwealth funding for nursing homes and increases in Commonwealth funding for home and community care as well. In the latter case there has been some reduction as against the Forward Estimates, but still an increase in real terms projected for next year. Senator Stone says that apparently if home and community care spending has been reduced, using the Forward Estimates as a base, that represents a cut in payments to the States. If he wants to run that line he has got to recognise that increases in nursing home funding and in hospital funding represent an increase in payments to the States, something which in the would be balance sheet members of the Opposition have presented they fail to do. To be quibbling about the interpretation of a particular set of figures is much less important than the absolute level and changes in recent years in Commonwealth and State spending respectively. The plain fact is that in the previous financial year-that is, 1986-87-the Commonwealth's own purpose outlays were positive by 0.1 per cent and the States' own purpose outlays went up by 3 1/2 per cent. In this financial year the Commonwealth's own purpose outlays will decline by about one per cent, while the States, if I remember correctly, will be increasing in real terms by 0.6 per cent. So it is very clear that for own purpose outlays the Commonwealth Government has taken a much more stringent approach in the last two years than have the States. Moreover, this has happened at a time when the State governments are very well placed to control their spending. State government expenditure is tied to wages to the extent in some States of over 70 per cent. Commonwealth expenditure tends to be tied to the consumer price index (CPI) because many Commonwealth programs are indexed to the consumer price index. So in a period when the CPI has been rising at a faster rate than wages have been rising and State payments have been tied to the CPI up until this year-indeed increases in the CPI plus up until this year-the States have been getting money at CPI plus and paying out principally to wages on a CPI minus basis. So they have been very much better placed than the Commonwealth Government has been. Finally, the estimates for this financial year have been adjusted downwards quite significantly for a number of reasons including the fact that some of the welfare payment enforcement measures which we have decided to take over the last year or two have been more effective than anticipated. That leads to a cut in Commonwealth Government spending which Senator Stone has failed to take account of. This is also the case because, after that long, hard struggle over five years, we have finally got rid of that $10 billion deficit that John Howard left behind him. Because we have finally managed to get rid of that, public debt interest payments are down in this financial year by some couple of hundred million dollars as well. Senator STONE —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister agree that the figures he was quoting in relation to the growth of State expenditures and the growth of Commonwealth expenditures respectively had nothing to do with the question that I asked him, which had to do with the rate of cuts of Commonwealth payments to the States on the one hand and Commonwealth expenditures on its own account on the other hand? Secondly, having dealt with that supplementary question, will he deal with the original question which I asked him, which concerned-I will repeat it to remind him of it-a quotation from the Prime Minister three weeks ago when he stated: I want to give you- that is, the Premiers- the assurance that as far as the Commonwealth is concerned, further substantial progress will be made in 1988-89 on our own account. Will the Minister now tell us where we can find in the papers presented to the Parliament last night that further substantial progress in cutting the Commonwealth Ministers' own expenditures? Senator WALSH —There is some information in the Commonwealth financial transactions statement, which was also issued yesterday, which is relevant to the question Senator Stone asked. I mentioned some of it earlier. Senator Stone asked me as a supplementary question whether I would agree with the proposition he put up. The answer is no. Senator GIETZELT —Is the Minister for Consumer Affairs aware of claims that thousands of farmers across Australia have been overcharged millions of dollars in wrongly stated interest rates on loan contracts with leading finance companies? Is there any truth to these claims? If so, what steps will the Minister be taking to address this problem? Senator BOLKUS —I am aware of the reports arising out of claims and the involvement of the Victorian Farmers Federation that a finance company in Victoria had applied the wrong interest rate calculation to at least 1,000 farm credit loan contracts in that State alone and of similar reports arising in New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia. I am advised that in this particular case it is generally accepted that the overcharging had occurred through a genuine mistake in that the monthly schedule of repayments was used instead of a seasonal repayment schedule. As a consequence farmers have been levied with excessively high interest rates. The response directly related to this issue is primarily a State responsibility, but the basic premise that State and Federal Ministers work on when applying law to the particular problem is that financial institutions have a responsibility to ensure that their credit granting practices do not result in consumers paying higher interest rates than those specified in their contracts. So given the particular problem here, and given the fact that the primary responsibility for regulating consumer credit, including the operation of consumer credit tribunals, is a matter principally for the States under current legislation, I have raised this matter with State and Territory officials in order, firstly, to ascertain the extent of the problem and, secondly, to try to work out how people involved can have their problems redressed. The Federal Bureau of Consumer Affairs has contacted State and Territory consumer affairs authorities with a view to correcting the interest rate charges. At this date we have cooperated with those authorities, together with consumer legal services, as well as farm organisations and the Australian Finance Conference, to investigate the problem and to ensure that adequate redress takes place. I am assured by my officials that the particular company involved in this matter, the Australian Guarantee Corporation Ltd, is acting in a cooperative way and within a short period the particular problem as it affects all the farmers involved should very well be redressed. However, I will maintain an interest in this area, as will the Bureau and the State and Federal officers involved. If there are any hiccups in the future, I will report back to Senator Gietzelt and to the Senate. Senator HAINES —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs aware of an article entitled `Black Group Missing $670,000' which appeared in the late edition of the Sydney Morning Herald yesterday and which seriously maligned the Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC)? Is the Minister aware that the author of the article apparently had in her possession a number of letters of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs which had passed between Mrs Shirley McPherson, the Chairman of the ADC; the Minister, Mr Hand; the Secretary to the DAA, Mr Perkins; and the Secretary to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Mr Mike Codd? The article refers, among other things, to `documents obtained by the Herald' and purports to quote statements said to be in `a letter to the Minister' from the Chairman of the ADC. Were these letters provided either directly or indirectly to the Sydney Morning Herald by the Minister or someone in the Minister's Department? Did the Minister or someone in his Department provide a copy of the late edition of the Sydney Morning Herald article to Mr Pat Dodson in Alice Springs? I ask that question because Mr Dodson sent a long telex to Mrs McPherson late in the afternoon at a time when the Sydney Morning Herald late edition could not possibly have arrived in Alice Springs. Does the Minister approve of the use of selected leaked departmental correspondence to smear and disparage those who disagree with government policy? Finally, will the Minister undertake to investigate the leaking of these documents and report to the Senate the outcome of that investigation? Senator TATE —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs is aware of the article entitled `Black Group Missing $670,000'-though of course he is not responsible for the sub-editor's choice of headline-which appeared in the late edition yesterday. I am unable to say what documents were in possession of the Sydney Morning Herald to provide a purported basis for the article. On the question of the provision of a copy of the Sydney Morning Herald article to Mr Pat Dodson in Alice Springs, once again I am unable to say whether anybody did provide it out of the Minister's or departmental office; although of course it will be recalled that Mr Pat Dodson is indeed the Deputy Chairman of the Aboriginal Development Commission, and in that capacity would have a natural interest in being informed as soon as possible of such an article appearing. I do not think there is anything sinister, if indeed he was made aware of such an article, in the Sydney Morning Herald. As to the question of further steps that might be taken by the Minister in relation to Senator Haines's question, I shall refer that matter to Mr Gerry Hand. Senator CROWLEY —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations. Does the Minister view with concern the latest figures on occupational health and safety which show that 550 workers a year die in work-related accidents, and that the cost of compensation is estimated at $3 billion per year? Can the Minister tell the Senate what the Government is doing to reduce this staggering toll? Senator BUTTON —Senator Crowley is very diligent in these matters. Senator Stone —Has she caught you again? Senator BUTTON —She has been pursuing me over the years on matters of occupational health and safety, and has done so again today. Somebody interjects, `Has she caught you again?'. This is a very serious question and deserves a serious answer. Australia still suffers from a very high national level of occupational death, injury and disease. Each year about 550 workers die at work and about 1,000 suffer a compensable injury or disease each day. Workers compensation payments in Australia cost some $3 billion a year. Against that background, as Senator Crowley will be aware, the Government established the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission. The Commonwealth has responsibility only for Commonwealth territories but has been working on a cooperation basis with the States. It is bringing together national and international experts, one of whom, Dr Ted Emmett, is currently Acting Chairman of the Commission. In spite of the not too good picture, which has not changed significantly, there have been some significant achievements. Firstly, at the 16 May conference of State and Federal Ministers for labour, Ministers not only reiterated their support for a cooperative effort in tackling occupational health and safety issues, but also endorsed six hazards identified by the National Commission as priorities for national action. The States will have a crucial role in the delivery of strategies in relation to those hazards. In May 1988 the National Commission endorsed broad strategies for dealing with four of these hazards, which include work-related back pain and disorders, occupational cancer, occupational skin disorders and noise induced hearing loss. At the same meeting the National Commission declared a national code of practice for the safe removal of asbestos and is to publish two supporting guidance notes. Although progress is slow, there is now a cooperative effort in place between State and Federal governments to try to tackle some of these issues at a national level. That stands in stark contrast to the years of neglect of occupational health and safety issues at a national level by our predecessors in government, the conservative coalition. Senator HAMER —My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Is it a fact that the new arrangements for superannuation taxation will impose a tax of 16.25 per cent on the capital contributions made by retired public servants, Defence Force personnel and employees of statutory authorities, such as Telecom Australia, if placed in approved deposit funds? As some personnel, especially members of the Defence Force, are forced to retire early and have no other way of protecting their funds, will the effects of the Government's new tax be to reduce the final benefit made available to them at age 55 or later? Senator WALSH —I shall obtain a definitive answer and take the question on notice. However, some points can be made now. In the Commonwealth superannuation scheme the employer contribution is entirely taken in the form of pension so that it is not affected by any changes. The case Senator Hamer made about the Defence Force retirement benefits-DFRB is, I think, the acronym-people is that they are not required to take anything as a lump sum. They may take the whole lot as a pension if they wish. That is an option that is available to the individual. Senator SCHACHT —My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, relates to Australian aid to Afghanistan. Will the Minister indicate what the outlook is for such aid in the light of the progress of the Soviet withdrawal and other political developments in Afghanistan? Senator GARETH EVANS —Almost three million Afghans have sought refuge in Pakistan since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. Between 1983-84 and 1986-87 Australia provided aid to these refugees to the value of $19.3m, mainly in food and some medical assistance. Most of the food aid has been in the form of wheat, the tonnage of which has been maintained at 20,000 tonnes per year in recent years. In 1985-86 an additional 5,000 tonnes were provided. In February 1988 a further 20,000 tonnes of wheat were provided at a cost, including freight, of $4.3m. A grant of $75,000 has been provided this financial year to the Australian Red Cross for a surgical team which has recently completed a six-month mission at the International Red Cross Hospital at Peshawar in Pakistan, where Afghan war wounded are treated. With the recent promising developments in the Afghan political situation and the prospect of the return of refugees in the near future, there is likely to be a United Nations appeal for the repatriation of Afghan refugees. Certainly Australia would give sympathetic consideration to such an appeal in line with our continuing humanitarian concerns in this situation. Senator PANIZZA —My question is directed to the Minister for Local Government. Is it a fact that last night's economic statement contained an announcement that funds for local government would be reduced by $20m next financial year? Is it further a fact that this follows three successive years of reduction in the share of income tax collections provided to local government by the Hawke Government? Finally, why is the Government so hypocritical as to claim special interest in local government by wanting to have a token recognition of it in the Constitution, while it consistently reduces the resources available to this important form of government? Senator REYNOLDS —That was a very good try by Senator Panizza, but I can assure him that he and his colleagues do not have too many friends in local government. The implications for local government in the May economic statement, given the expenditure constraints necessary for the Commonwealth to impose, mean that local government has done well out of the statement. Opposition senators-Oh! Senator REYNOLDS —Would honourable senators like some detail? Senator Vanstone —Read from your brief. Senator REYNOLDS —I want to get it right. Local road funding has been maintained in real terms and has increased from $255m to $269m. Despite a reduction in the total level of Commonwealth funds going to roads, local government road funding has been guaranteed in real terms for the first three years of the program. In other words, because the Commonwealth is very aware of the importance of local road funding to local government, we have protected local government in terms of funding and local road funding expenditure in real terms has been maintained. General purpose financial assistance to local government has been increased by some $16m to $652.5m for 1988-89. This is a 2.5 per cent increase over local governments' 1987-88 entitlement. It compares favourably with the increase in comparable State grants of 1.1 per cent. It is an increase $10m greater than would have occurred if the previously agreed formula had remained viable. From 1 July 1989-and this is a very important step for local government-Telecom Australia and Australia Post will be required to pay local government rates. This is something that local government has been campaigning for for many years, just as it has been campaigning for recognition in the Australian Constitution. I know that local government will welcome the introduction of this change that will be worth a large amount of money to it. I cannot give an estimate at this stage, but I can assure Senator Panizza that it will be of considerable benefit to local government throughout Australia and, indeed, in Western Australia. In the economic circumstances we face, local government has in fact been treated more than fairly. This reflects the importance that the Hawke Government places on local government. We have done our very best to protect the interests of local government. The PRESIDENT —I draw attention to the presence in my gallery of His Excellency Dr Vassos Lyssarides, President of the House of Representatives and Leader of the Cypriot Parliamentary Delegation. On behalf of all honourable senators, I extend to His Excellency and to his delegation a warm welcome and trust their stay in Australia is a success. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator McKIERNAN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer to the following comment from the Director of the Australian Gold Mining Industry Council, Mr Duncan Bell, reported in this morning's West Australian: . . . the Government had not recognised the benefits of the gold tax exemption to Australia. I refer him further to the following comment from John Reynolds, Executive Director of the Victorian Chamber of Mines, who is reported as describing the removal of the exemption as a: negative economic policy that won't yield any net benefits to the Australian community, government or industry. I ask the Minister whether the detailed and exhaustive business tax review reached the same conclusions. Will the Minister inform the Senate of the benefits that will arise to all Australians by the removal of the gold tax exemption? I further ask the Minister to inform the Senate of any disadvantages or drawbacks that the Government's decision may cause. Senator WALSH —I have been asked whether the Gutman Inquiry into Taxation of Gold Mining produced findings the same as the babblings of Mr Bell and Mr Reynolds. The answer to that, of course, is a very unqualified no. I have also been asked whether I could list the benefits and disbenefits of the decision to put the gold mining industry on the same plane so far as taxation is concerned as all other industries. Senator Crichton-Browne —Why didn't you do it in the last Budget? Senator WALSH —I understand that Senator Crichton-Browne's Party and the National Party of Australia are going to support the legislation, or at least not oppose it. There is no problem in identifying a disbenefit. A major disbenefit will be suffered by foreign treasuries, because I think certainly very close to all of the large mining projects in Australia have foreign partners. Because the income they earn in Australia is subject to only a bit of dividend withholding tax, they are undertaxed in their countries of origin. Therefore the treasuries in their countries of origin impose, in a way similar to the present Australian tax system, as a tax the difference between the corporate tax rate applying in the country of origin and the little bit of tax actually paid in Australia. I have not been able to get a definitive quantification of that, but it seems that there will be nearly $100m worth of disbenefits to foreign treasuries, and of course precisely the same benefit to the Australian Treasury. It does seem to be a bit absurd to argue, as I presume Senator Crichton-Browne would argue, that we should go on making transfers from the Australian Treasury to foreign treasuries-a sort of hidden foreign aid going to countries like the United States of America, Canada and those in Western Europe. They are not Third World countries and they do not need a bit of foreign aid from us in that form. So that is a benefit and a disbenefit. It will benefit all other Australian industries because this industry has not in the past paid corporate taxes. To the extent that corporate taxes are paid in the future by this industry, taxes levied on other industries and individuals will be lower than they would otherwise have been. As the people working in the goldmining industry, the workers, have always been taxed on their income, it is difficult to see why the companies should not also pay tax on theirs. I have noted that Mr Bell, who of course is a professional babbler on this issue, is reported in today's West Australian as saying that Australian companies will move overseas as a result of this decision. If they do, they will be paying tax just as they will be paying tax in Australia from 1991 onwards. Another point which I think ought to be made is that all of the major goldmining projects that were commenced in Australia in the last few years have had factored in to their economic viability assessments a corporate tax rate of 49 per cent, not the 39 per cent they will ultimately be paying. Of course there will be a burst of activity from people such as Mr Bell, who has been a professional propagandist on this issue for a number of years, a bit like a supernova, over the next couple of months-the Duncan Bell supernova-and probably a great deal of money will be spent misrepresenting the facts and trying to intimidate the Government into not proceeding with this decision, in the way that Mr Bell has done so many times before. But like a supernova, after that burst of high activity Mr Bell and the lobby he represents will never be heard of again, because there will be an Act of Parliament by the end of this year, and this issue, which has polluted Australian political processes for as long as I can remember, will be off the agenda forever-and a good thing too. The effort and money which in the past have been wasted on activities aimed at essentially corrupting the political process can then be directed to something more socially useful and more productive. Senator Crichton-Browne —Are you saying your Prime Minister is corrupt? Senator WALSH —If Senator Crichton-Browne wants to make a speech about this and give us his views, I suggest that he also declare how many goldmining company shares he has. That would be a very interesting declaration and would, perhaps, help to explain his interests. The people who hold goldmining shares are presently reaping abnormal returns on them because everybody has factored in to the viability assessments an assumption that 49 per cent corporate tax will be paid. They are getting what economists call an abnormal return, at the moment, and of course, they want to keep it. So I look forward to Senator Crichton-Browne's declaration of the number of shares in goldmining companies that he has and, therefore, the vested interest that he has in this particular issue. If he continues to propagandise on this issue, or if he exercises a vote in the Parliament, I suggest that he is morally obliged to do that. Senator BROWNHILL —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and Minister representing the Prime Minister. Is it a fact that in last night's economic statement the Government announced a cut of $50m in road funding? Is it further a fact that this follows a $300m, or 25 per cent, cut in road funding by the Hawke Government over the past three years? What sort of strange and misplaced priorities does this Government operate under when it is prepared to spend more than $30m on referendum proposals, against the interests of the Australian people, but year after year makes major cuts to programs of such basic and essential need as the provision of better roads throughout Australia? Senator BUTTON —Insofar as the question relates to the details of road funding, my colleague Senator Gareth Evans can answer that part of the question. I do not know why Senator Brownhill has directed a question on road funding to me. Senator Brownhill —You are the Leader of the Government in this place. Senator BUTTON —That does not make me responsible for everything. Senator Brownhill —You are slugging the people who drive on the roads. Senator BUTTON —The point of Senator Brownhill's question insofar as it has relevance to me was to ask why we cut road funding when, at the same time, we are spending money on referendums. He referred to the `strange and misplaced priorities' of this Government. There are no strange and misplaced priorities of this Government. Half of his Party agrees with the referendum proposals, including his Leader. It is just that they got stood over by a few thugs from the States which has changed his Party's view on that issue. They are not misplaced priorities. Insofar as the road funding issue in detail is concerned, my colleague Senator Evans is in a better position to answer that in terms of comparative figures than I am. Senator BROWNHILL —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question, which maybe the Leader of the Government in the Senate will be able to answer. Does this mean, then, that local government councils and shires will be forced into horrific rate increases just to maintain the standard of roads, and is not this a hypocritical stance in light of the Government's shonky local government referendum proposals? Senator BUTTON —Now that Senator Brownhill has been able to have a second go at it, I see the point of his question in relation to the referendum. The answer to his question is that funds for local roads have been maintained in real terms. If he wants to pursue the referendum issue in relation to that, I suggest that he try something else. Senator ZAKHAROV —I refer the Minister for Justice to the question asked by Senator Vanstone on 15 April, and his answer to that question, concerning the Sexual Offences Squad of the Victoria Police. Will the Minister inform the Senate of the action he has taken on this matter? Senator TATE —Yes, I recall the question asked by Senator Vanstone concerning the disbanding of the Victoria Police Sexual Offences Squad. I have had some discussions with Senator Vanstone concerning my thought at the time that perhaps the Australian Police Ministers Council, which meets in Brisbane tomorrow, would be a suitable forum for the discussion of this instance; but on reflection, and given the necessity for that agenda to be drawn up in terms of matters of nationwide interest to Police Ministers throughout Australia, I did not press for that to be placed on the agenda at this meeting. However, I have had discussions with Mr Steve Crabb, the Victorian Minister for Police, with a view to having informal discussions with him during tomorrow's meeting in Brisbane. I can inform the Senate-I know that it will be of interest to Senator Vanstone-that the Victorian Women's Coordination Unit in the Victorian Premier's Department supports the decision announced to disband the Sexual Offences Squad and transfer responsibility for dealing with sexual offences to the Community Policing Squad. Amongst other things, it was found, for example, that the Sexual Offences Squad was based in Melbourne and so was unable to deal with cases outside the metropolitan areas. It was thought that the community policing squads, which deal with domestic violence and child abuse, can appropriately handle sexual offences cases also. This is an important approach and a useful approach by Victoria to the way in which police might best deal with complaints of sexual assault. I am not putting out of the question a national approach in discussions on the best way to approach complaints about sexual offences. Indeed, the chamber will know that in the Australian Capital Territory only last week the Commissioner for Police announced the formation of a Sexual Assault Unit, which will be responsible for investigating all serious sexual assault reports, including the sexual abuse of children in the Australian Capital Territory. There it has been decided to establish the unit in premises away from a normal police station in order to afford the victims maximum privacy and a supportive and professional environment. It is important that police throughout Australia become more conscious of the best and most efficient way to deal with these sorts of complaints. For that reason, the Federal Office of the Status of Women will raise domestic violence and police training at a meeting of police commissioners in Melbourne next July. I believe that all these steps will help to bring about the situation of which I know Senator Margaret Reynolds, the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women, and Senator Vanstone would approve. Senator WALTERS —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security and the Minister Assisting the Treasurer for Prices. By way of preface, I remind the Minister that information can be exchanged between the Department of Social Security and the Australian Taxation Office to check eligibility for receipt of pensions and benefits. I refer to the Treasurer's statement last night that the proposed upgraded tax file number will be used exclusively by the Australian Taxation Office but that it will have an application to social security clients and, indeed, to a wide range of other financial transactions. Which social security clients are included and which are excluded from the use of the tax file number? Under what circumstances and for what purposes will those affected have to quote their numbers? Is it intended to extend in any way the existing linkage between tax and social security? Finally, is it also a fact that the tax file number will have to be quoted before a person can buy shares? Senator BOLKUS —It is true that the Treasurer announced in his statement last night that the Australian Taxation Office has been given the go-ahead to develop a system for making greater use of the tax file number in its normal administration. One thing that he emphasised, though, was that at no time will people be required to produce a tax file number as a form of formal or personal identification. I think that Senator Walters is also deluded by an impression created by some media articles that the tax file number will be a prerequisite for eligibility for social security assistance. I should like to correct that impression. That will not be so. In respect of the sorts of payments and benefits that are involved, some payments made under the Department of Social Security are taxable, and under the arrangements that have been proposed by the Government, the Department will be required to use the tax file number for clients when it reports those amounts to the Australian Taxation Office, in the same way as an employer. The other point I want to emphasise in response to most of Senator Walters's questions-and I say `most' because the last question does not come within my direct responsibility and she can direct that to someone else-is that the proposed system is for taxation and not for social security purposes. The important point about the system is that we have to understand that the payments of benefits in those areas, and I refer particularly to unemployment and sickness benefits, are treated in the same way as earnings and they are, in fact, taxable. As a consequence, this sort of arrangement has been introduced by the Government to ensure that fraud does not take place in this specific area. Senator WALTERS —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I asked the Minister-he did not answer-under what circumstances and for what purposes will persons affected have to quote their numbers? Senator BOLKUS —The extent of my brief is that the Department of Social Security is the body that will be required to use the taxation file number in relation to those sets of circumstances and those benefits to which I have referred. In order to satisfy Senator Walters even further, I shall approach the Minister for Social Security to see whether there is anything he or I can add to her request and to elaborate on anything further. I should, however, take this opportunity of drawing a clear distinction between the operation of the tax file number scheme as proposed last night and anything that may have been around in this place and in the Australian community something like 12 or 18 months ago. Senator Chaney —Mr President, in light of the interest in this particular matter, the concern to have a frank debate about it and the Opposition's concern to support a proposal which is not a de facto ID card proposal, I ask the Minister for Consumer Affairs to table the document from which he was reading that answer. Senator BOLKUS —I will not. Opposition senators-Oh! Senator BOLKUS —It is strange to see these late converts to civil liberties alleging a cover up. I will not table the document, but what I agree and guarantee to do is to provide any further information that may be available to elaborate the terms of my answer to Senator Walters. I stressed the point and made it very clear in my answer that the Department of Social Security will be required to use the tax file number as a reporting mechanism to the Australian Taxation Office. That may not satisfy Senator Walters's curiosity, and I have undertaken to provide further information. Senator VALLENTINE —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. Is it true that the Government last year approved cooperation and contact between the Australian intelligence agencies, including the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, and the French secret services, particularly the DGSE, which masterminded the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior in New Zealand in July 1985? Have Australian intelligence agencies been giving support to French intelligence agencies in the South Pacific, particularly in New Caledonia? If so, what form has that support taken? Senator GARETH EVANS —In accordance with the longstanding practice of this and previous governments, I must decline, whatever the temptations there might be to the contrary, to provide information which might confirm or deny speculation on the intelligence and security matters referred to in Senator Vallentine's question. Senator VANSTONE —My question is directed to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women. I refer the Minister to the program designed to restrict the use of sex stereotyping of women in advertising. Does the Minister agree that the advertisement which depicts a baker's dozen-this advertisement-of macho militiamen leering at a scantily red-lingerie clad female model is in a category which the Government rightly believes, and I think rightly so, women regard as offensive? Is a video such as Jack'n Jill, which bears on its covers the words, `See Jack go up more than just the hill, and see Jill take it all like a good little girl', also offensive to women? Is the video program 355, which is a composite of three films entitled Bill's Big Banana, Shafted by Four and a third title which is best not referred to in this chamber, also offensive to women? Is the availability of material depicting fellatio, anal sex and group sex a matter of concern to the Minister and to the Office of the Status of Women? By failing to advise the Government to ban such material in the Australian Capital Territory and yet moving against sex stereotyping of women in advertising, is the Minister not starting at the wrong end of the sexism spectrum? When will she so advise the Government? If she has not seen the copies of the advertisements and the covers of the videos, I am happy to provide her with them. Senator REYNOLDS —I find it difficult to follow the line of reasoning that Senator Vanstone has indicated this afternoon. Senator Tate —It was self-publicity; that is all it was. Senator REYNOLDS —It has been suggested that it was self-publicity. I would not say that; I think that Senator Vanstone has some genuine concerns, but I am at a loss to link those concerns in terms of the question she has asked me. I am quite prepared to take the question on notice. In regard to her question that directly related to the recent report of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material, I can only advise at this stage that the Government has noted the recommendations of the Joint Committee and the range of views expressed in its very detailed report. The report and its recommendations are being considered by the Government and will be discussed at the meeting of censorship Ministers to be held in Darwin in June. I will take on notice the part of the question relating to the link between videos and the Government's campaign to reduce sex role stereotyping in the media. Senator VANSTONE —I ask a supplementary question. The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women has still not explained why, when the Government has the capacity to act against unnecessary sex stereotyping of women in advertising around Australia and is prepared to do that, the Government refuses to act when it has the capacity to stop this sort of material which is just as bad, if not worse, in the Australian Capital Territory. The Minister has not answered the part of the question which asked why she will not so advise the Government. Senator REYNOLDS —I thought I noted Senator Vanstone's concerns and I indicated that I would take the rest of the question on notice. I repeat that. Senator BURNS —My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to an article in today's Adelaide Advertiser stating that the Government is giving tax concessions to business now whereas pay as you earn taxpayers have to wait until next year? Can the Minister advise the Senate of the true position in that regard? Senator WALSH —The short answer is that the allegation is not true. It is, however, possible to see how people could misunderstand or misinterpret it in that way. With a few minor exceptions, company tax is lagged by 12 months, that is, the tax on income earned in one year is paid in the next. Therefore, because the new company tax system is operating from 1 July 1988, it does not actually affect the revenue until July 1989. In that same financial year-the year starting 1 July 1989-there will be cuts in personal tax rates as well. In the same year that the corporate tax rate is effectively defined as the date of payments, personal tax rates will also be cut. The tax changes to individuals and companies have been synchronised. However, another important point ought to be made. The personal tax cuts will be enduring whereas the reduced tax rate for the corporate sector will, after approximately three years, be more than offset by the broadening of the corporate tax base and some other changes, which were announced last night. Over the long term the corporate tax take will not be reduced because the broadening of the base will offset the reduction of the rate. Therefore, even in the short term it is not true to say that companies are being favourably discriminated against or being put before citizens; one could argue that that is the reverse in the longer term. Senator COOK —On 18 May last, Senator Harradine asked me a question under the general heading of genetic engineering. I put that question on notice. I now have from the Minister for Community Services and Health an answer which I can give the senator. I am aware of the statements of Dr Dieter Bartels at the recent Australia and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science Conference regarding genetic engineering of human embryos. I am advised that no taxpayers' funds are being provided by the National Health and Medical Research Council NHMRC for diagnostic techniques or genetic registers that would be used as a filtering system for humans with a view to discarding embryos before they are implanted in the uterus. However, prenatal diagnosis of a number of serious genetic defects has been available for the last 15 years. It is being used only in couples at special risk who request testing. Down's syndrome in older women and spina bifida in women who have had affected babies previously are the most frequent reasons for testing. A number of other serious genetic diseases are now detectable. Prenatal diagnosis of these has allowed couples who previously felt unable to have further children to go ahead and produce healthy children. All couples using these tests are counselled about the options open to them. It is important that couples in our society who face these decisions should have available this form of modern medical assistance. With respect to genetic registers, Senator Harradine would be aware of a working party set up by the NHMRC Medical Research Ethics Committee to prepare a background paper on the ethical implications of registers of patients and families with inherited disorders. The reason the NHMRC undertook this task was that researchers in the field had become aware of the need for ethical guidance relating to the setting up, maintenance and use of information in such registers. The report of the working party is expected to be submitted to the Medical Research Ethics Committee in the near future. The Government's policy on disease prevention is directed primarily to influencing lifestyles which will avoid factors known to contribute to the development of disease. However, it is also known that in the case of a number of genetic diseases early detection and treatment can avoid prolonged complications and morbidity in later life. Senator Harradine's inference that the policy includes the prevention of individuals with genetic diseases being born is ill-founded. Senator BOLKUS —Yesterday I answered a question from Senator Short in relation to the proposals of the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) for the introduction of class actions in Australia. In that answer I indicated that the Government is aware of concerns expressed by the Confederation of Australian Industry (CAI) and the Business Council of Australia (BCA) in relation to lack of industry consultation. I also indicated that the Government believed that all groups should be consulted and that it was understood that the ALRC was embarking upon that process. I note that the Australian Financial Review has today published a letter from Stephen Mason, as Secretary and Director of Research of the Law Reform Commission of Australia. In that letter, Mr Mason says that the proposals for legislation `have been circulated to a wide variety of interested groups, including specially appointed consultants representing both the CAI and the BCA'. Mr Mason advised my office this morning that a meeting that had been arranged for some time took place yesterday with the CAI, the BCA and the Finance Council and without the Australian Council of Trade Unions. I understand that the meeting was fruitful and productive and that this consultative process will continue. Senator GILES(Western Australia) —I present the 290th report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, entitled A Better Deal for Our Veterans: Management of Repatriation General Hospitals by the Department of Veterans Affairs. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a statement relating to the report. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- This report presents the findings of the Public Accounts Committee's inquiry into the management of repatriation general hospitals by the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The Committee began the inquiry in November 1987 as part of a general review of the Auditor-General's reports on audits undertaken between 1985 and 1987. In this review the committee found that the Auditor-General had reported adversely on aspects of the Department of Veterans' Affairs management of its repatriation hospitals on a number of occasions, over that period. The Committee was concerned to find fundamental deficiencies in the management information systems maintained by the Department to monitor and assess the performance of the various repatriation hospitals. In particular, the Department lacked measures capable of comparing the performance of the repatriation hospitals and state public hospitals and of monitoring the performance of visiting medical officers engaged by the department. The Committee was also concerned by the lack of an effective management structure within the Department and by its apparently cavalier approach to responding to the findings of the Auditor-General. In the three year period reviewed by the Committee the Department of Veterans' Affairs either failed or lacked the capacity to ensure that deficiencies in the management of repatriation hospitals reported by the Auditor-General were systematically rectified at a national level. The Committee experienced a number of delays in obtaining information from the Department and admonished the Department for failing to approach the Committee's initial investigations with a degree of seriousness appropriate to a commonwealth parliamentary inquiry. The Committee affirms the Commonwealth government's responsibility to provide comprehensive health care services for Australian veterans. Throughout the inquiry the Committee emphasised that it was incumbent on the Department of Veterans' Affairs to maintain information systems and management structures capable of ensuring that the Commonwealth's responsibility to care for the health of veterans and their dependants is administered as efficiently as possible. The Committee does not believe that the Department has achieved this objective or that it has the capacity to provide objective information on the relative efficiency of the repatriation hospital system even if it were being managed efficiently. The Committee's recommendations are aimed at promoting the development of an improved management structure in the Department and at establishing more comprehensive management information systems in the repatriation hospitals. It is the Committee's belief that the implementation of the recommendations of this report will not only lead to improve administrative efficiency in the repatriation hospital system but will also promote the development of a health care system which is more responsive to the health care needs of veterans. The Committee will be monitoring the department's implementation of its recommendations with considerable interest. I commend the report to honourable senators. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales) —I present the 291st report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts entitled Revised Procedures for Reports of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a statement relating to the report. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- Report 291 outlines, for the information of the Parliament, a number of changes to the Committee's procedures in dealing with reports of the Auditor-General and monitoring of action taken in response to recommendations contained in reports of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. These changes are the result of a review by the Committee aimed at ensuring that it carries out its work in a more efficient and targeted manner. The Committee has been concerned that it should deal more efficiently with reports of the Auditor-General. Consequently, it has made changes to the procedures it will follow in undertaking its statutory duties to review reports of the Auditor-General tabled in the Parliament. The Committee has decided to introduce the practice of seeking comment from the Auditor-General, subsequent to the tabling of a report, on matters believed to be of importance and which may warrant further investigation by the Committee. This advice will be sought as soon after the tabling of Auditor-General's Reports as is possible. The Committee will, with this information in mind, conduct its own separate considerations and decide on its actions. This action may be either: a full, immediate inquiry; or where a complete inquiry is not warranted but there is significant need for Parliamentary scrutiny of matters reported in the Auditor-General's reports, the Committee will write to the relevant departments and authorities highlighting its concerns and seeking an immediate response to matters raised in that report. The need for further action by the Committee will then be assessed on the basis of the reply provided to the Committee. The Committee's initiatives in this area will be the subject of a report to the Parliament. The Committee has adopted this new approach in its consideration of the Auditor- General's Reports on Audits to 31 December 1987, tabled on 24 March 1988. The Committee has written to a number of departments, detailed in the report, relating to problems raised by the Auditor-General. The Committee requested that responses from these organisations be supplied by 20 May 1988. The Committee has received advice from all departments and authorities concerning the matters raised and is currently examining those responses. These responses will be the basis of further decisions regarding action by the Committee, including the potential for full inquiries into these matters. The Committee will report to the Parliament the result of its deliberations on these matters. Report 291 also outlines changes to the follow-up procedures for reports of the Joint Committee on Public Accounts. In the past the Committee has tabled separate Finance Minutes, outlining action taken in response to recommendations contained in its reports. The Committee will continue the practice of requesting a response to each of its reports from the Minister for Finance in the form of a Finance Minute. However, in the future the Committee will only table a separate Finance Minute Report if it is urgent, lengthy or for some other reason requires immediate reporting to the Parliament. Otherwise, the Committee will table all Finance Minutes as one report. This report will be presented annually to the Parliament. The Committee stresses that in reviewing its procedure it has not reduced in any way its oversight of the responses nor has the importance with which the Committee views the Finance Minute process been reduced. In addition, the review of action taken on recommendations contained in Committee reports will be strengthened by changes to the Guidelines for the Preparation of Departmental Annual Reports. In a statement to the Parliament on 4 June 1987 concerning Guidelines for Annual Reports, the Chairman outlined that the Committee was strongly of the view that annual reports of departments and authorities should provide details of any reviews by the Auditor-General and Parliamentary committees. The Committee has also stated that these details should include recommendations made in the reviews and any action taken to address the recommendations. Revised guidelines tabled by the Prime Minister on 17 November 1987, announced that he had accepted the Committee's views together with other recommendations contained in Report 262-Guidelines for Annual Reports. The Guidelines for the preparation of Departmental Annual Reports now state that each report should `. . . contain information regarding any reviews by the Auditor-General or Parliamentary committees which directly affect the department, showing recommendations arising from such reviews and the action taken to address them'. The Committee will, as part of the follow-up procedure for its reports, review annual reports of departments for compliance with the relevant guidelines. The Committee considers that Annual Reports are an extremely important element in ensuring the accountability of public expenditure. The Committee will be writing to each Department highlighting the relevant section of the Annual Report Guidelines and stating that the Committee will be examining annual reports for compliance. The changes to the practices of the Committee outlined in Report 291 aim to ensure that it conducts its work in the most efficient and effective manner. The changes in the procedures of the Committee have not diminished its workload, however it has enabled the Committee to turn its attention to additional and significant areas of inquiry. The Committee has recently initiated the following major inquiries: Reform of the Australian Audit Office Engagement of External Consultants by Commonwealth Government Bodies Management of the Antarctic Division Safety Principles for Explosives The Committee also has in progress an extensive inquiry into Therapeutic Goods Evaluation and Testing. Last year the staff resources available to the Committee were substantially reduced from 15 to 5. Since that date, and following discussions held with Madam Speaker, an additional 2 staff were allocated to the Committee. The Committee has expressed its appreciation for this allocation. The Committee, however, continues to be concerned to ensure it has adequate staff resources allocated to it and has resolved that, with the workload it should be undertaking to fulfil its obligations, a staffing level of 10 is required, including secondments and consultants, noting that in the past secondees were in addition to the permanent staff. I commend the report to honourable senators. Senator McKIERNAN(Western Australia) —I present the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Publications. Report-by leave-adopted. Senator ALSTON(Victoria) —On behalf of the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority, I present a report entitled Witness Protection. I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to have a tabling statement incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- Section 34 of the National Crime Authority Act 1984 provides that the Authority may make arrangements for the protection of witnesses appearing at hearings before the Authority. The National Crime Authority (NCA) has expressed the view that it does not have sufficient resources to set up its own witness protection scheme and that there are significant deficiencies in the facilities for the protection of witnesses available in Australia. The Committee decided in April 1987 to pursue an inquiry into witness protection in Australia. It indicated that it would examine: (i) The nature of witness protection and its role in the fight against organised crime; (ii) The extent to which witness protection is an essential requirement of successful organised criminal investigation and prosecutions; (iii) The extent to which organised crime witnesses are presently protected and the nature, adequacy and cost of current arrangements; and (iv) The options available to the Government to improve witness protection. The Committee took evidence not only from Government and academic sources but also from witnesses who had been or were under protection themselves. Information from informers is responsible for the detection of the greater part of crime. This is particularly so in the case of the so-called `victimless' or `consensual' crimes in which organised criminal groups specialise such as drug trafficking, illegal gambling, the sale of pornography, organised prostitution and usury, where there is unlikely to be a complainant. While the history of intimidation of witnesses in this country is not as extensive or as colourful as that in the United States there is ample evidence to suggest that minor figures suspected of co-operating with the police will be murdered or assaulted to prevent them testifying. Confidential witnesses before the committee told of constant harassment, physical attacks on them and their families and `contracts' on their lives. Moreover a single example well known within the criminal community, such as the murders of Douglas and Isabel Wilson, gives the `enforcers' a powerful psychological edge when they come to threaten other potential witnesses. The Committee considers that society has an obligation to protect all witnesses, not merely witnesses against organised criminal groups. However the need for protection is greater in the case of witnesses in this latter class because organised criminal groups habitually resort to the violent intimidation of witnesses in order to avoid detection and punishment. Moreover the arrangements for the protection of such witnesses will need to be more elaborate and may need to continue after the trial is over, in some cases for the rest of the witnesses' lives. Although it has been suggested that the provision of effective protection will induce more witnesses against organised criminal groups to come forward, the Committee has concluded that protection is less an inducement to give evidence than a consequence of giving evidence. Many of the witnesses to whom the committee spoke might not be alive today were it not for the protection that has been provided. In the context of the fight against organised crime it is clearly in the interests of the State to provide protection to witnesses. Without such protection the principals of organised criminal groups will not be brought to trial. It is in this sense that the provision of effective witness protection is of primary importance in the investigation and prosecution of organised criminal activity. The Committee has examined the arrangements for witness protection in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and West Germany, and it has drawn together a detailed account of the present arrangements for witness protection in Australia. Despite progress made since the National Crime Authority first raised its concerns, problems remain with the witness protection arrangements in this country. In particular there are still difficulties with relocating witnesses across State boundaries. There is a lack of co-ordination and co-operation between forces and a lack of an awareness even within forces of the witness protection arrangements which are available. Although witnesses are presently living under new names in this country, only rudimentary attempts have been made to establish mechanisms whereby those new names can be entered into official and commercial records without compromising the witness's security. There are witnesses living under new names who cannot obtain social security benefits, cannot file taxation returns and whose driver's licences would not withstand close inspection. The Committee has rejected the option of a national witness protection scheme run by a new, independent agency as a solution to these problems. The committee believes that there is insufficient demand to justify the costs associated with the creation of such an agency. Instead the committee recommends that a national witness protection liaison committee be established under the auspices of the Australian Police Ministers' Council to provide a forum for co-ordination and co-operation between the eight police forces in the provision of witness protection and that the Australian Federal Police should assume an expanded national witness protection role. The Committee stresses that the decision to provide protection to any witness should be preceded by an assessment of the credibility of the witness and an evaluation of the importance of the evidence which he or she purports to be able to give. The response provided by a witness protection scheme must be flexible, depending on the assessed level of threat. In less serious cases it may be possible simply to provide increased protection for the witness in his or her own home. In a small number of cases, however, police forces will not be able to guarantee the safety of the witnesses if they remain in their own homes and will recommend more drastic measures. In such cases the Committee considers that relocation under a new identity should be adopted as the preferred method of protection. The use of 24 hour guarding in a `safe house' is obviously unsuitable as a long term method of post-trial protection. In addition it imposes unacceptable pressures both on the witness and on his or her protectors and it is resource intensive and prohibitively expensive. The Australian Federal Police witness protection branch already has considerable experience in the protection of witnesses by relocation. It provides protection on a user pays basis to witnesses from one State police force and the National Crime Authority and this service could be extended to other agencies which have not as yet felt the need to develop their own services capable of providing long term protection to witnesses. At the same time the proposed National Witness Protection Liaison Committee may provide a forum for the development of arrangements for the relocation of witnesses across State boundaries by the State police forces. It could also facilitate the interchange of information concerning contacts in State and Federal agencies and non-governmental bodies who can assist in the relocation process. Relocation should be viewed as a last resort: other alternatives should be considered first. The agency providing protection should assess the need for protection and the suitability of the witness for relocation. This assessment should include a psychological evaluation. Before being accepted into the Witness Protection Scheme the witness and any adult family members should be required to read over and sign a memorandum of understanding detailing the assistance which the agency undertakes to provide and the conditions under which assistance will be terminated. The agency arranging the relocation of a protected witness should provide accommodation at the new locality. The witness should be assisted in finding employment and an allowance should be paid to meet rent, living expenses, medical and dental bills and other incidental costs until such time as the witness obtains employment. Immediately upon the acceptance of the witness into the scheme the agency should initiate the necessary steps to accomplish a secure change of name and the Committee considers that complementary state and federal legislation is necessary to provide a mechanism to achieve this. Such legislation should also indemnify persons acting in an official capacity who alter records or issue documents to reflect the new identity of a protected witness. It should also create a criminal offence where a person compromises the security of a protected witness by revealing details of his or her change of identity. Where presently unavailable, appropriate complaints mechanisms should be established so that there is an avenue of review for witnesses who believe that they have been unjustly denied protection or who are aggrieved by decisions made by the agency protecting them including decisions to terminate any assistance being provided to them. Complementary State and Federal legislation should also give clear legislative authority for the protection of witnesses by relocation. It should set out mechanisms whereby protected witnesses may be prevented from evading their civil obligations and from avoiding obligations imposed on them by the Family Court. It should ensure that, if a protected witness commits a crime, the witness' criminal record under his or her old identity will be revealed to the responsible investigative agency. The Committee envisages that this could be achieved by the establishment of a central, secure register maintained by the National Witness Protection Liaison Committee recording each case in Australia where a change of identity has been accomplished for the purpose of witness protection together with details of the criminal record of the person concerned under his or her old identity. Finally, complementary State and Federal legislation should establish procedures whereby the hearing of cases in which protected witnesses are to testify can be expedited and should clarify the law with regard to the suppression of details identifying a protected witness. Given the absence of any Commonwealth prisons it is clearly inappropriate to contemplate a National Scheme for the protection of custodial witnesses except through greater consultation on this issue between the various corrective services administrations. The New South Wales Government may be prepared to permit its Witness Protection Unit at Long Bay gaol to be used as a national facility for the protection of custodial witnesses whose evidence has national ramifications but it would be necessary in the first instance to amend the complementary legislation relating to the interstate transfer of prisoners to specify the protection of a custodial witness as a ground for transfer. The Committee is generally satisfied with the adequacy of the protection provided to custodial witnesses. However it recommends that the fact that such witnesses serve their sentences under harsher conditions than would otherwise be the case should be taken into account in making decisions concerning their release on licence or parole. Further, custodial witnesses need to be assured that their families are being protected and arrangements should be made to ensure that this occurs. Finally, custodial witnesses should be given clear undertakings as to the arrangements proposed for their protection on release. Mr President, I commend the report to the Senate. Senator ALSTON —The report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority of which I am Deputy Chairman, is certainly one of the most important documents to come before Parliament in relation to the fight against organised crime. There are some very real grounds for concern in this area as the report makes plain. In particular I wish to address some of the matters that arise from the recommendations of the report. Essentially the conclusion of the Committee was that there should be an expanded national witness protection role for the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and that a number of consequences would flow from strengthening the whole system and instituting a formal regime of witness protection. I shall read a quotation that was adopted with the approval of the Royal Commissioner, Mr Justice Stewart, who is now the head of the National Crime Authority. The Stewart Royal Commission recommended the cultivation of minor figures in organised criminal groups as witnesses against the principals. That is a very important aspect in the fight against organised crime because unless one is able to cultivate witnesses and a network of informers, the bulk of crime will go undetected-certainly in the many areas generally described as victimless crimes. Of course, they are the bread and butter of organised crime: offences such as drug trafficking, illegal gambling, the sale of pornography, organised prostitution and usury are all areas in which it is unlikely that an individual complainant will bring matters to the attention of the police. However, those insidious offences can permeate throughout society and corrupt the whole social fabric. I speak as a supporter of the National Crime Authority and of the efforts it has made to date in attempting to bring to heel some of the major perpetrators and organisers of criminal networks in this country. It is all too easy to denigrate the efforts of those whose task is very difficult. With the benefit of hindsight one can always make suggestions about what should have been done. I certainly find it deplorable that persons of the ilk of Mr Frank Galbally, who is almost the Uriah Heep of the legal profession in Victoria, should make such self-serving and financially self-interested criticisms of the National Crime Authority. Senator Button —Do you agree with that in relation to common law claims too, Senator-fault liability? Senator ALSTON —That has nothing to do with it. Senator Button —Of course not; more dollars. Senator ALSTON —If Senator Button is asking me to bag Mr Galbally in relation to the many millions he has made out of that system, I do not think I could honestly say that he has been any better or worse than many thousands of others over the years, including the honourable senator and his firm which, no doubt, have benefited, as a number of us did, from the common law system. That is not an adverse reflection on people and I did not want to confront Mr Galbally on that matter. Senator Hill —He can speak for himself if he is talking about millions. Senator ALSTON —I can assure the honourable senator that I am not one of those who made millions. Senator Schacht —You have not got the ability. Senator ALSTON —I am glad that Senator Schacht was not on the juries. The fact of the matter is that-- Senator Michael Baume —You are not accustomed to the expense of an office like Senator Schacht's. You have lower standards. Senator ALSTON —We will not convict Senator Schacht without a hearing. My principal target is the way in which some people have sought to denigrate the work of the National Crime Authority without any serious justification. But there is one matter that I think deserves very serious examination and that relates very much to the report on witness protection. Unless proper lines of responsibility are established and unless sound and sensible judgments are made in relation to those persons who should be granted witness protection, the system can very quickly fall into social disapproval. My concern really is in relation to one Peter James Cross, who is currently busy declining to answer questions in the coroners court in Melbourne. Cross was originally charged, along with some others, on two counts of conspiracy to traffick in a drug of dependence. At the end of 1986, Mr Cross was suddenly wheeled up to the Supreme Court in Melbourne, where he proceeded to plead guilty before Mr Justice Nicholson and to receive what could only be described as a very generous sentence of a maximum of four years with a minimum of 12 months. Shortly thereafter he was released, having served between four and six months. A strong plea was made on behalf of Cross on the basis that, from the day of his arrest on 3 October 1986, he had been cooperating with the police and, in particular, the National Crime Authority. In the course of that plea, fairly persuasive evidence, no doubt, was given by a Mr Mengler, who was then, and I assume still is, a detective chief superintendent of the Vic- toria Police on secondment to the National Crime Authority in Melbourne as its chief investigator. The matter of the most serious concern is that in the course of that plea on behalf of Cross a character reference was presented to the court. I seek leave to table an edited edition of that character reference. Leave granted. Senator ALSTON —I thank the Senate. The fact of the matter is that it was one of the most charitable documents ever presented to a court of law because it went out of its way to whitewash Cross and his range of activities. Indeed, it portrayed him as virtually a poor, harmless victim of the system; as someone who had fallen on hard times, who had hit some social hurdles, who had fallen in with bad company and who could easily have been misled. Senator Hill —He is not getting into the Senate, is he, because he would be mixing with bad company? Senator ALSTON —One trusts that he will not go on to become a senator. Nonetheless, all that was said about Mr Cross led one to believe that he was a very minor player in the proceedings. Indeed, it was suggested that he was reasonably intelligent; that he would be likely to make a full recovery; that he would turn over a new leaf; that he had learned from the experience of being in prison and, for all sorts of good reasons, he was a very deserving customer. As a result of that exercise in which those from the National Crime Authority made what could only be described as a glowing character reference, Mr Cross, as part of the deal that was no doubt done, was required to give evidence, whilst still in protective legal custody, before the Melbourne magistrates court. In the course of giving that evidence it became apparent that Mr Cross had an extensive history of involvement in drugs, both in this country and outside, and that he had been to Bolivia on a number of occasions. The transcript reads: How many times have you been to Bolivia? . . . Three or four times. Three or four times? When? . . . Over the last five years. This was said in March 1987. He was then asked: How long have you stayed in Bolivia each time? . . . Fortnight to a month. And how did you fund your trips to Bolivia? . . . Various ways. Senator Haines —That is pretty precise, you must admit. Senator ALSTON —Mr Cross waxes and wanes. There were times when he was oyster-like and this seemed to have been one of those. The transcript continues: Tell the NCA about your trips to Bolivia? . . . Am I entitled to refuse to answer that question? HIS WORSHIP: You can answer that question? . . . Beg your pardon? You can answer that question? . . . Yes. He told them what he was doing in Bolivia. Senator Haines —You mean you are not going to tell us? Senator ALSTON —I will tell Senator Haines what he was doing in Bolivia. In fact, she might be appalled by some of the language. Senator Haines —Look, we have been in this chamber long enough to cope with it. Senator ALSTON —All right, I will come to that in a moment. I just want to complete the jigsaw so that we all understand what is being said. The person who presented the character reference was Detective Senior Constable Collins from the National Crime Authority. The question put to Cross in the committal proceedings was this: So Mr Collins knew all about where you had been in Bolivia and what you had been doing there? He answered yes. Here we have Mr Cross giving this evidence in the magistrates court. In effect, he has conceded that he would have a number of-- Senator Haines —Have you thought of taking Max Gillies's job? Senator ALSTON —I will leave that to my good friend Senator Puplick. Here we have Mr Cross making a clean breast of affairs. For example, he was asked: . . . do you remember saying to Mr Foster in relation to the cocaine `I think it has come from Miami but it's been jumped on once'? He replied: That sounds familiar. He said further: `Jumped on' is an expression that means mixed with another substance. He was asked: Did you go on to say to him `the last time I was in Bolivia I got the stuff straight from the . . . factory, it was still damp. I deleted the expletive. He answered: I don't recall. In other words, he does not recall whether he said: The last time I was in Bolivia I got the stuff straight from the . . . factory . . . He said: I could've said that, but I don't-I just don't recall it. My assessment of that is that there was enough in that evidence to suggest that the National Crime Authority had been made well aware of what Cross had been up to in Bolivia on a number of occasions, that he was obviously someone who was highly familiar with cocaine and had been importing it over a period. Senator Haines —Although he had forgotten. Senator ALSTON —The real vice is not that he forgot but that Mr Collins had this horrible bout of amnesia, because he was the one who presented a glowing character report. If only I could find the document I would tell the honourable senator what it says by quoting from it precisely. Senator Haines —We are all agog. Senator ALSTON —I thought the honourable senator might be. Senator Collins —If that is the main point of your address, I would have thought you would have had it. Senator ALSTON —That is right, but we have to ad lib in this game. Ah, I have found the document. Senator Haines —Can we just set the scene: This is a character witness, a Mr Collins, who has a terrible memory? Senator ALSTON —Right. Senator Collins —I think he can do it on his own. Senator ALSTON —This is for those who do not have the video and need to have it explained. So we have here a report from the officer in charge of the Investigator's Office, National Crime Authority, Melbourne, signed by Detective Senior Constable K. L. Collins. So Collins gives this report which was presented to the judge in December 1986. Honourable senators will recall that, in the magistrates court in March 1987, Collins conceded that, over a period of years, he had been actively involved here and elsewhere. Senator Haines —How could we forget? Senator ALSTON —How could honourable senators forget? So what does the character report say about that period? It says: Around 1981, Cross again settled back in Melbourne and after doing carpentry type work for several months, again joined the Victorian Education Department, took up a position teaching Mathematics at the Caulfield Institute of Technology. During 1984, Cross left the Education Department again- Senator Haines —He was a woodwork teacher-is that what you are telling us? Senator ALSTON —That is what Mr Collins seems to say. This type of person comes out of the woodwork fairly infrequently. The character report continues: and from that time he has not really had any regular type of employment. He apparently has dabbled in the buying and selling of paintings over this period which could have supplied some income. That is a reasonable hypothesis. Based on no evidence at all, I might say. The report continues: After leaving his wife in 1977 he had a number of relationships with different women . . . That is all very interesting, I suppose. The report concludes: Although Cross, through his demeanour and appearance seems to be the typical maths teacher type- That is a reflection on many thousands of people in the community. Senator Haines —I take strong exception to that. Senator ALSTON —It is an outrage in this instance, I will concede that. Senator Haines —It means he is good with numbers. Senator ALSTON —He only got four with a minimum of one, so I suppose that he is not complaining. The report goes on: through the variety of occupations he has followed and his, to some degree itinerant lifestyle, he has had very broad experience in life. Through this lifestyle he has also developed relationships and associates which come from the full spectrum of society-ranging from the so-called upper class society set- remember, his father was a Supreme Court judge- through the intellectual alternative lifestyle crowd through to the professional criminal element. From my dealings with Cross he appears to me to be a man of certainly above average intelligence, who, if he had channelled his abilities in the one direction into a legitimate occupation would have been highly successful. In his criminal activities, in some respects he has been very naive, while in other instances he has exhibited criminal cunning. Senator Haines —Sounds like a lawyer. Senator ALSTON —No, he should have gone on to that profession but he chose not to. He did one year of law school. The report goes on: I believe that it is his liking for the knocking around, not having to work hard, not having to tie yourself down to a routine, type of life, that is a contributing factor in his commission of these offences . . . . . . In the early 1980's Cross took Edd's advice and on one of his many trips to Sydney, took the time to look up Edd's brother to have a friendly drink with him. Do honourable senators know who Edd's brother was?-Christopher Dale Flannery. Can honourable senators think of a more charitable way of expressing a criminal association? People used to get 12 months for that sort of thing, for consorting. But what we have here is: . . . Cross took Edd's advice and on one of his many trips to Sydney took the time to look up Edd's brother to have a friendly drink with him. I conclude my quotations with a reference which we would all like to have, no doubt, if we found ourselves in this unfortunate situation. In conclusion I believe that Cross is the type who will learn from his mistakes- obviously, he would only belong to the Liberal Party if he came here- and also utilise the time he spends in gaol in a beneficial manner. I further believe that upon his release he has the character to take up useful employment and become a worthwhile member of the community. It is good stuff and it is all unpaid. I believe that the National Crime Authority does itself a great disservice by allowing that sort of document to be wheeled up to the Supreme Court. No doubt it unwittingly misled the judge. It is not so much a matter of whether the judge would have given any different sentence in the ultimate. The question is whether the courts are entitled to rely upon documentation presented to them by lawyers and by those who are instructing them. In this instance I believe that the report fell far short of the standards required. It troubles me that there has been no indication since that time that the National Crime Authority shares my view on this matter. It certainly has not given any indication that the Sydney office was even aware of the document being prepared and submitted in Melbourne. It is fair to say that the National Crime Authority appears not to be overly concerned about the matter. To the extent that it does not see this as a problem and that, therefore, it is likely to recur, it raises doubts about the judgment of the NCA. The evidence as I have outlined it indicates that Cross is not a minor player. Yet the NCA was prepared to go to almost extraordinary lengths to secure a deal with him and compromised its integrity in the process. These are disturbing questions. I hope that the National Crime Authority will urgently review its approach to witness protection in the light of these developments. Ultimately, it would be a tragedy for Australian society if we did not have an effective National Crime Authority, if we did not continue to have people of the high integrity of the commissioners who currently populate the NCA. It is vitally important that community respect is maintained and enhanced by the quality of the work undertaken by the NCA. I trust that this is simply a single, sorry incident that will not be allowed to recur in the future and will not tarnish the well-earned high reputation of the National Crime Authority. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce) —by leave-Mr Deputy President, I claim to have been misrepresented. In Senator Alston's speech he made some comments about the legal profession and a particular Melbourne member of that profession. I interjected and Senator Alston responded by referring to `your firm'. I say to Senator Alston that I do not have a firm. I have not had a firm for 10 years. Having relinquished any association with that firm, my permanent job is Minister of State. Senator HILL(South Australia)(3.27) —I speak to this report as a member of the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority. Witness protection is an important issue. It is, and will remain, a controversial issue. As has been adequately demonstrated by my colleague Senator Alston, great care must be taken by law enforcement authorities in whom they choose to use as witnesses in cases to bring about convictions of those they claim to be the greater criminal. The report principally talks about the use of accomplices. In some instances protection will apply to innocent witnesses, but primarily we are talking about using criminal accomplices to obtain the conviction of another criminal, those who are, to use the jargon of the business, prepared to `roll over' and give evidence for the prosecution. This tool has been well used in the United States of America, and on the basis of that experience there is a growing recognition in this country that if we are to get convictions of the leaders of organised criminal groups, whether we like it or not more often than not we will have to look to accomplices to help achieve those convictions. I guess the other side of the coin to what my colleague Senator Alston has just been saying is that recently some of the successes that have been achieved in bringing to justice major criminals in this country would not have been achieved without the use of accomplice evidence. It is a matter of fact that informers might provide intelligence from which, say, a drug trafficking organisation might come to the attention of the authorities but, regrettably, that is insufficient in itself. What is necessary is to put that organisation out of business, to put its leaders behind bars. That requires evidence that will stand up in a court of law. As I said, more often than not now we are being forced to rely upon accomplices. When we did not we simply were not getting those convictions. We would seek, as often as possible, to have the evidence of such accomplices corroborated, perhaps through that which is obtained by electronic monitoring devices and perhaps in some instances through the coercive powers of the National Crime Authority (NCA). I accept that one can never be comfortable with the use of criminals to convict other criminals. From an evidentiary viewpoint there will always be the argument that the evidence is being given on the basis of some inducement. The court will always have the difficult question-more difficult than in many cases-of determining whether the witness should be regarded as reliable. From a lawyer's viewpoint, the thought that criminals will not be brought to justice, in some instances will be permitted to gain from their criminal activity because of seeking to use them for this extra purpose, will always leave feelings of unease. It was interesting to us, although I guess not so surprising, to learn that many police officers who are trained in the apprehension of criminals, have great difficulty psychologically with this challenge of protecting a criminal in order that he might be able to give evidence against another criminal. Police officers, not surprisingly, would like to see all parties to a criminal activity in the dock. As I said, that is understandable. Whether we like it or not, in the fight against organised crime-and we all accept that the scourge of organised crime exists-we have had to resort to an extension of the tools that are available. I have mentioned electronic monitoring and coercive powers. A greater use of accomplices is a further tool that will be necessary. Why is it necessary? We have been reminded by commissions such as the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking and the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union of the difficulty in coming to grips with the flow of information from traditional sources when we are speaking of major organised crime. Traditional sources simply do not come forward to provide that information. On page 8 of our report we referred to the experience of the Stewart Royal Commission when it looked at the Clark syndicate. It stated: Most of the people who knew of the activities of the drug trafficking syndicate headed by Terrence John Clark were engaged in like activities which were profitable and which they desired to continue. This indicates the difficulties not only of breaking into those syndicates but of finding evidence that can be put before a court. What was most important to us in examining the subject of witness protection in Australia was-this was a view that at least some of us came to hold-that there are other accomplices who would be prepared to come forward if they were confident that they would be protected and have a chance to start life again. But, not surprisingly, when one looks at the facts on the public record, witnesses are afraid for themselves and their families. I stress `families' because we consider the physical security of the criminal in this matter without giving sufficient regard to threats that are made against his or her family. In some instances violence is carried out against his or her family. There is no doubt that these criminal organisations buy death and violence. It is fascinating and a little frightening to learn just how commercial the purchase of violence has become within our society. People within these organisations regard the purchase of a contract to kill somebody as just another transaction. I guess that was a striking learning experience for all of us involved in this inquiry and who took evidence from so many protected witnesses. It was perhaps not surprising to learn that these witnesses had contracts on their lives, but it was surprising to learn-this is usually corroborated by the authorities-that they knew who had taken out the contracts, who was to execute the contracts and they knew the consideration that was being paid for it. One should imagine for a moment what sort of strain and pressure that would put upon a person, no matter what his behaviour had been in the past, to know that there is a contract out on his or her life and know who has taken it up, who is going to carry it out and what that person is being paid. It would obviously introduce a level of stress beyond which most would be able to handle. It is not surprising that prospective witnesses are afraid to come forward. If one reads this report one will read of many examples in this country-we tend to concentrate on the United States experiences-where witnesses and prospective witnesses have been killed to avoid evidence being put before the courts. The next logical step is to provide a regime of protection that will be sufficient to allow them not only to come forward but to give their evidence to the courts in safety. This would give us the benefit of breaking up some of these major organised crime syndicates and putting their leaders behind bars. We had the opportunity to look at the existing protection systems. I use this occasion to state that I was particularly impressed with officials of the Australian Federal Police who were operating under the psychological barriers that I mentioned a while ago, but who had come to realise that just to know the identity of a criminal is insufficient and that the real challenge is to get that criminal behind bars. To do that they had to protect these witnesses. They become highly motivated and dedicated and they deserve great credit. I form a like opinion with regard to the prison authorities in New South Wales, especially those who have the task of looking after protected prisoners within Long Bay Gaol. Of course, prison is no escape from the violence of these criminal organisations. Without extra protection in prison, protected witnesses cannot escape violence. This gives officials a major responsibility and they are meeting that responsibility in New South Wales. I give them great credit for doing that. It is obvious that we must be very careful in the selection of those who will be given that benefit. That point has been more than adequately made by my colleague Senator Alston. We must also recognise that when a witness comes forward and is prepared to be part of this regime it is not a one-way street. Simply getting protection does not change the psychological pressure under which he lives. I draw the attention of the Senate to the unreasonably long delays that occur in trials. We have instances of witnesses who must remain within the protective system for two or three years, or even longer, simply because trials are not being completed within that time frame. I regard that as intolerable. Furthermore, one should imagine what it is like for a person living in a situation where he is protected 24 hours a day, having to change his identity and the identity of his family whilst living in an entirely new environment, never knowing when the criminal organisation might catch up with him. This obviously puts the person under great stress. I do not think we should fall into the trap of thinking that the benefits that the criminal accomplice will get far outweigh the cost to that person. Recent events have shown that the use of these witnesses will remain controversial, particularly when criminals are giving evidence against public officials, well-known public figures or police officers. The use of such witnesses probably should remain controversial. Nevertheless, when one looks at the capacity of organised crime to destroy the lives of innocent people and when one realises that organised crime cannot exist without the facilitation of corrupt officials-be they at the political level, in the bureaucracies or in the police forces-one realises that the risks that are properly taken in this exercise are worthwhile. What we have attempted to do in this report, on the basis of what I have just put to the Senate, is to suggest ways in which a better protection regime can be put together by building upon the experience that Australia already has, not looking to build another new bureaucracy, and at ways in which costs can be controlled. It is obvious that the costs of protection can become enormously expensive and they need to be controlled. We have attempted to deal with the myriad of practical problems that are involved in changing a person's identity but, nevertheless, trying in the long term to provide him and his family with a reasonable life. I think honourable senators who read the report will be impressed. It is a most worthwhile contribution to the debate. I particularly commend the staff of the Committee for its work in contributing to this report. I hope that the Senate, the Government and the public authorities will find that it is useful in putting together a better protection regime than currently exists. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(3.42) —I too wish to make a few comments on this report as a member of the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority. This is the first public inquiry on this matter in this country. As such, it has codified a lot of the ideas that have been floating around to date and sought to provide a base from which a development will undoubtedly come in the not too distant future. It illustrates yet again that the Senate committee system is worthwhile. People from a range of political parties are able to put aside the differences that divide them on ideological or political grounds, address themselves to a common problem and seek, as far as is possible, to come to a common solution. There is no minority report on this matter. As Senator Hill has already said, members of the Committee were impressed with the work that the Committee secretariat put in on the compilation of information that it was able to provide to us in the writing of this report and with that of others who assisted us. I make special mention of the Australian Federal Police which provided very substantial support to enable this report to take place. This is a somewhat unusual report. Indeed, if honourable senators have a look at Appendix 1, they will see that unlike other reports the witnesses are not listed. There is a list on 7 March which starts off with confidential witness H and then lists confidential witnesses I, J, K, L, M and N. The witnesses whom the Committee met in a number of secret locations around Australia were able to provide us with an insight into the type of life protected witnesses have to live in this country. On a number of occasions in the time honoured method depicted on television programs the Committee, to avoid any possible tails, was subjected to some hair-raising driving on the part of the Federal Police. We finally got to the secret location to meet the witness, who will remain confidential. The information the witnesses were able to provide painted a picture for the Committee which was a very steep learning curve for most of us. The Committee was exposed to a side of Australia's criminal life that members of the Committee had not had any brush with before. It was in many ways astounding that the normal view ordinary citizens carry around in their heads of what a criminal might be was different from the type of person we met who was sitting on the other side of the table. The type of people who were obviously born in suits and ties and who had never gone out of a board room in their lives were sitting on the other side as criminal figures of a major kind in this community. The difficulties that were explained to us in terms of the type of life they lead were offset by our consideration of the types of crimes that they had committed and the harm that they had inflicted upon our community. But at the end of the day the consideration that we had was whether or not a workable method of witness protection was required for this country so that the community was protected from such people. Those honourable senators and members of the community who read this report will see that in agonising through that particular operation it became very clear to us all that we had to have a workable method of witness protection in this country for the community's sake and the distasteful elements that are contained within that particular proposition had to be embraced. There are distasteful and very difficult elements. When we get down to the technical details of providing protection for a person who has been instrumental in importing $40m of heroin and we seek to spend taxpayers' money on protecting this individual from his mates, this rubs against the grain not only of parliamentarians but also of the police who are required to protect these people. But we all are very much aware that we have to engage in these somewhat distasteful activities because the community needs that type of protection that can be provided by getting information from these witnesses. This leads to getting hold of criminals, not necessarily the Mr Bigs who still seem to be very well protected in our community. Honourable senators who read some of the chapters in this report will see that we have been able to get some of the massive criminal elements within our community. If we cannot get the top people we will certainly be able to get leads on them by evidence provided by these witnesses. If we do not provide that protection we will not get the information. One witness eloquently pointed out to us that he knew from the very first hour that he agreed to talk to someone-this person was going about his ordinary life and was in a profession where access was able to be gained to Australia for a large amount of heroin-that he was dead. He knew that and yet he was unable to resist the fairly hefty temptation of $1m just for looking the other way. The exercise that we put down in this Committee report is an important one. I am sure that the Government and the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) will address themselves to it swiftly. We have not sought to impose a method on the States. Constitution Alteration Legislation We are mindful of the federal system of this country and we have recommended a cooperative method. State police forces, the Federal Police and other law enforcement agencies throughout Australia all have a common goal and though it is difficult sometimes for them to work together, I believe that our recommendations are ones which do not intrude upon the autonomy and the, as it were, rightful patches occupied by each State police force. The recommendations give a reasonable framework in which State, Federal and law enforcement agencies around the country can cooperate to provide protection to the people who seek to roll over and give evidence to those police forces so that other criminals in the community are able to be apprehended. We know that contracts are issued on these people. As Senator Hill has said, they are able to tell us who had issued the contracts on their lives, how much those contracts were issued for, when they had been issued and who was going to carry out the execution. We know that we have lost witnesses. We know of people who have simply gone down to the corner shop for a loaf of bread and they have been splattered over the sidewalk. That has occurred in this country. We are not talking about the United States; we are talking about Australia. We are talking about people who commit suicide and about people who have simply been found, as one person was on New Year's Day, floating face down in a pond in a park. That happens in Australia. It happens much more often than most people realise. We have a massive problem of crime. The community has a right to protect itself from the criminal elements. This Parliament has a duty to protect the community. This report, when adopted, will take one step further down the track of providing that type of protection for which the community is looking. Question resolved in the affirmative. [COGNATE BILLS: CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (FAIR ELECTIONS) BILL 1988 CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (LOCAL GOVERNMENT) BILL 1988 CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS) BILL 1988] Debate resumed. Senator ALSTON(Victoria)(3.51) —In the short time that remains to me in this debate, I want to touch on two aspects of the fourth referendum question. They relate to trial by jury and also compulsory acquisition. My colleague Senator Bishop will be dealing more than adequately with the question relating to freedom of religion, and I do not want to develop the argument on that matter. On the question of trial by jury, it is fair to say that the proposition at its most charitable proceeds on a severe misunderstanding, and that is that there is a need to entrench a much stronger provision in the Constitution. The reality is that trial by jury is not under threat in this country. There is no suggestion whatever that there are any criminal offences in the Commonwealth or any of the States that could be characterised as serious offences that deny individuals the right to trial by jury. That being the case, one has to be rather suspicious of a proposition that seeks to develop the notion and to extend it in various ways, in providing for more flexible venues of trials, preserving the rights of the States to make a number of exceptions, and essentially to extend the obligation of trial by jury to the States and Territories. For a number of reasons, I believe that this is a fatally flawed piece of drafting. It misuses the proper terms. For example, section 80 of the Constitution at present provides for the trial on indictment of any offence against any law of the Commonwealth to be by jury. The referendum proposal does not do that. It simply talks about any law. It does not talk about trial on indictment. It talks about trials of offences which attract penalties in excess of two years gaol or corporal punishment. The fact is that no State in Australia has corporal punishment in any form except Western Australia, which still permits whipping. One would have thought that this referendum should not be recognising the validity of such a degrading form of punishment but, in effect outlawing it. However, it does the opposite. Furthermore, it ignores capital punishment. One could draw what perhaps may be a long bow, but nonetheless suggest that, by that omission, it is refusing to recognise the validity of capital punishment at all. I do not favour capital punishment, but I concede that there are a number of people in the community who do. The decision ultimately to abolish it for all types of offences is one that is properly made by the parliaments, which have jurisdiction over these matters. I do not think it proper for the Constitution to make that implicit judgment by a back door. The various provisions relating to trial by jury will not have the claimed effect. In fact, they are not necessary. They are not in accordance with the recommendations of the various advisory committees of the Constitutional Commission which have considered the matter. Certainly when it comes to choosing a term of two years as the determinant of what amounts to a serious offence, it is quite clear that this is virtually a sordid political compromise. One of the advisory committees recommended 12 months. The Acts Interpretation Act presently treats six months as the operative period and the only reason given for nominating a two-year period was that otherwise the number of jury trials would increase enormously. That is hardly an argument of principle, and certainly not an adequate basis for changing the nature of the entitlement to trial by jury. That is not a satisfactory proposal; it is totally unnecessary. It is put forward in a motherhood guise, but has quite a number of unintended consequences, ones which certainly do not in any way provide greater safeguards for persons on trial for serious offences. If we are serious about preserving the rights of individuals on trial, we need to ensure that there are a number of equally important safeguards; that they have access to lawyers of their own choosing; that they have adequate legal aid if they are unable to afford to be represented; that they maintain the right to be silent; and that in many ways they are not disadvantaged by trial by jury. It is no use having trial by jury before a jury of three which could then come to a majority decision after a fairly short period of contemplation, and after the accused has been forced to give evidence and has not had the right properly to present his case. In the way in which this referendum proposal is worded, all of those events could come to pass and still be characterised as trial by jury. It is simply not good enough. In the Government's indecent haste to get these questions before the people in the shortest possible time without an opportunity for reflection, it has fallen into the classic trap-that the cure is much worse than the disease. The same applies to compulsory acquisition on just terms. Again, there is no ground for concern at present in regard to the provision in the Constitution so far as it goes. Just terms is one of those cute slogans, but means nothing unless one backs it up with detailed legislation. Since it came to office more than five years ago this Government, to its eternal shame, has had every opportunity to do what needs to be done, to spell out chapter and verse the safeguards that are necessary to ensure that people are not arbitrarily deprived of their property without entitlement to fair and reasonable compensation. What the Government has done, no doubt for sordid political gain-and it is pretty cheap at that-is to introduce into the House of Representatives only yesterday a Lands Acquisition Bill which presumably it will want to wave around during the debate in the next few months to show that somehow it is at least doing something. It demonstrates that to the extent that that Bill is necessary at all, and I believe it is, that is the way these matters should be dealt with-not by way of extending a flawed and very general slogan and forcing it down the throats of the States and Territories, but by ensuring that the States and Territories and the Commonwealth are prepared to tackle the hard ball and to make those sorts of detailed arrangements to ensure that people get proper compensation. At the moment one does not even have foreknowledge of what an acquiring government has in mind. The Government does not tell people. It does not give an estimate of what compensation values are likely to be. One has to get one's own valuer and other experts. There is no right to appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal or anywhere else. There is no compensation for emotional attachment or dislocation from one's principal place of residence. There is no requirement that property can be acquired only for necessary purposes. There is no compensation if one happens to live next door to property that has been disadvantaged by acquisition. They are the nuts and bolts issues that need to be dealt with if one is serious about coming up with sensible suggestions in this area. But no, the Government has chosen to force the States to adopt a meaningless slogan that currently applies at the Federal level. It might be some sort of rough guide, but when it comes to the crunch people are entitled to expect a lot more than that. It is not much use getting up before the Supreme Court of New South Wales and saying `Hang on, the Federal Constitution says that I am entitled to compensation on just terms'. The fact is that the courts have no power at all to intervene to ensure that there is compensation on just terms. All they can do is strike out legislation if they think it does not give that choice, which is a very different proposition. It means that if an ordinary landowner is dispossessed by the vast resources of the State, he somehow has to find the wherewithal to challenge the legislation in court and ultimately to take the matter through. If he is fortunate enough to have the courts strike out that legislation, he will still be no better off unless and until the State decides to make him a better offer. I would have thought that would have been a crippling disadvantage for any litigant, and any government that thinks it is good enough is simply not fair dinkum about the notion of compensation on just terms. There are a number of unintended consequences in the legislation. The original intention was simply to compensate private landowners, but since that time it has been extended to a whole range of personal and real property and to apply to acquisitions not simply by governments, and to apply even to wilderness regulations, as we found in the recent Tasmanian dams case. The proper approach is to provide a comprehensive regime of compensation, both at Commonwealth and State levels. The Commonwealth would seem to be belatedly aware of the need to do that, and as a result it is going to introduce legislation and let it lie on the table. That is a woefully inadequate response after five years in government, but it simply underlines the necessity for comprehensive legislation and not cheap and meaningless slogans. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory)(4.01) —I will not delay the Senate long in this debate, for two reasons. The first is that I contribute to this debate only in order to address one specific matter relating to the Northern Territory which was raised in the debate, I think originally by Senator Chaney and then by Senator Tambling. The second reason I do not want to delay the Senate for too long in this debate is that 95 per cent of the contributions to it will be consigned to the oblivion which they so richly deserve, because a great many members of the parliamentary Liberal Party support these four proposals-there is no question about that-as they also support various matters relating to taxation, Aboriginal affairs and important matters relating to the environment. They have been rolled as firmly on the question of the referendum as they have been rolled on all those other areas by the people who are currently running the Federal coalition; that is, the National Party of Australia. That is a political situation with which I am very familiar, as I will discuss later. Before I get on to that I will dispose of this matter to do with the Northern Territory. I understand that Senator Tambling incorporated in Hansard a message from the Northern Territory Chief Minister relating to an alleged adverse effect that one of the referendum proposals is going to have on the constitutional position of the Northern Territory. The claim is based on a false premise. The inference contained in the Chief Minister's message is simply that some new imposition is being placed on the Northern Territory which will put it at a constitutional disadvantage to the States. It is nonsense. The reality is that the Northern Territory is already at a constitutional disadvantage to the States because it is a Territory and not a State. We are progressing slowly and steadily towards statehood, which is a position for the Northern Territory that I fully support and have always supported. Having just completed my paper on uranium mining, I am now working on a paper on statehood for the Northern Territory, which contains equally persuasive arguments, and no doubt the Territory will at some stage attain that hallowed position. Senator Tambling —Will you get support at the Conference? Senator COLLINS —I will not be at the Conference; I am not a delegate, to my sorrow. When the Northern Territory achieves statehood it will have the same constitutional power as all of the other States. But we simply cannot pretend that under our current constitutional position we do have that same degree of sovereignty as the States. I do not think it is a reasonable suggestion to make, as by inference we must take the suggestion from the Chief Minister's message, that by an alteration to the referendum proposals we can in one fell stroke turn the Northern Territory into a de facto State. I think it needs a bit more work than that. The second last paragraph of the Chief Minister's message states: Apart from Aboriginal land, there would be nothing to stop the Commonwealth, at any time in the future, acquiring back any Territory Government property for any purpose without payment if this referendum Bill is passed in its present form. It would have the potential to destroy the Territory as a self-governing entity to the detriment of all Territorians and their public assets. That is the usual over-the-top rubbish that we expect to get from the Northern Territory Government. It is absolutely incorrect. The second last paragraph is, factually, legally incorrect. It starts off by saying, `. . . there would be nothing to stop the Commonwealth, at any time . . . acquiring back any Territory Government property for any purpose without payment . . .' What will stop the Commonwealth from doing that is the Northern Territory self-government Act. Sections 50 and 70 of the Northern Territory self-government Act make it quite clear that as far as the Northern Territory is concerned those legislative arrangements preclude the Commonwealth from acquiring any property from the Northern Territory. Nothing in proposed new section 115b in the Constitution Alteration (Rights and Freedoms) Bill currently before the Senate will alter this position. Senator Tambling —Have you read the background? Senator COLLINS —I have done so and I reject it. I think it is a nonsensical argument and it simply does not stand up. Why are the conservative parties running it? The reason is very simple. They are opposing all four proposals in the referendum for the same reason, and that is what I want to talk about now. They are simply searching around for issues, like the alleged six months additional time that we could remain in government if the proposals were carried. As if the Government, after establishing the Constitutional Commission, would, in some sort of conspiracy, put forward this entire proposal to the people of Australia with an underlying motive of simply trying to get an additional six months in government. That was a pretty desperate ploy to run. This one from the Northern Territory is in precisely the same position. Why is it that the parliamentary Liberal Party is taking this nonsensical position when some of its members have had enough courage to come out publicly and say that they will not oppose all four proposals? Clearly, many members of the parliamentary Liberal Party support at least one or two of them. The reason is very simple. It is the kind of influence that a minority group in a party can wield when it threatens to cause splits and divisions. It is a situation with which I am very familiar and it has become so palpably and publicly obvious that this is what is going on in the Opposition on an almost non-stop basis. Senator Lewis —Once they understand what it is all about they will vote no. Senator COLLINS —I seem to have struck a raw nerve. It is a political situation that I am very familiar with. Senator Tambling —Just like the Left on uranium. Senator COLLINS —I am perfectly capable of making these points myself and I was just about to talk about the left wing of the Australian Labor Party. If honourable senators opposite allow me to get on with it myself, it will save a lot of time. During the five years I was parliamentary leader in the Northern Territory there were a number of occasions when the left wing of the party would sit down with me around the table discussing proposals that they were about to engage in. By the clear inference of a threat to create an apparent split in the party, they would put a gun at my head and say, `If you do not go along with this proposal, obviously the Press will find out and there will be a great public controversy. It will destabilise the party and the electorate does not like divided parties'. My attitude to that kind of blackmail-and I think it is a very good rule in politics-is that when people put a gun at one's head, the best thing to do immediately is tell them to pull the trigger. I always did that and they either hit or missed. Senator Schacht —They always missed. Senator COLLINS —That may well have been the reason why I stayed in opposition for 10 years, Senator, so perhaps I am on pretty thin ice. But I must say, as an old campaigner, in respect of the influence that minority groups can have inside a party by making those threats, it is so dreadfully obvious what is going on in the Federal coalition at the moment. It is sad to see. It was a sad sight to see Senator Puplick ducking and weaving as he was in the environment debate yesterday. Senator Graham Richardson nailed him firmly to the wall with the statements that he made only a couple of years ago on environmental matters and which he has now repudiated. The fact is that the National Party is running the Federal Opposition. Fortunately, in the Northern Territory we no longer have this position. Senator Walsh —A great load of lead in your saddlebags. Senator COLLINS —That is right. What is this all about? It is the price of 1987. What the Liberals are paying for with opposition to these referendum proposals is the price of 1987. The National Party is extracting every last drop. What happened last year as a result of the public splits on the benches opposite was that they lost out badly in the electorate. No-one could deny that. I am not attacking the basic political premise on which this is based. The electorate does not like parties that are publicly divided, and the National Party is milking that for all it is worth. With the greatest respect to the few honourable senators opposite who still claim the title of Liberal, it is an unacceptably high price for them to pay. If I can give them a piece of gratuitous political advice-- Senator Walsh —Please do. Senator COLLINS —All right. It is about time that those of them who are still members of the Liberal Party expressed that view a little more forcefully and fearlessly and took on the Nationals by saying, `If you are going to be the rats and the white ants of this Party, and if the price for kowtowing and knuckling under to you on every significant occasion is that there will be public disputes within the Party, then let there be public disputes'. That is the basic problem with blackmail: if one gives in to it once, one will continue to give in. In the last couple of weeks the Liberals opposite have been rolled by the Nationals on taxation, on the environment, and on Aboriginal affairs, and they are now being totally rolled by the Nationals on the referendum proposals. It is about time that they regained their identity as Liberals. It is about time they told the blackmailers to lay off. If the result of that is a little public dissension, then let it be so. It is about time that they tried to regain a little of their credibility as Liberals. Senator BISHOP(New South Wales)(4.12) —It has been interesting to hear Senator Collins deal with the question of who was getting rolled doing what, when we have had during debate in this place in the past week the fact that it was Labor Ministers who were being rolled and that the policies that they had advocated were not being dealt with. The real question behind these referendum proposals is why they are being rushed through the Parliament at this stage; why we are not having a proper debate on the Constitutional Commission's report; why only four questions are being selected; and why they are couched in language which is intellectually dishonest. Why, for instance, is the first question couched in the terms, `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', when the real question is the same old question of simultaneous elections, the only difference being that the Government wants simultaneous elections at four-year intervals as distinct from three-year intervals? There is nothing in the proposal that would in any way oblige the government of the day to relinquish the practice which we have seen exercised by this Government of holding elections every two years. We have heard a great outcry from the Government benches in the debate this afternoon concerning the fact that when we lost the election in 1987 it was because the Government was opportunistic; noting a dissension, it took the opportunity of going to the people when it was not due to do so. So the provisions of having a maximum of four years would in no way change the pragmatism and opportunism which the Government could exercise if it so chose. The big difference, of course, is that it would not have to find a trigger and go through the double dissolution mechanism. It could automatically hold the gun at the head as Senator Collins was so busy talking about. The Government could hold the gun at the head of the Senate and say `We are pulling everybody out'. In other words, the main aim of this whole referendum question is to turn the Senate into a rubber stamp for the House of Representatives, for the government of the day. In fact, one could well be forgiven for concluding that, because the Senate stopped the ID card, the Government wants to stop the Senate. With the May economic statement last night, we have already seen that the thin end of the wedge of the ID card is back. We shall be looking very closely at that and again the questions of power, privilege and the protection of the people by the Senate will come to the fore-the most important questions which have yet to be addressed. The glib words that came through last night that the tax file number would not be an ID card by another name can hardly be accepted from a government such as this one. The present situation of a fixed term for the Senate means that the Senate can act, in part, as a regulator of the calling of elections. At least there is some fetter on the government of the day to pay heed to the fact that the Constitution requires that fixed terms be observed. We have, as I have said, seen the spectre of the double dissolution mechanism being brought into play whenever it has opportunistically served the Government, but in no way will the proposed referendum prevent that occurring. We are much better served by letting the Senate remain with its fixed term. It is a question of political will. We have a bicameral system, and it is precious. Perhaps those Government senators who are casting aspersions upon Queensland, which I hear from time to time, could simply bear in mind that government may have been better served in Queensland had Queensland had an upper House. We come now to the question of so-called fair and democratic elections. Again, the question is couched in a way which is intellectually dishonest: `Do you approve of an Act to alter the Constitution to provide fair and democratic parliamentary elections throughout Australia?'. What hypocrisy! What cant! When talking about that, we look at the New South Wales example. As I have said, we hear much from the Government about the situation in Queensland. But let us look at what we had to achieve in New South Wales to win government, as we did on 19 March, when the Unsworth Government was unceremoniously tipped out. We had to achieve nearly 54 per cent of the overall vote to gain a majority of seats. Yet in New South Wales there is legislation which ostensibly requires one vote one value. What good did that do the people of New South Wales? Although it purports to deal with the numbers of people within an electorate, it does not deal with the setting of boundaries. So we have the interesting spectacle that in those States where there is legislation allegedly requiring one vote one value, there is a bias to the ruling government of an average of 2.5 per cent, but in States in which there is no such legislation the bias is an average 1.7 per cent. Indeed, it is fair to say that where that so-called one vote one value legislation is introduced, the system seems to become automatically unfair, or more unfair. But what about the hypocrisy in the proposal? Whereas many aspersions are cast upon upper Houses in some States, this proposal to have, allegedly, one vote one value does not look at the question of the Senate itself-or perhaps that is the second agenda. As we all know, each State has 12 senators. How can honourable senators possibly conceive that that could in any way represent one vote one value across Australia when New South Wales has 3.4 million voters and Tasmania has about a quarter of a million voters? Equally, the Constitution entrenches a guaranteed number of seats for Tasmania. Under a strict appraisal of one vote one value, Tasmania, very simply, would not be entitled to its guaranteed five seats; perhaps something more like 2 1/2 seats. So it is a nonsense. It is trying to promote the politics of the warm inner glow-`You, the people of Australia, must be concerned that we have fair and democratic parliamentary elections'. Well, we are, but the proposed referendum as it is couched will not give that to the people. That is why I have described the question as being intellectually dishonest. I come to the question of local government. It is a vexed question because the concept of local government, the third tier, is important to those of us in the coalition. Again the difficulty is, of course, the way in which this matter has been treated. Do you approve of an Act to alter the Constitution to recognise local government? What does that mean? It basically means that no guarantees are given to local government. It means that one asks why the Government is introducing this provision; what are its real motives. One remembers the Whitlam years, the regional employment development scheme and the attempt the Whitlam Government made to achieve its intent, which was to see the end of State governments and the rise of regional governments. Because of the manner in which the legislation is couched, again, one looks at the hidden agenda of the Labor Party and to its real motives. Indeed, in its early years, the Wran Government attempted to merge municipal and shire councils to try to achieve greater control, something along the lines of the regional scheme proposed in the Whitlam years. Many questions come to light when one realises that, of the five advisory committees to the Constitutional Commission, one of those, the Distribution of Powers Advisory Committee, recommended against the inclusion of local government in the Commonwealth Constitution whereas the Economic Advisory Committee recommended it. I understand that those reports were tabled in this House in 1987 prior to my election, but I would like to ask again why the Senate is not having a full debate on the Constitutional Commission report; why is it not looking in full at those reports from the advisory bodies set up to advise the Commission? Why are these questions being ramrodded through? Perhaps one could get a glimmer of one of the reasons from what Senator Collins had to say a few moments ago when he was trying to say that there was a divided element within the Opposition concerning its opposition to the four referenda. I suggest that the simple matter of the timing and intent of bringing on these four Bills is an attempt to divide the coalition and to provide a divertissement to take the attention of the people from the real and burning issues of the day. I understand that the questions are due to go to the people some time in September. That could be a handy time because it is not too long after the Budget and will take some heat off the decisions that the Government has failed to make. Many questions must be addressed when one asks why the Government is ramrodding through these four questions. Why is it that these are the four questions that have been chosen and why have others been deleted or omitted? Why is the Senate not debating in full the Commission's report which took some $6m to achieve? Why is the Government going helter-skelter to spend $34m to put four questions to the people which it has arbitrarily selected without making use of the initial material? The local government question is vexed. It is quite proper that there be protection for local government, the important third tier of government, in State constitutions and I and the coalition support that. Indeed, those State governments that do not have that provision ought to be encouraged and will be encouraged to provide for such protection in their own constitutions. I now come to the fourth of the proposals, which is a polyglot lot. The question is: 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 the Government? I call it a polyglot lot because the manner in which the question has been posed means that the whole proposition must stand or fall together. Senator Richard Alston dealt in a thorough way with the question of trial by jury and he put a most eloquent case. He also dealt with the acquisition of property and the question of just terms. Even if one were not to be persuaded on these two issues, one may well be persuaded-and indeed the electorate no doubt will be-on the question of religion. If one feels strongly on the question of religion, one must oppose the whole proposal because the Government has chosen to put three issues together and they may not be debated separately. As I said, the case stands or falls as a single entity. Let us look at what is proposed. Let us look at what the so-called extension of freedom means. It falls into three categories: Firstly, under the present Constitution, there is an embargo under section 116 which says that the Commonwealth may not make any law for establishing any religion, imposing any religious observance or prohibiting the free exercise of any religion. It further forbids the imposition of any religious test as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth. That particular section was challenged in the Defence of Government Schools (DOGS) case, which involved the former Victorian Attorney-General and the Commonwealth. In that case the Full Bench of the High Court, with only Mr Justice Murphy dissenting, concluded that state aid for private schools was not in breach of the Constitution. The case for DOGS was put forward to the High Court in a thorough manner and was summarised in the judgment of Sir Garfield Barwick, Chief Justice of the High Court, when he said: Let it be supposed for the purposes of this discussion, though it must not be thought that by the assumption I am expressing a concluded view in that sense on my own behalf, that opportunity is taken by those in control of such educational activities to utilise some part of the time set aside for such educational activities to foster the practice of the Christian religion, albeit according to the practices or doctrines of a particular church, and let it be supposed that buildings to the cost of the construction of which money derived from the legislation has been applied, are on occasions used for some religious activity of the owner of the premises: I do not think the material proffered on behalf of the Attorney-General of Victoria or the relators on whose behalf he sues takes the matter any further than the assumptions I have just described. In other words, the argument was put to the High Court by the Defence of Government Schools people that, because buildings or money allocated to or appropriated for church-based schools for education could have had an ancillary usage for the promotion of religion, this constituted a law for the establishment of a religion or for the imposing of a religious observance and as such was in breach of the Constitution. That argument was rejected by all but Mr Justice Murphy. Sir Garfield Barwick, the Chief Justice, said in his judgment: Nothing in the laws made by the Parliament expressly authorises the use of Commonwealth funds for those purposes, though it might justly be said that no provision of that law expressly or adequately prohibits the schools or those conducting them from using the occasion or the buildings assisted or built with money provided for support of educational activities to so use the occasion or the buildings. I cannot think that it can rationally be said that by not preventing such a use of the occasion or buildings which I have assumed, the law providing the funds for the forwarding of the education of Australians by non-government schools is a law for establishing a Christian religion. A law which in operation may indirectly enable a church to further the practice of religion is a long way away from a law to establish religion . . . The law must be a law `for' it, i.e. intended and designed to set up the religion as an institution of the Commonwealth. From that judgment one can see that the basis of it was the question of the `making of a law'. The proposal before the Senate is to take out the words `make any law'. In case anyone feels that other judgments did not back up the Barwick, C.J. position, the judgment of the present Chief Justice, Sir Anthony Mason, was along similar lines. If one deletes the words `make any law', the Constitution is left open to interpretation that an incidental purpose of an enactment may cause the legislation to fail because it is an infringement of the Constitution. One can be forgiven for knowing and acknowledging that within the Labor Party there is a strong group that is anti-independent schools and which would like to see people continually enrolled in government schools. In the DOGS case or Black's case two of the original plaintiffs were Mr John Halfpenny and Mr Bill Hartley. The anti-government school issue is alive and well in the Labor Party and one can be forgiven for looking for its second agenda prompting the introduction of this provision. If the words `make any law' are deleted, the religious observance provision will be affected; the question of prayers in schools may come into play as has been the experience in the United States of America. The prohibition provision contained in section 116 provides that certain practices of various religions or sects in this country may be able to be continued despite their being offensive to other social mores that prevail in the community. I shall refer specifically to one such practice in a moment. Even the report of the Constitutional Commission recognised that freedom of religion cannot be totally unfettered and that it is necessary to ensure that religious practices do not offend against the established social interests and freedoms. The example I intended to give is this: There is a particular Moslem sect that practises female circumcision, which is implicitly performed for the reason of sexually desensitising young girls. I find that practice abhorrent yet it is perhaps an exercise of religious freedom. The practice is unacceptable in Australia, yet if the mini Bill of Rights were to succeed, as a people, we may be in the position where we are powerless to do anything about it. I began my speech by pointing out that the manner in which the questions are to be put to the people is intellectually dishonest. I said that they are being brought forward in a rushed and hurried manner for a purpose other than the so-called improvement of the Constitution. The Government has put forward a case which says it has selectively and arbitrarily chosen these four issues without a proper debate of the recommendations of the Constitutional Commission. The reason for the timing is simply that it is to be used as a diversion but the consequences for the Australian people, if the debate is not rigorous and if the people do not understand what the questions really mean, are that the Constitution can be dealt with and altered without the people understanding why. Therefore, the debate needs to be as rigorous and as extensive as possible. When the Opposition puts forward its four noes it does so to protect the Constitution and to protect the people whom the Constitution serves. Senator SCHACHT(South Australia)(4.35) —I shall speak briefly today and mainly on one of the four referendum proposals, that dealing with one vote one value. It should be accepted that I, like other members of the Government, fully support the four provisions and will do so when the referendum is held in September. I shall also refer briefly to recognition of local government. The Opposition stated that it will oppose that provision along with the other three. The Senate may be interested to know that on 10 February 1988 the Leader of the Opposition, John Howard, wrote to the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) in the following terms: I enclose a copy of a letter from Ryde Municipal Council concerning recognition of local government in the Australian Constitution. I fully support council's request that a chapter should be inserted in the Constitution dealing with local government. I would appreciate receiving your comments in due course. Yours sincerely, John Howard. That letter briefly and succinctly explains the hypocrisy of the Opposition's campaign because in only February this year the Leader of the Opposition wrote to the Attorney-General fully supporting recognition of local government in the Constitution of Australia. I shall now address the provision of one vote one value. I come from South Australia, where this debate began in the 1950s and 1960s. Previously in the Senate I have paid tribute to the work of Don Dunstan as a leader of the Australian Labor Party and Premier of South Australia in explaining how democracy is not operating if one does not have the concept of one vote one value. Don Dunstan clearly explained to the people that parliaments represent people; they do not represent, as Senator Boswell tried to argue in his speech, acres, square miles, sheep, cows, paddocks, trees or anything else. If one believes in democracy, one believes that every human being is equal and that every human being has the right to be treated equally under the law. I heard in some of the remarks from Opposition senators, in particular Senator Hill, that the preselection process of the Labor Party in South Australia was not democratic. The great difference between the preselection process of the Labor Party in South Australia and the election of people to parliament is that the Labor Party, as an organisation, does not make the laws that affect all the people equally; they are made by the Parliament and are binding on all people. Therefore it is only fair and the basis of democracy that people who have to obey all the laws should have an equal right to make them. I also noted in some of the remarks of the Liberal Party senators that individually they claimed that they support the concept of one vote one value. Senator Chaney and Senator Hill were two Liberal senators who said that within their respective States they supported the proposition of one vote one value, yet for other reasons they claimed here that they cannot support it in the referendum. It is an indication of the intellectual barrenness in the Liberal Party today that in all of the speeches made here by Liberal senators they cannot make the simple assertion that they believe all people should be equally represented in parliament. They use all sorts of spurious arguments to oppose the concept of one vote one value. They claim that it does not stop gerrymandering. In a technical sense that is possible but in every State where the one vote one value provision has been enshrined in the State's Constitution and enshrined in this Parliament with independent, appointed redistribution commissioners, one cannot say that one vote one value has not worked. In every case where a party has a majority vote, it has been elected to government; unlike in South Australia in 1965 when the Labor Party had to win 57 per cent of the vote to be elected. Worst of all, in 1968 the Liberal Party received 42 per cent of the vote and was elected to government in South Australia, although the Australian Labor Party received 57 1/2 per cent of the vote. The final argument that the Liberals use against one vote one value is that it is a States rights issue. I must say that I have noted that, whenever any other argument does not work, the Liberals bring up the hoary chestnut of States rights. Senator McGauran —It is true. Senator SCHACHT —I thank Senator McGauran; it is very true. When the Liberals cannot use anything else they use States rights. To paraphrase one of the great sayings of Samuel Johnson, `patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels'. When everything else has been defeated in an argument, the Liberals rely on States rights. In this case of one vote one value, the Opposition is relying on the hoary chestnut that it is affecting States rights. If the referendum is carried-I surely hope that it is-it will mean that people in all the States and Territories have voted accordingly, that they have had their say and they want that in their Constitution. The Constitution is not just for the Federal Parliament; it is for all the States and Federal Parliament together. We are in the process of trying to ensure that the Constitution is changed to affect the States as well as the Federal Government in accordance with existing provisions. I believe that one vote one value is a further evolution of the development of democracy that has been going on for several hundred years. Although people will claim that one vote one value does not automatically guarantee democracy in some senses, it is immeasurably better than that which exists in States such as Queensland at the moment. I would like to draw attention to the view of one of the great democrats in the history of Western civilisation, Abraham Lincoln, who, in his concluding remarks in his historic Gettysburg Address in 1864, said, `Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth'. That phrase has continued to echo around the world for all who believe in democracy. That is what democracy is about-government of the people, by the people, for the people. One vote one value is another step forward in ensuring that Abraham Lincoln's immortal phrase is enshrined and further advanced. If we accept the arguments of the Liberal Party and, in particular, the National Party of Australia, they would alter the immortal words of Abraham Lincoln to take account of the situation in Queensland, and I suppose the phrase would be, `Government of the corrupt, by the corrupt, for the corrupt, shall not perish from the State of Queensland'. In Queensland a party can govern with 39 per cent of the vote, irrespective of the wishes of the majority of the people of Queensland. Certainly people have pointed out that the two-party preferred vote for the non-Labor side is greater than 50 per cent. I make no excuses for the fact that, since 1957, the Labor Party in Queensland has not yet got a 50 per cent plus one two-party preferred vote. But the party which has been consistently dubbed by the National Party because of the non-existence of one vote one value is the Liberal Party. If fair boundaries were drawn up in Queensland by an independent commission on the basis of one vote one value, if they were not gerrymandered, there would be at the very least a coalition government in Queensland of the Liberal and National parties as I admit that they represent 50 per cent plus one of the vote. A party with 39 per cent of the vote would not have about 55 to 57 per cent of the seats. I believe that my paraphrasing of Abraham Lincoln's remarks sums up the situation in Queensland, where there is a corrupt and arrogant government, as the Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry into Possible Illegal Activities and Associated Police Misconduct has shown, because the people in that Government believe that, irrespective of the wishes of the people, they should continue to rule. I look forward to participating in the referendum campaign in September on these four issues, but in particular on the issue of one vote one value, and I look forward to being able to say that this great debate on one vote one value started in my State of South Australia in the 1950s and the 1960s. In September 1988, our bicentennial year, it will finally be achieved in all of Australia. Senator McGAURAN(Victoria)(4.45) —This afternoon the Senate has before it the Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill 1988, the Constitution Alteration (Fair Elections) Bill 1988, the Constitution Alteration (Local Government) Bill 1988, the Constitution Alteration (Rights and Freedoms) Bill 1988 and the Constitution Alteration (Electors' Initiative) Bill 1987. It should be remembered that since Federation the Australian Labor Party (ALP) has tried on 21 occasions to change the Constitution and has been successful only once. That is because it is a party that basically is mistrusted by the Australian people when it comes to changing the Constitution. The ALP's basic philosophy has always been pitched against the Australian Constitution because it is a Constitution embedded in federalism, power in the hands of the people, and upholding traditional social values. The ALP wants nothing to do with traditional social values and it wants nothing to do with federalism. Rather, it wants power in the hands of fewer people and more power to Canberra. The ALP wants to attack the common law rights of the people and to diminish the importance of the Judeo-Christian values that have been built up in this country since Federation. If the ALP cares about religious values, why has it enshrined pornography? If it cares about religious values, why has it allowed destructive embryo experimentation? If it cares about religion, why is it condoning homosexual marriages and the entry of homosexual migrants into this country? That is about the sum total of the value that the ALP places on the freedom of religion. The existing Constitution has served this country very well. It has been an outstanding success. It has brought us into this bicentennial year as a prosperous country, a free country and a country still full of great potential, regardless of the incompetence of the Government in managing our economic affairs. That just shows how great Australia is, regardless of the socialists and the nihilists who run this country. Heaven knows, they are trying their best to ruin it economically and socially, to change the economic and social pattern to their socialist and nihilist ways. Does this Government really believe that it has any credibility in asking the Australian public to trust it on these referendum questions? Does it really believe that the people will ever accept its motherhood statements? If the people were ever to accept this Government's motherhood statements, they would have accepted the Bill of Rights because it spoke of freedom of religion; yet it was rejected even before it was able to be fully tested in this Parliament. The Industrial Relations Bill suffered the same fate. It was a Bill that would have destroyed the integrity of common law. Yet, clearly, that is what this Government is attempting to achieve in its proposed referendum questions. I have no trouble in arguing the case against the referendum question on local government-the so-called recognition of local government. As a former Melbourne city councillor I have witnessed, at first hand, the contempt that this Government has had for the third tier of government.The referendum proposal is worthless and will not satisfy the real needs of local government to provide fundamental services to the local communities. That is what needs to be looked at. The clear picture that is being painted is that local government is being driven into the ground, that it is unable to maintain the fundamental infrastructure of this country-roads being the finest example. If journalists such as Paul Kelly or Michelle Grattan want to look at the infrastructure of this country to see whether we are on an economic decline, they should go and talk to local councils, instead of getting their briefings from the Treasury, because there is rotting at the local council level. The effect of this local government decay will eventually have an impact on Canberra. As recently as last night in the May economic statement a further $50m was cut from road funding. In the last four years Federal funding of roads has been cut in real terms by more than 20 per cent. It has been reported to be as high as 40 per cent, but I will take the figures 20 per cent to 25 per cent. The whole approach of this Government towards the referendum questions is political. We should have expected nothing else, I suppose. How could we have hoped that the political thugs on the other side of the chamber would ever respect the Australian Constitution? The centrepiece of Labor's campaign is the Bill to alter the Constitution to provide for four-year maximum terms for members of the House of Representatives and the Senate. As my colleagues have pointed out, it is simply an attempt to white-ant the powers of the Senate, to reduce the Senate's genuine role as a House of review, a House of checking and balancing. It is an attempt to reduce the Senate's representation of the States, to subject it to the whim of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has repeatedly called early elections. Time and again the Australian public has slapped back in the face of the Government its ideological hang-up it seems to have about the Senate's powers. The people of Australia throughout its history have stood by the powers of the Senate, and they will do so again. If the elections of 1975 and 1977 do not prove that, this referendum question will. I have the firmest conviction that each new generation of Australians will stand by the powers of the Senate and its role in Australian society. The next Bill I wish to address is the Constitution Alteration (Fair Elections) Bill. There are two major arguments against this Bill. Country electorates need some tolerance of votes between the number of votes a country electorate incorporates and the distances between rural communities. The Australian Labor Party city-bound politicians do not understand this, because they never go out into the bush. If quality representation is to be provided, a clear understanding is needed of the differences between the demands of country electorates and city electorates. Further, we need to differentiate between malapportionment, which is the differing of numbers between separate electorates, and gerrymanders, which is the difference in boundaries. The ALP is the past master of gerrymandering. The mere fact of one vote one value does not guarantee an equitable voting system. I welcome the opportunity to take the no vote case throughout Victoria. I will campaign vigorously and strongly for the no vote. If the Government believes that the opinion polls are with it at the moment, if it has some warm inner glow that it will carry off four yes votes in the referendum, it should remember the ID card. Admittedly, the polls were against us at the beginning on the ID card issue. We have four months to campaign strongly across Australia to defeat this referendum. We will campaign relentlessly for four noes. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(4.54) —The Senate is debating five Bills which seek to put before the electorate of Australia proposals to alter the Constitution. The Opposition firmly opposes each of these Bills for sound and responsible reasons. The whole debate about constitutional change, particularly since the events of 1975, has been stoked with emotional rhetoric, which has disguised the worth and value of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act. That Act has successfully overseen the good government of this country for 87 years. Unfortunately, and particularly of late, the Act has been consistently undermined by the Australian Labor Party. The Bills before the Senate today are but another example of Labor's attempt to white-ant the Constitution. The most recent round in this attempt began in 1985 when the Government announced the setting up of the Constitutional Commission. The Commission met and formulated reports for three years at a cost of well over $5m to the Australian taxpayer. What was the result? Firstly, the Government decided which questions it wanted to put before the Commission had reported. Secondly, one of the questions proposed was the complete opposite of what the Commission had recommended; that dealing with the recognition of local government. Thirdly, the Commission can now be seen as what the Liberal Party has consistently stated it was-an official veneer to cloak the secret agenda already determined by the Hawke Labor Government. Each of these Bills has a common factor. They all seek to tilt the political balance in favour of Canberra at the expense of the States. The Labor Party is attempting to subvert the wisdom and planning of the founding fathers to obtain centralist judgments from the High Court, especially on the external affairs powers, and slip through some seemingly innocuous changes to the Constitution by placing bland and simple questions on the ballot paper. When one considers these changes with the strengthening of the already strong Federal powers in the areas of taxation, company law, family law, the centralist Green Paper on education and the increasing power of the national government over land use, the growing encroachment on the States is obvious and frightening. I turn to the specifics of the four Bills. Firstly, let us consider the constitutional recognition of local government. At first sight, the Bill seeks to ask a simple, straightforward question: Do you approve of an Act to alter the Constitution to recognise local government? It is a bland question. This is a token exercise which does nothing to arrest the decline in Federal support for local government since the Hawke Government was elected in 1983. It does nothing to answer the pleas from local governments across Australia for urgent assistance for road maintenance funds. The only concrete thing such an amendment would do is impel two new non-Labor States to alter their Constitutions to include a reference to local government. Even the Federal Government's own Constitutional Commission recommended that local government should not be accorded this token inclusion. What more authoritative body could there be? It was specially set up to make such an evaluation. The Commission found, and I think this is a valid conclusion, that there would be great uncertainty if the High Court were asked to interpret such an amendment. The cynicism of this Government is blatantly displayed when it even ignores its own Commission's recommendations, particularly in relation to local government. Recently a well known professor, Associate Professor George Winterton of the University of New South Wales, argued against the local government question. I will place before the Senate a number of arguments that he brought forward. I also remind the Senate that this professor was a member of the Australian Constitutional Commission. He raised three main objections to this amendment to the Constitution to recognise local government. Because of his position as a member of the Commission, because of his standing as a professor and because of the logic behind his argument, I will put those proposals to the Senate. His first proposal concerns the internal structure of State administration, which he says should not be a matter for the Commonwealth Constitution, nor for this Parliament. Each State should be free to determine for itself the implementation and the form of local government structure in that State. The professor said: The appropriate place for any constitutional recognition of local government is the State Constitution . . . I think that States will start to implement that recommendation. The second reason that the professor does not support the recognition of local government in the Federal Constitution is that proposed section 119a does not define the term `local government'. This uncertainty could lead to the High Court ultimately having the responsibility for deciding which forms of local administration were local government within the Constitution and which were not. In short, a Pandora's box of vague and imprecise meanings will be opened up by a simple so-called amendment to the Constitution Act. The third reason the professor gives for voting no to the question relates to the wording of proposed section 119a. He says: . . . undoubtedly make it more difficult for State governments to dismiss corrupt or inefficient local councils and appoint unelected officials to administer affairs on a temporary basis. We all know that from time to time there are cases where local government goes wrong and it is necessary to dismiss councils, to elect new councils or to appoint pro tem administrators. He continues: If the proposal is adopted, we can be certain that whenever a council is dismissed, the dismissed councillors will immediately apply to the courts for an injunction to overturn their dismissal on the ground that it contravenes s. 119a. I emphasise that these are the words of a prominent lawyer who heard submissions from around Australia. He is a member of the Constitutional Commission. He concluded that such an amendment to the Constitution should be soundly repudiated. I remind honourable senators that the Tasmanian Premier, Robin Gray, and the Tasmanian Minister for Local Government, Ian Braid, announced only yesterday that the State Constitution would be amended in the autumn session to recognise local government. I mentioned earlier in my deliberations that that is the place for changes to be made and recognition to be made, not in the Federal Constitution. I applaud the Tasmanian Premier for his timeliness in this announcement. The next proposal that will be placed before the Australian people concerns the four-year term for both Houses. The Government had a marvellous opportunity to get things right. Unfortunately, stubbornness will wreck this opportunity. The Government had a fine opportunity to put a question which could have gained bipartisan support from and acceptance by all parties within this Parliament-that is, the extension of the term of the House of Representatives to four years. Regretfully, Mr Bowen chose to turn this Bill into what we call a sugar-coated pill. The Government hopes to gain the approval of people who are rightly sick and tired of both sides of politics calling opportunistic early polls. I believe that the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) has lost a great opportunity by trying to whittle away the powers of the upper House in this proposal. The proposal that will be put to the Australian people in relation to four-year parliaments can be referred to as a platypus question. Like the platypus, it appears quite innocuous and harmless. But, also like the platypus, this piece of legislation has a sting at the end. That sting negates any worth in the proposal. The founding fathers decided in the 1890s that the Federal Parliament should have three elements. Those elements were: the Crown; the Senate, to provide a brake on the lower House, a House of review with continuity and to provide for equal representation of the States; and the House of Representatives to provide the Government and to have the numbers, according to the population of each State. The Government seeks to destroy the second of these two elements. It is clear in this Bill that this chamber would become a useless and impotent rubber stamp if our terms were made the same as those of lower House members. I suggest that the Government should have allowed for a four-year term and that senators' terms should be split on an agreeable basis. No government is formed in the upper House; that is not the Senate's role. Therefore, it is correct that the Senate should have a term that is perhaps greater than that of the other House. We are members of a House of review and have a broad responsibility to look at legislation in a more objective sense than the other place, where numbers mean that the Government always wins the day. In fact, senators in this House represent the States and the internal territories. I am proud to be a senator for Tasmania, first and foremost, before I am a member of any political party or interest group. The party dominance that has been steadily creeping into this place for so long would have finally won the day if this question were accepted. The Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Gareth Evans, said in his maiden speech in this place, as far back as 1974, that the best way to destroy the Senate was to white-ant it from within. It looks as though the Evans school of thought includes the Attorney-General and, by their support of this question, the Australian Democrats. There is more likelihood of the Senate being dominated by the Government party in the lower House by this amendment, and this would even further undermine the original role and purpose of the Senate. I turn now to the issue of one vote one value and the Constitution Alteration (Fair Elections) Bill. What a meaningless title this is. The question posed is: `Do you approve of a Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution to provide for fair and democratic parliamentary elections throughout Australia?' I remind the Senate that the head of Morgan gallup polls, Mr Gary Morgan, who has spent his professional career fine-tuning questions to express as objective a view as possible, has labelled this and the other three constitutional questions as `blatantly biased'. This proposal is rejected by the coalition and will be rejected by the people of Australia. Contrary to what the Government propaganda has stated, this question does not provide for fair and democratic elections. This question does not attempt to stop the rigging of electoral boundaries. This question could well induce governments to entrench gerrymandered boundaries to maximise their vote. This idea of a one vote one value system has been entrenched in New South Wales. Yet the Hon. Nick Greiner in the recent New South Wales election had to gain more than 52 per cent of the vote to take the Liberal-National Party coalition to victory. The same will apply when John Olsen faces John Bannon at the next South Australian election. In the Federal sphere the coalition needs 52.3 per cent of the two-party preferred vote to win office at the next poll even with the self-congratulatory posturing of the Hawke Government for its performance in the area of electoral reform. It is worth considering exactly what this Bill seeks to do and what it will not do. I remind the Senate that Elbridge Gerry was Governor of Massachusetts in 1812 when a Bill was passed dividing that State into districts for the election of State senators and the votes of the Federalist Party, which was in opposition, were locked into safe seats thus leaving more winnable seats for the Government. One of the new districts looked like a salamander and so it was called the `gerrymander'. It appears that this is what we have even today, despite the posturing of the Hawke Government. I remind honourable senators again that Nick Greiner had to contend with the same thing in March. The Government gave the Boundaries Commission guidelines which meant Liberal votes were locked into safe Liberal seats. It is a tribute to the work of Nick Greiner and the dissatisfaction of the people of New South Wales with Barrie Unsworth and Hawke, that Nick Greiner was able to win resoundingly even with this great electoral disadvantage. I have referred to this to emphasise to the Senate that a one vote one value guarantee does not preclude manipulation of boundaries, and this is surely what the argument is all about. The other major objection we have to this Bill is that it further tilts the balance of power away from the States and towards the Commonwealth. Australia became a Federation in 1901. In fact, I think this is basically the day that we really should be remembering. If I could go off at a tangent for a moment, we have always recognised Australia Day, 26 January, as our national day but of course that was the founding of the colonies. Surely the significant day for Australia is 9 May 1901, the opening of the interim Parliament, the opening of the provisional Parliament House and also the opening of the new and permanent Parliament House. So perhaps we should give consideration, given our multicultural society and the concerns of the Aborigines, to the actual date that Australia, as a Federation, actually came alive. The States did not agree to become inferior auxiliaries to the Federal Parliament. I remind honourable senators of section 51 of the Commonwealth Constitution. It reads: The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to: It then lists 35 various Federal responsibilities. All other matters were determined to be the responsibility and the concern of the States. The Hawke Government is seeking to intervene in the proper and constitutional roles of the State parliaments by deciding on their electoral laws and, not only that, this Bill holds a sword over the States in that they must comply within two years. Such threats, cloaked under the label of `fair and democratic elections' are unworthy of the Attorney-General in this regard. I have another major concern about the one vote one value question. I believe that it can be argued that if this question and the question about the recognition of local government were successful, the Hawke Government-or any other Federal government-could apply to the High Court of Australia to apply the same one vote one value premise to local government bodies. This could certainly lead-particularly in my own State of Tasmania and I know in every other State of Australia-to the abolition of many efficiently run and responsive local councils which serve rural areas. I do not think that I am drawing too long a bow here because, if we were asked 15 years ago how the High Court would interpret the external affairs power, no-one in his wildest dreams would have foreseen the results and consequences of the Franklin Dam case and the consequential growth in Federal power over the States as a result of that particular decision. The next issue concerns freedom of religion, trial by jury and property acquired. The fourth Bill, another one with a very misleading title, is the Constitution Alteration (Rights and Freedoms) Bill. There are good reasons for opposing each of the provisions of this Bill as well as rejecting the Bill as a whole. The Australian Labor Party never forgets when it is frustrated in something it wants because of the will of the people. In fact, the Hawke Government cannot stomach the failure of its Bill of Rights after the overwhelming rejection of it by the community, so we have a mini-Bill of Rights in disguise put before this Senate. One of the most eminent jurists Australia has seen, the former Chief Justice of Australia, Sir Harry Gibbs, stated publicly: If society is tolerant and rational it does not need a Bill of Rights. If it is not, no Bill of Rights will preserve it. I hope that every senator in this place heeds these words. They can be applied as aptly and cogently to this question put forward by the Government. When a government starts to interfere in rights and accepted freedoms which have always been taken for granted, one can be sure that it is going to get it wrong. One need only look at the efforts of a former President of the United States of America, Jimmy Carter, and his successor, Ronald Reagan, in their efforts to have prayers in schools. A legislative and practical Pandora's box was opened and the same could result in Australia. The Liberal Party of Australia supports the rights and freedoms that exist in Australia and we have a fine record of defending them; indeed, that is why our Party is so named. However, if this question were passed, the rights and freedoms that we all enjoy would be legally codified, limited and constrained and those limits would inevitably have to be drawn by the justices of the High Court. Not only would it be wrong for the High Court to make such determinations, but also it is highly irresponsible for the Government to seek to put it in that position. I have nothing but high regard for all the justices of the High Court and I am sure that they are looking with trepidation at the four questions the Government has proposed. At the same time, I imagine many constitutional lawyers around Australia are polishing their debating skills because they know that if any of the questions are successful it will clear the way for long, expensive and unnecessary litigation. The Opposition therefore has legitimate reasons for opposing each of the Bills before the Senate. The Australian Constitution has stood the test of time. It has never broken down because it is a strong and flexible document that has been sensibly applied by the courts to the needs of today. The Government is seeking to weaken the framework of the Constitution. To borrow the words of Senator Evans, these proposals would `white-ant' the federal framework set up by our founding fathers and detailed in the great piece of legislation that guides all our deliberations here; that is, the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act. I urge the Senate and all Australians to reject each and every one of these Bills. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(5.18) —I do not pretend and I do not think that anyone who has studied the Australian Constitution would pretend that it is a perfect document. Certainly it has defects. Certainly in some areas it requires amendment and modification. But the difficulty is to decide what those areas are and make coherent and sensible amendments that are supported by the majority of the Australian people and achieve the results which are claimed for them. There has been a succession of attempts to modernise our Constitution over the years and, partly for the reason of the method of amendment to the Constitution by referenda to be carried by a majority of electors overall in a majority of States, they have rarely been successful. The various conventions in the 1970s and early 1980s, consisting of political delegates, including local government representatives, did not result in many significant proposals being put forward. The attempt by the Attorney- General (Mr Lionel Bowen) to set up a personally selected Constitutional Commission to study the Constitution I do not think has been successful either. It is evident that Mr Bowen does not because he has put these proposals forward before he received the final proposals of the Commission and in some cases they are directly opposed to what the Commission suggested. These proposals must be examined carefully on two grounds: one is that if they are damaging, as I think they are, it is always possible that they might slip through by some distortion or misrepresentation during a referendum campaign. The second is that if they are not necessary or desirable, it is a reckless waste of money for this Government to go ahead with them by way of referendum if they are to fail. This Parliament should think very carefully, first, about whether these are the proper amendments and, secondly, about whether they are justified in the expense and difficulty of putting them to the people, and whether what would be achieved by the changes would justify that expense. If the four proposed amendments to the Constitution are examined carefully, I submit that all fail both those tests. Let us look at them in turn. The first is an innocuous sounding one: An Act to alter the Constitution to recognise local government. There has been no clear exposition of why local government should be recognised in the Federal Constitution. No doubt local government would like it, but that is scarcely the issue. A lot of the talk about the importance of recognising local government is based not on the valuable job that local government does in local communities. I do not in any way denigrate what local government does for local communities; local government is without doubt the body closest to the people of all our electoral systems. It does a valuable job in the communities, but it does not follow from that that it should be recognised in the Federal Constitution. A great deal of the argument in favour of it has been based on what has always seemed to me a totally false assumption; that is, that we have three tiers of government in Australia-Federal, State and local. In fact, we do not. We have two tiers of government-Federal and State. Local government-and I do not denigrate what it does-is the total servant of State governments. Local governments are set up by State governments; they can be abolished by State governments; their powers are given to them by State governments; their legal executing powers are given to them by State governments; their revenue raising powers are given to them by State governments, and can be taken away by State governments. They are, very properly in my view, the servants to State governments. They are not in a very real sense a third tier of government. It would be possible to imagine a constitution that did have three tiers of government, a constitution which divided powers among a central government, State governments and local government and assigning to each of those forms of government responsibilities, law making powers, executive powers to administer those laws, and revenue raising powers. It could be done, but it would be an complex constitution and would provide a great deal of work for the High Court in adjudicating disputes over powers between not two tiers of government, as we have at the moment, but among three. It could be done, but I personally do not think it would be worth doing. It would be extraordinarily complex but I do not think that it would work effectively. Nevertheless, it could be done. But that is not what we have, and I can see no foreseeable chance of that actually coming about. We have two tiers of government, with local governments being the servants, deriving their powers and everything else from State governments. This is not to say that there should not be recognition of local government in the Constitution. But it should not be token recognition in the Federal Constitution which gives rise to problems, as I shall point out in a moment; it should be in the State constitutions, setting out clearly what form of local government there should be in those States, what are their revenue raising powers, law enforcement powers and so on. They should be clearly set out in State constitutions. Four States have already done so. The two States that have not are Queensland and Tasmania. My understanding is that Tasmania is moving towards recognition of local government in the Tasmanian constitution, and that is entirely proper. One other argument I would like to dispose of at this point is that because local government does certain tasks as agent for the Federal government, therefore it should be recognised in the Federal Constitution. That, I submit, is an absurd argument. Many other organisations, such as the Red Cross, the Salvation Army and innumerable bodies, do jobs as agents for the Federal Government. And, local government is a very appropriate agent for the Federal Government in certain spheres. That does not mean that anybody who does agency work for the Federal Government should be recognised in the Federal Constitution. The Federal Constitution should be recognised for what it is-a Constitution set up to regulate the Federal affairs of the country. In that sense we have only two tiers of government. It could be said, `What does it matter? Local government would like this. Why should it not be put in the Constitution that those in local government are very worthy people, do a great deal of useful work in the communities and are insufficiently recognised? Why should they not be recognised in the Federal Constitution?'. It could be said that, admitting it is inappropriate, it would nevertheless be a graceful gesture to perform. I submit that there are real problems if we go ahead with just a token recognition. The first thing is that in the constitutional amendment as proposed there is no definition of what local government is. It just says: Each State shall provide for the establishment and continuance of a system of local government . . . I can foresee a fruitful field for constitutional lawyers in the High Court for many years to come if that particular constitutional alteration is passed. Then there is the question of the dismissal of local government. Sometimes local governments become corrupt and State governments properly have to dismiss them. Local government in a suburb next to me in Melbourne, the Richmond City Council, which has been dominated by the Labor Party for many years-I do not know whether that is coincidental-has been over the years an extremely corrupt council. It has been dismissed for a number of years and an administrator put in. That was a necessary thing to happen in view of what was revealed to have been going on in that council area over those years. The trouble is that this amendment as it stands would make it very much more difficult for State governments to dismiss local councils, and would almost certainly result in prolonged legal proceedings before the High Court if any proposal to dismiss was raised. Those prolonged legal proceedings would be done very expensively at the expense of the ratepayers. That is a course of action or a result that I would find very unsatisfactory. It is true that the explanatory memorandum-and we do now have extrinsic aids to the interpretation of legislation-says in referring to the Constitution amendment: Nor is it intended to preclude laws providing for the dismissal of a local council in appropriate circumstances, subject to a new local government body being elected within a reasonable period. It goes on to say: Section 119a is not intended to oblige a State to establish local government bodies throughout the whole of the State. That is what the explanatory memorandum says, but it is not in fact what the Bill says. One has to take mainly what the Bill says as the basis of how the High Court will interpret the Constitution. That may have some influence over the decision, but if this constitutional amendment is allowed to go forward from the Senate and is inadvertently passed by the people of Australia, I can foresee enormous legal consequences for all concerned. It would, I repeat, be at the expense of ratepayers in the council areas. The final problem that this constitutional amendment would create, if passed, is that it would commit the State government to the establishment and continuance of a system of local government with local government bodies elected in accordance with the laws of the States. One problem that is evident in nearly all our States is the question of what one does about the central business district. The central business districts of Melbourne and Sydney have almost no residents. Senator Richardson —Don't let the Minister throw you off. Stick to your guns. Senator HAMER —Senator Tate asked me whether I was going to speak for three more minutes. I am actually going to speak for 18 more minutes, so I was a bit surprised by the question. The problem with the central business districts of cities is that they have almost no residents so, in order to provide a local government electorate for those districts, both Melbourne and Sydney typically, and I imagine other capital cities too, have extended the electoral boundaries out to the inner suburbs. The trouble is that the ratepayers, the citizens of the inner suburbs, have virtually no interest and no expertise in the administration of an area like a central business district. I think there is a very strong case for saying, certainly in Victoria and New South Wales, that the central business district should be administered directly by the State Government. That is not our business really. I am not saying that is what the solution should be; but what we should not do is pass a constitutional amendment that would rule out the possibility of that solution. That is another reason why this particular constitutional amendment should not pass the Senate, and if it does, it should not be approved by the people of Australia. The second constitutional amendment I wish to speak on is the one on so-called fair elections. This is typically a misnomer. If a government is going to provide for fair elections it has to do a number of things. I believe we have to have one vote one value. I entirely agree with that. I have never understood why we should count acres, sheep or whatever when considering how people vote. Representatives are elected and the election should be done on the basis of one vote one value. I know of a dramatic example of bias in electorates in the country that you, Mr Acting Deputy President, visited recently, China. China's electoral system for its National Assembly has a bias between the city and the country of 8 to 1. The difference in its system is that a city vote counts for eight times as much as a rural vote. The explanation for that is that the Government thought it would not be sensible to allow the country people too much voting power. I commend at least an examination of that system to my National Party colleagues. In any case, I do not like what they are doing any more than I like any other form of bias. But that is not the end of fair elections. If we read this proposed constitutional amendment we would think that all we would have to do would be to vote for it and all would be well. But that is not the only problem concerning fair elections. One vote one value, yes; but the next thing we must have is fair boundaries. It is notorious the way in which boundaries can be gerrymandered to produce electoral results that totally distort the wishes of the people in a State. That has been done too many times to mention. We have to have one vote one value and fair boundaries, we have to have a clear voting entitlement-the right to vote-we have to eliminate multiple voting and we have to ensure the whole voting procedure is non-corrupt. If we read the proposed constitutional amendment to be put to the people of Australia we would think that all we have to do is vote for this amendment and all of those things would be achieved. But they will not be. It is a gross distortion and misrepresentation to put to the people of Australia a question in that misleading form which will not achieve the results that people voting `yes' would think they would achieve. The third proposed constitutional amendment is to list a number of new rights: to extend the right to trial by jury, to extend the freedom of religion and to ensure fair terms for persons whose property is acquired by any government. The question we must ask is: Why pick on these? The Government seems to have picked on rights-with the possible exception of the right to fair compensation for land resumed by Labor governments in New South Wales-that are well established. The problem we have-and this was debated at great length in the Senate when we were discussing the Bill of Rights-is that once we start defining in clear words well established rights, very often this has the unfortunate effect of not increasing but limiting those rights. Certainly the right to fair compensation for property resumed would have been necessary in New South Wales under the Wran Government, but the other two are not really needed. I have heard of no recent cases of genuine problems over the lack of right to trial by jury. I have heard of no recent problems of the lack of reasonable freedom of religion. Why the Government has put this in, I do not know. There are other rights I would like to see in the Constitution, but I would rather it be new rights that we do not have, such as the right not to join a union. That is the sort of right we do not have now and it is one I would like to see in the Constitution. There is no great point in putting into the Constitution well established rights when, by defining them, we are likely to diminish them. If we are anxious to increase the rights of the Australian people, as this proposal claims to do-it is an Act to alter the Constitution to extend a right-we should pick up ones not properly covered. There are many I could advance but the one I give honourable senators is the right not to join a trade union. There seems to me to be a fundamental right of assembly guaranteed by all sorts of international agreements that we are in, but that right is not recognised in Australia. That is one example of an amendment that might be useful. We have to remember always the problems that came up when we were examining the Bill of Rights. The trouble is that if we start defining these rights, we frequently diminish them. With that in mind I think these particular proposals, which are not necessary and which will not increase our rights in any significant way, should not be put to the Australian people. The final proposed constitutional amendment is one that affects us in this Parliament most directly, and that is the question of 4-year terms for both Houses of Parliament. Electors looking at this proposed constitutional amendment might think it means what it says. But remember that under our system, as it now operates, the Prime Minister has the right to shorten the term of the Parliament at his whim. He does not have to give even a plausible reason to the Governor-General as to why he wishes to have an early election of the House of Representatives, and under this proposal exactly the same criteria will apply to the Senate. The Prime Minister will be able to bring both Houses out whenever he likes, at his whim, to suit his own political advantage. I have always been in favour of fixed terms for the Parliament. I think I originated that suggestion-certainly I was the first to produce it publicly-and somewhat to my embarrassment it was taken up by the Australian Labor Party. But it has now gone cold on it. All its rhetoric about the beauty and advantages of a fixed term now seem to have been forgotten. I know of nothing in the Westminster system that says that a Prime Minister, elected for 3 years, or 4 years if this amendment goes through, has the right or the need to dissolve Parliament to suit his political convenience. Certainly we have to provide for circumstances where no government can be formed in the House of Representatives. A government has to have the confidence of the House of Representatives. I point out that that has not happened in our 87 years of Federation. But if it did happen, it would be perfectly easy to provide a constitutional provision that if no government possessing the confidence of the House of Representatives could be formed, there should be an election of the House of Representatives only for the unexpired portion of the fixed term. The fact that it would be only a short period before the next election would be a strong disincentive to the members of the House of Representatives creating a situation where no government could be formed. If we go for fixed terms of four years for the House of Representatives there would be eight-year terms for the Senate and we would have difficulties selling the eight-year term, although I point out that both the New South Wales and Victorian upper Houses now have eight-year terms. Senator McLean —Twelve in New South Wales. Senator HAMER —Is it 12 in New South Wales? I apologise. It is certainly eight in Victoria. I do not like this proposed amendment in its present form. We certainly need to extend the period of Parliament. Since Federation, with three-year terms the average length of parliaments has been 2.3 years. In the Hawke Government days, the Government is now putting before us the proposition that parliament should be extended to four years, but there have been three elections in 4 1/2 years. We do not have to amend the Constitution to get the length of a parliament up to three years. I should like to see it extended to four years, and I should like to see it made a fixed term. I should like to see the term of senators extended to eight years. If this particular amendment goes through, if people feel strongly that there is something-which I have never been able to identify-in the Westminster system which dictates that the Prime Minister requires the right to dissolve the House of Representatives at his whim, if he sees a political advantage in doing that, I should be prepared to accept personally that we have a four-year term for the House of Representatives and two terms of the House of Representatives for the Senate-which is broadly the system operating in Victoria. The Senate needs a longer term than the House of Representatives. The basic feature of the Senate is supposed to be its continuity. Over the years we have built up a review function, a committee system, which, if properly developed, will be our most important contribution to the improvement of the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy. For those committees to work effectively, we need continuity. This business of the whole of the Senate being out at every election destroys continuity. I do not see any justification for a government that first went for fixed terms and has now gone down not only to reducing the Senate's term for six years, fixed, to four years, but to four years reducible to whatever the Prime Minister chooses. That is a denigration of the proper role of the Senate as a House of review. For that reason it should be resisted very strenuously by this Senate. If by chance, or by mischance, it gets through this chamber, I hope that it will be strongly resisted by the people at the forthcoming referendums. For the reasons I have given, I think that these four constitutional amendments are very ill chosen. There are amendments to our Constitution which are needed. I have spoken of them previously. But for reasons that are blatantly political, or window-dressing, or searching for votes, like local government bodies, the Government has brought forward an absurd mishmash of referendum proposals. They are an insult to the intelligence of the Parliament, and I hope that they will be strongly resisted by the Australian people. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(5.43) —Although late on in the debate, I, too, would like to make a contribution to the discussion on the Constitution Alteration Bills. I do so because it surprises me that not one of the Government senators has seen fit to recognise the fact that the titles of these Bills are so completely inappropriate for the purpose for which they are charged. It is quite deceptive to have come up with a list of Bills such as these, the purposes of which are not able to be recognised by their titles. I am also surprised at the referendum in general, because the Government has brought this forward at this time when in no way do the items included in it improve the operation of the Federal Parliament. That is one of the objects that are usually considered by governments which have an intention of producing changes to the Constitution. Not one of these items would improve the operation of this Parliament. Not one item would expand the liberties or freedoms of the people of Australia in any way. I find it extraordinary that here we are entering an exercise that will cost taxpayers $41m-either retrospectively or prospectively-and we cannot put our finger on one item that will improve either the Parliament or the lot of the people. Clearly, absolutely, totally, and irrevocably, it is window-dressing. The Constitution of Australia is very sound. I wish that the clowns who are trying to alter it would go back and read the reports of the constitutional conventions of the 1890s, when men of real wisdom and foresight were able to make decisions that have stood us in good stead to this time. They did not put together a Constitution which was to be fiddled with around the edges any time some political party, of any complexion, wanted to sneak some advantage for itself. They put together a Constitution that has served us well for 80-odd years, and which is still a good Constitution by any standard. So, what do we do when we look for something to fiddle with? We set up a Constitutional Commission. We let it run around the country and have meetings all over the place. When we reach the stage of wondering whether it will arrive at the conclusions that we would like, we then charge off and organise a referendum within a month of the time that the report was due to be produced. What a silly and cynical exercise it has been to spend all that time of a group of experienced people, eminent people in many cases, and them race into a referendum before their report comes down. One just wonders what sort of mentality would go with trying to convince the people of Australia that the referendum was genuine. How can it be genuine when that is the way in which it has been set up? I shall deal with the questions one at a time-which seems to be the way to do it. Clearly, there is only one major purpose in having this referendum now: to put the Senate into the direct control of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke); nothing more, nothing less. If any of these questions should pass, it will only be because that is the path up which we have been led. But the people of Australia will have to be told about this a little more plainly. Over the next few months I trust that they will have that opportunity. That is what it is all about: get rid of the power of the Senate, in any way, and put it into the hands of the Prime Minister. There is no undertaking in the legislation, and nothing in the explanatory notes, that would lead anyone in Australia to think that there could be a four-year parliament. There has certainly been no statement by the Prime Minister or any of his Ministers to indicate that they are prepared to have four-year parliaments. What they do intend to do is to reduce the operation of the Senate and reduce the permanence of the Senate in any way they can. I, too, remind Government senators that one of their eminent people, in his early days here, said that the way to deal with the Senate was to destroy it from within. That is exactly what we are still talking about now. I do not think that that part of Labor Party policy has changed. I do not think that anyone on the Government benches would question that that is still the major aim-to destroy the Senate; and the way to do that is to destroy it from within. One cannot do it by legislation. People would not tolerate that. One could not do it if one put an honest question to the people. If the Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill had been entitled `A Bill for a referendum to destroy the powers of the Senate', or `the significance of the Senate', or `the operation of the Senate', or anything like that, it would not have got through and it would not have been put up. However, the Bill has been put up, and in this miserable, deceitful, fraudulent form. It says: An Act to alter the Constitution to provide for 4-year maximum terms for members of both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament. It will not bring four-year parliaments. It is designed to give to the Prime Minister the power to run the Senate and to call it out whenever he feels like it. It ends the rotation of senators. It puts the Senate into a position of being subject to a permanent double dissolution arrangement. That is what it is all about; the Government does not want the rotation of senators to go on any more. Prime Ministers have never been happy with the fact that they do not have control over the coming and goings of the Senate. This proposal will at least save them the fraudulent exercise of having to dream up ideas of how they can go to the Governor-General. It will make visits to the Governor-General less necessary. They will not have to fight with their consciences any more looking for an excuse if the Government can get this proposal through. The people of Australia will have to know that there is no guarantee for fewer elections, none at all. All it means is that without the necessity for looking for an excuse and trumping up double dissolution Bills early in the life of most parliaments, if the Prime Minister wants to have an election, he will call an election just like that. The proposal does not mean that if, in a week's time, the Government gets a good report from the journos who have read the May economic statement and say, `My word, wasn't that good', and the popularity polls go up another 1 or 2 per cent, we might not trot off for an election. There is nothing to stop that, and it is well on the cards that there could be more and not fewer elections under this provision. I am not saying that there will be; there is no way that it can be determined. But there is no reason that anybody can tell me that it will not be the case. Australia has plenty of elections as it is. The question of four-year parliaments is a generally popular matter around Australia. The electorate at large is sick and tired of too many elections. In case anyone has missed it, all I can tell him again is: this proposal is no guarantee that there will be fewer elections. There is absolutely no guarantee about that. Having spent the money, having called the Constitutional Commission together and having batted this one up and down as long as it has, the Government gives no guarantee in any form at all. The second proposal deals with fair elections. I am a Tasmanian and I am of the opinion that our elections both so far as the State and Federal parliaments are concerned are perfectly fair. So far as the State parliaments are concerned, the electors are also satisfied. The electorates for Tasmania's Legislative Council are determined according to commonality of interest. The groupings are absolutely ideal. There is a variation of some magnitude, but the vast majority of the electors like it exactly the way it is and they do not want some humbug from Canberra telling them they have two years to reorganise an entirely new system that does not suit them. So far as the House of Assembly is concerned, Tasmanians are perfectly happy to operate on the present system. So far as the Federal Parliament is concerned, we are perfectly happy to retain the situation as it exists. We do not want people to patronise us by telling us that we will have 12 senators; we do not want anybody to patronise us by telling us that we will have more members of the House of Representatives than we are entitled to. I go back to the original part of my argument: if any of these clowns that want to change the Constitution care to go back and read the reports of the Constitutional Conventions of the 1890s, they will find why there is a Federation. We now have the Federation as it is because of the great brains that put it together in the 1890s. I do not rate any of the people who are currently fiddling with this as being on a plane equivalent to those who put together the Federation in the first place. Is it the intention of the Government, once this is under its belt, to say, `Yes, we will carry this on to where we will require local government to do the same'? Are we then going to try to determine all the words of every council, shire and city of Australia and say that they have all got to be done because it is in the interests of fair and equal elections? Or is the Government going to say, as apparently it has, `We are going to insist that the States do exactly what we tell them to, but we are not going to do it ourselves'? I am sick and tired of this up-in-the-air talk that goes on by the Federal Government of the things that it would like other people to do which it will not do itself. The people around the traps are sick of it too. Why does the Government not get honest and say, `These things we put in are a bit of window dressing. We would like to get these across as best we can because they look better than the one we are after. All we are after is the power for the Prime Minister to dissolve the Senate whenever he wants to'? Senators are dealing with the charade of trying to deal with other things with the Government trying to make out that they are all right and that it will leave them as much as they are. Poor old local government. It is taken up the garden path. Enough publicity was given out before the referendum was announced to say that there will be recognition. There were letters from all over Australia asking us to support it because local government wants recognition. For instance, I got a letter from the Council of Capital City Lord Mayors, which I suppose all honourable senators got, which states: As we see it, and irrespective of the precise form which the Government's proposal will take, recognition is necessary for the very simple reason that local government is part of the tripartite system of Australian government, and has been recognised as such by successive federal governments. The lord mayors say it has been recognised. I know it has been recognised; everybody knows it has been recognised. On the second page, the letter states: The critical point-the requirement that there should be a system of local government-has never been an issue. Under the proposals which we may reasonably expect to find in the foreshadowed Bill, the States would (and we believe should) be able to dismiss a council after due process. Dismissal, after due process, is possible also in respect of State or Federal Governments. What we seek, and what we anticipate the proposed Bill will achieve, is to require that any dismissal of a local authority takes place only after due process, and that it is followed by a fresh election within a defined period. That is the sort of thing those poor local government people were led to believe. That is why they were madly writing to us saying, `Will you please support us and will you do this and that?' They wanted three things: firstly, access to the till on a regular basis; secondly, that amalgamations could not be forced upon them without discussion; and, thirdly, that they could not be liquidated unfairly and that they should have reasonable access to appeal and to fresh elections. What has local government got? It has a Bill which says that there shall be the establishment and continuance of a system of local government, with local government bodies elected in accordance with the laws of the State. That is all local government got. That can be any form of local government. I got a letter from one council which said that the Bill takes away any possibility of local government being forced into regional government. It does not. If the States decide to pass a law that says local government shall be regionalised, that is it. It is time the local government people read the fine print. The words `a system' when interpreted mean any system. The States have the perfect right to set up any system that they can dream up. Poor old local government has been absolutely sucked in hook, line and sinker. It believes it has something that was never intended that it should have. It was never intended, local government has not got it now and it never will. So it goes on. The whole thing is such an absolute charade; it is a farce, it is deceitful, fraudulent and misleading in the extreme. Some $41m has gone down the chute, or will have by the time we go through this farce. I believe that the people of Australia will have enough sense to see through this for what it is and they will treat the proposals the way they have treated most of the other referenda in the past. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(6.00) —I wish to address one of the Bills which are before the chamber this evening, the piece of legislation introduced by Senator Macklin, the Constitution Alteration (Electors' Initiative) Bill 1987. Before so doing, I wish to associate myself fully with the remarks made by Senator Chaney and subsequent speakers on the Opposition side of the chamber in opposition to all four of the referendum proposals which have been advanced by the Government to be put to the people of Australia and to indicate that the arguments against that legislation are powerful, coherent and cogent. During the campaign the Opposition will be putting those arguments to the people of Australia in the firm expectation that when these matters are submitted to the electors for their consideration, they will be rejected. However, as I said, I wish to focus upon only one piece of legislation in this package and that is the proposal advanced by Senator Macklin, the long title of which is: An Act to alter the Constitution so as to vest in the electors power to propose laws and to approve or disprove such proposed laws. This is the so-called electors' initiative or, as it is sometimes called in political science journals, citizen initiated referenda. In relation to the motion for the second reading of this Bill I move: Leave out all the words after ``That'' insert ``, while declining to give this Bill a second reading, the Senate is of the opinion that the concept which would enable citizens to have a direct opportunity to participate in the initiation of legislation for the peace, order and good government of Australia is worthy of careful and detailed consideration by both the people and the Parliament, and in recognition of the significance of the concept for our system of democracy is also of the opinion that to unreasonably pre-empt such consideration may jeopardise the right of the people to make an informed decision on the most appropriate mechanism for achieving the concept and, accordingly, the Bill should not be proceeded with at this time.''. I shall deal with this amendment in two parts: first, to raise some questions of principle, which I believe are important and worthy of much greater debate and consideration than has been given to this particular piece of legislation; and, secondly, to address what I perceive to be the defects of the proposed Bill which would be submitted to the people if Senator Macklin's Bill were to proceed. The first and obviously the most crucial question to analyse is whether citizen initiated referenda, or electors' initiatives, are entirely compatible with the system of representative democracy which is practised in Westminster-style parliament. This is not, never has pretended to be and never was intended to be a direct legislative chamber; it was intended to be a representative legislative chamber in which members and senators are preselected by the parties, in the first instance, and then elected by the people to represent them and to bring to bear their own mature judgment in decisions on laws and proposed laws. I well remember my first speech in this chamber in 1978 when I quoted the words that Edmund Burke used in relation to his responsibilities addressed to the electors of Bristol in, I think, 1774 when he made the point that what a representative owes to his constituents is not simply to be a direct cipher and not simply to be a direct mouthpiece but rather to be a representative who brings his mature and independent judgment to bear on questions of public policy that are brought before a parliament for debate. Senator Macklin —What happened to Burke? Senator PUPLICK —In fact he became a senior member of the Rockingham Administration, as Senator Macklin would know, and one of the most dominant figures in British public life for a considerable period, making not only a significant contribution but also drawing attention to the fact that one had to pay attention to the power, in his phrase, of `the fourth estate'. Senator Macklin —He lost his seat. Senator PUPLICK —Burke was not unaware of the processes of representative democracy and, as Senator Macklin said, he suffered the vicissitudes of representative democracy in action. Nevertheless, in this representative democracy questions are asked about direct citizen initiated referenda along the lines which I have suggested. The second point is that the organised system of political parties-I can understand the attraction, especially of the Australian Democrats, in this regard-is, in itself, somewhat more difficult to accommodate within the citizen initiated referenda concept. That may well be a primary argument for advancing citizen initiated referenda but I put it to the chamber that some of the examples drawn from overseas, especially examples drawn from the use of this technique in places like the United States of America, are not entirely valid because we are not comparing totally like political systems. It is perhaps interesting that other Westminster parliaments and representative democracies, such as those in the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Canada, do not proceed substantially along these particular lines. Even with regard to the United States of America, this is part and parcel of a different package and approach to the way in which legislation and political power are dealt with in this country. Senator Schacht —Like Arizona? Senator PUPLICK —Senator Schacht well recalls that we travelled together last year in the United States of America and in the State of Arizona had the pleasure of meeting the Governor, Mr Evan Mecham. He was the first Governor in 60 years to be dismissed from office on the basis of essentially a citizens' recall. The whole process of the United States in which the referenda, the recall election and the primary election not confined to members of a political party are all integral parts of, in many ways, a different political culture. One cannot simply make the comparisons that otherwise may be drawn. The second point at issue which needs to be addressed and thought about carefully is whether the citizens' initiated referenda proposal empowers citizens or simply empowers the organised and the privileged. In other words, does it make it easier for those who are powerful and organised to have access to political machines, to have access to substantial financial resources to assemble machines for political purposes to be the primary beneficiaries of such a system? Is this device one that will not primarily empower citizens but will empower lobby groups, the rich, the powerful and the organised? Is the device more attractive to the League of Rights than it is to those people who may want to organise, on a community basis, the pursuit of a legitimate and significant community purpose? Questions also need to be addressed in terms of the sociological issues which arise about the constant division of the community on subjects likely to come forward as the basis of these referendum questions. Would it be substantially to the benefit of the whole policy to have constant referendums on the questions of the death penalty, abortion, Aboriginal land rights, control of in vitro fertilisation (IVF), or whatever it happens to be, because one of the advantages of a representative system of government is that it has the capacity to take the heat out of many issues where otherwise community feeling could be substantially brought to the fore in a divisive way. I believe that those who are fundamental proponents of citizen-initiated referenda have to turn their minds to the matter of whether the constant and permanent polarisation of the electorate over questions, many of which people would prefer not to have to face up to personally but would properly prefer to have debated and decided by their political representatives, is an issue which is worth addressing. We also have a question about simple mechanics, and I will come back to that when I deal with the precise provisions of Senator Macklin's Bill. As I have said, the Bill in itself is open-ended as to the issues about which referenda may be called. I have already mentioned the death penalty, control of IVF, abortion and Aboriginal land rights. It may be uranium mining, it may be conscription, it may be the use of the external affairs power of the Constitution in relation to local land use questions, it may be the control of animals in experiments, it may be whether we should quarantine people who are found to be antibody positive to acquired immune deficiency syndrome, it may be the divisive issue of immigration policy, and it may be a whole range of moral or economic issues, the debate about which, in terms of Senator Macklin's Bill, may well be retarded rather than advanced as part of the political debate. I want to make it very clear that the view which is taken by the Opposition parties is not a concluded view, one way or the other, on the question of citizen initiated referenda. We have concluded as a view that this is an important issue which is worthy of very considerable debate, thought and analysis. For instance, the Liberal Party is my State of New South Wales has, at a recent meeting of its State Council, adopted a resolution in favour of the concept of citizen initiated referenda in principle, but there is a whole series of mechanical issues which need to be addressed before a parliamentary party comes to that view. As a result, on 15 April 1988, shadow Attorney-General, Mr Peter Reith, issued a Green Paper on voter initiated laws. It is a very detailed paper, running to some 30-odd pages, in which he seeks to canvass the main issues. For instance, his paper includes a proposed system which would have a requirement of 460,000 signatures-that is to say, 5 per cent of the votes at the last election-in order to initiate such a referendum; that the referendum should be held on the same day as an election; that the referendum would require a majority of voters and a majority of States in order to proceed; and that there would be a supervisory role for the Federal Court and for a parliamentary committee to look at the actual question and the way in which it was presented. We have heard today about the dishonesty of the titles of questions which are to be put to the electors in September as part of the current debate about these laws. Mr Reith's paper canvasses the question of campaign funding and disclosures, the role of the Australian Electoral Office and a large number of other matters. I shall come back to Mr Reith's paper in a few minutes. I turn now to the specifics of Senator Macklin's Bill. I wish to raise a number of matters which are of concern. The proposal would insert a new chapter IX in the Constitution. The first section of chapter IX is to be section 129 and it provides that electors may deal with a number of matters through this mechanism. They are those which relate to the making of laws `for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth, including laws with respect to any matter with respect to which the Parliament has power to make laws and laws altering this Constitution'. That in itself is an interesting part of Senator Macklin's proposal because, in many ways, it gives the electors a far wider jurisdiction than is already available to the Parliament itself. One of the interesting things is that it touches upon laws altering the Constitution. As we shall see shortly, in proposed new section 130 of Senator Macklin's Bill, certain laws, including laws to alter the Constitution, may be changed if two-thirds of all the electors voting approve the proposed law. In other words, a law could be put forward by referendum which says that, in the future, the Commonwealth Constitution may be changed provided that 50 per cent of all the people of Australia, voting effectively as one electorate, approve of that law, provided that that referendum question is first carried by two-thirds of the electors. In other words, one could change the Commonwealth Constitution by providing, by a two-thirds vote at a citizen initiated referendum, that the States were to be taken out entirely from the process of altering the Constitution, so that future referenda would require 50 per cent vote simpliciter and not a majority of electors in a majority of States. Therefore, it would cease to be a Federal Constitution; it would be a unitary Constitution for a unitary system of Government. Senator Macklin —Did you say 50 per cent? Senator PUPLICK —I said 50 per cent if the first referendum had approved by two-thirds that future amendments to the Constitution could be carried by a 50 per cent plus one majority. In proposed new section 130 of Senator Macklin's Bill we find a series of subparagraphs. Let me take the first of those. It reads: A proposed law shall be proposed by petition- and the question there is: What precisely are the mechanics of the petition?- to a House of the Parliament signed within the period of six months immediately preceding presentation of the petition- the question there is: Why six months? Why not 12 months or 18 months? Why not during the life of the preceding Parliament?- by not less than 5 per cent of the total number of electors qualified to vote . . . not the number of electors who voted at the last Federal election, but the number of electors qualified to vote. I will come back to that matter in a moment, but why should it be `electors qualified to vote'? Why should it not be `electors who voted at the last elections'? They are both equally legitimate formulae to adopt. There is no real preference one way or the other, but it is an issue worth exploring. We then come to the third subparagraph of proposed new section 130, which states: When a proposed law is so submitted to the electors, the vote shall be taken in such manner as the Parliament prescribes. It may well be that at some stage in the future the Parliament will prescribe that voting at Federal elections and referenda should be voluntary, not compulsory. That in itself may have very significant consequences. Senator Schacht —Is that Liberal Party policy? Senator PUPLICK —No, our Party policy is for compulsory voting. Indeed, the submission which I made on behalf of the Liberal and National parties to the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform was an argument in favour of the retention of compulsory voting. I repeat the paragraph: When a proposed law is so submitted to the electors, the vote shall be taken in such manner as the Parliament prescribes. As I have said, if voluntary voting becomes the norm, it may well be that the argument should at least be canvassed as to whether, in terms of an amendment of the Constitution, voluntary voting is appropriate. We then have the provision that, if a majority of all the electors voting approved the proposed law and, if it is a general law, the law will be declared to have been carried. If it is a law seeking to alter the Constitution it requires either a majority of all the electors voting and a majority of the States, or-not `and'-two-thirds of all the electors voting approving the proposed law. If, for instance, we have voluntary voting and two-thirds of all the electors in a voluntary system voting, they may change the Constitution and we would have removed two of the current pillars of our electoral system-compulsory voting and the rights of the States to have a role in terms of the amendment of the Federal Constitution. That Constitution is a compact; it is not simply a law of the Commonwealth Parliament. We therefore have a whole series of issues which, again, deserve to be explored. Proposed new section 131 states: The Parliament does not have power to repeal or amend a law made by virtue of this Chapter of this Constitution except in so far as that law otherwise provides or as is hereinafter provided. The following situation could easily arise. Say we had a referendum on the question of conscription. Say that referendum was clearly carried that under no circumstances could the Commonwealth conscript people for military service. Say within a specified period within this framework a genuine national emergency arose in which all the parties in the Parliament were convinced that for the purposes of the defence of the nation conscription was justified. The Parliament would be prevented from introducing such laws in order to respond to a national emergency without going through the processes, the time delay processes, the alternative processes, which are otherwise set out in Senator Macklin's Bill. I believe that, just as one parliament cannot bind a successor parliament if the majority changes-even Senator Schacht would approve of that-nor should one type of law, that is, a law enacted as a result of citizen-initiated referenda, have a higher status, a greater regard, a greater legal force, than a law otherwise passed by the representative processes of the Parliament. That surely is an issue which at least is worth considering. Clause 132 of Senator Macklin's proposed law deals with the question of inconsistencies. It is not my purpose this evening to go into all of the unintended consequences that could flow from the regime which is proposed in relation to which law is to prevail in which particular circumstances where there are conflicts and inconsistencies. That is a matter which ought to be capable of careful analysis and scrutiny in the Parliament. As I have said, this legislation has a number of omissions, particularly when one compares it with the regime put forward in Mr Reith's excellent Green Paper. For instance, there is an omission which relates to the role of the Parliament. Should a parliamentary committee have some role in scrutinising the proposals which come before it by way of petition? Should it be able to reword, perhaps in a fairly minor way, the question to be put before the electorate? Should it have the right to submit an alternative question to the electorate? Should the Parliament be charged, the Electoral Commission be charged, the courts be charged or some independent body be charged, with the preparation of yes and no cases to be put before the electors? What should be the restriction on only one question being advanced in the referendum proposal? One of the Government's referenda questions contains three questions-trial by jury, freedom of religion and acquisition of property on just terms. Under the Government's current proposal one is compelled to vote yes or no to all three together. They are not separated. Should it not be a requirement that only one question should be put within a referendum question? For instance, if the question was: Do you approve of the death penalty and the prohibition of abortion-yes or no?-should it not be required that those two questions be put separately? That issue needs to be canvassed. As I have said, the role of the courts, the role of public funding or otherwise, the role of the Electoral Commission, all of which are dealt with in some detail in Mr Reith's paper, are absent from Senator Macklin's proposal. We believe that putting Senator Macklin's proposal to the people under these circumstances and at this time will inevitably lead to its defeat. Its defeat simpliciter would not advance the political debate in this country. The reason that the Opposition published its Green Paper in the first instance was to engender public debate and allow mature consideration of these issues. I believe that if we were to proceed at this time and in this fashion, that mature public debate, that parliamentary debate would not take place. In a statement which Mr Reith issued on 26 May he said: It would be irresponsible to attempt to add a fifth question on voter initiated laws to the Government's proposed four referendum questions. To proceed to have the question put to the electorate without first properly preparing the ground would only encourage the defeat of the proposition. The electorate has always shown in the past a very healthy scepticism about any proposal for change to the Constitution and it would be denying history to think that simply putting the question is enough in itself to ensure its passage. The decision to seek a deferral of the Democrats' Bill when it is discussed in the Senate this week follows the policy position adopted by the Coalition earlier this year on this subject. I have referred at some length to Mr Reith's Green Paper already. The Opposition believes that the principles raised in Senator Macklin's Bill are important, that the debate is important, that it makes a significant contribution to the overall advancement of democratic argument in this country, but that to proceed with it at this time and in this fashion will not be helpful to any of those causes. I have said that the Liberal and National parties have not concluded a position on citizen-initiated referenda per se, let alone all the variable mechanics of such a system which may be put before the people at some future stage or which may simply be put into law, not by amendment to the Constitution, but by a purely legislative device. It would, after all, be possible for this matter to be dealt with in a legislative fashion, and a system allowing more direct electors' input to the parliamentary system to be devised without a constitutional amendment. The reason we have not come to a concluded position on that is that we believe that more time ought to be taken. The public consultations which Mr Reith has undertaken, starting with the publication of this Green Paper on 15 April, need more than six weeks to bring a political party to a conclusion on such an important subject. In conclusion, in moving this second reading amendment, I indicate that its purpose is precisely that-to allow more time for discussion of this matter and a parliamentary scrutiny of the proposals within Senator Macklin's legislation which I believe to be deficient along the lines I have suggested. I otherwise wish to associate myself with all of the remarks made by Senator Chaney and my other colleagues of the Liberal and National parties in opposition to the Government's four referendum proposals which it proposes to put before the people. I look forward to working energetically and vigorously for the defeat of those four referendum questions when they are put in September. Debate (on motion by Senator McKiernan) adjourned. The PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that Madam Speaker and I and the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) have agreed that the commencement by proclamation of the major provisions of the Parliamentary Precincts Act 1988, particularly the provision which gives the Presiding Officers control of the new Parliament House, will occur on 1 August 1988. The Minister previously gave an undertaking to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, as reported to the Senate, that the relevant provisions would come into operation no later than the first week of July 1988. It has been agreed, however, that 1 August would be a more convenient time having regard to the activities of the Parliament House Construction Authority, and the Scrutiny of Bills Committee has agreed to this modification of the Minister's undertaking. The change of the day for the proclamation will not affect the operations of the two Houses in the new building. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Sitting suspended from 6.29 to 8 p.m. [COGNATE BILLS: CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (FAIR ELECTIONS) BILL 1988 CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (LOCAL GOVERNMENT) BILL 1988 CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS) BILL 1988] Debate resumed. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(8.00) —One of the most fascinating aspects of this debate is to see the Liberal Party's retreat into reaction, thus failing to heed the dictum of Menzies in 1944 that there is no room for a party of reaction in Australian society. Indeed, in that famous speech by the then Mr Robert Menzies, he spoke of the then conservative forces in Australian political society becoming known as `the man who said no'. Indeed, the Liberal Party, led by John Howard in his referendum campaign, is the man who said no, not once, but four times. One might have had some respect for the Liberal Party if it had said that two of these propositions are good and two are bad. Indeed, as we know, the Liberal Party executive did think that two were good and two were bad at one stage, but the party room decided that it was easier to campaign against four propositions. That is what we are faced with. It is very difficult to give much credence to the impassioned rhetoric on the other side when we know that, quite genuinely, certain members of the shadow Cabinet thought that two of the four propositions had some merit and would have campaigned for them in the community. Of course, one remembers, in relation to the Bill to extend the term of the House of Representatives and make for concurrent elections for the two chambers, that on the question of simultaneous elections, as they were termed in 1977, Senator Chaney said: Why is it that suddenly the concept of bringing the elections together will destroy this chamber? I do not believe that it will. Indeed, we are bringing together the elections for the House of Representatives and the Senate. I believe that that quotation will haunt Senator Chaney. Apparently it is irritating him, anyway. Senator Chaney —Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. If I am to be misrepresented in this way, do I have a right of correction now or do I have to wait until later? The Minister is making a speech in which he is referring to constitutional changes which-- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! If Senator Chaney is being misrepresented, he will have the right to speak again to correct the misrepresentation but not now. Senator Chaney —I suggest the Minister watch his accuracy, if he is capable of doing that. Senator TATE —I am capable of doing that and I believe that I have quoted accurately from Senator Chaney's speech of 24 February 1977. People will also remember that we are confronted with an Opposition which has taken the easy road in relation to its opposition to these referendum proposals. It has portrayed them in an hysterical fashion. Every observer, commentator and editorial of which I am aware, remarking on these referendums, have spoken about how modest and unusually selfless, in political terms, these proposals are. These referendums do not represent a grab for power. Senator Walters —You are stripping the Senate of powers to weaken it. You are afraid to face the electors of Tasmania. Senator TATE —They submit to the people the proposition that the two chambers should be accountable at the same time. I am not afraid to face the electors of Tasmania every four years. I am sure that Senator Walters should not be. The other referendum proposals-which I will go into in more detail later-recognise certain basic rights and freedoms which give a free people the right to trial by jury when faced with the prospect of a severe deprivation of liberty; the right of freedom to choose adherence to an absolute being or principle-freedom of religion; and the right to property, which can only be gainsaid by the community paying fair compensation. All of these modest proposals, including the recognition of local government as a third tier of government affecting the day to day life of Australians, and in particular the tier of government closest to them in their habitations, are being put forward in a genuine spirit in order to achieve a better fundamental framework for Australians to live in. The common denominator is the recognition that we are all Australians. In so far as all of these propositions that we are putting forward are compatible with the history of our formation out of the colonies which preceded Federation, we should assert various rights against governments-for example, the right to have both chambers in our parliamentary system accountable to the people every four years. The right to elect those people on the basis of a fair weighting of the vote of each Australian is elementary and something that should be supported. I will briefly recall each proposal. In relation to parliamentary terms, it is well known that it is proposed that the House of Representatives have a term of four years and that the Senate should go to an election at the same time as the House of Representatives. There is no attempt here by subterfuge to strip the Senate of any power whatsoever. Senator Walters —What absolute rubbish! Senator TATE —Senator Walters cannot point to any clause which strips the Senate of any power. There is no provision giving the Senate power which is touched upon, however lightly, by this proposition. When I explained this proposition to my Sandy Bay branch of the Australian Labor Party, its complaint was that it increased the political stature of the Senate by-- Senator Walters —What about the power of the fixed term? Senator TATE —Mr Deputy President, will you give me some protection? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! You are interjecting too much, Senator Walters. Senator Tate has the call. Senator TATE —The complaint was that it increased the political stature of the Senate by ensuring it represented the current will of the community every four years-- Senator Maguire —That is right. Senator TATE —and therefore had a very much stronger claim to act as a brake on the Government with a House of Representatives majority. I think that is probably right, as Senator Maguire says. I also think the Senate will gain political stature from the fact-this was also bemoaned in my branch-that as all senators will be elected every four years, this means that groups with only a 7 1/2 per cent following in the electorate will secure a place here. The paradox of the proposal that we are putting is that the Senate is assured of being more representative in a sense than the House of Representatives which, when wedded with its concurrent composition every four years, gives it legitimate political clout which it certainly lacks now. Yet the fact that it will have to go with the House of Representatives means that it will be in its self-interest as a chamber not to push to the brink too many propositions too early in the Government's life. It is this simple political fact which I believe will give us the stability and the chance to get off the treadmill of elections every 2 1/2 years with which we have been bedevilled for the last several decades. As we get closer to four-year terms I believe the benefits, which are well known for sound decision-making, will flow. The proposition that one vote one value should be the norm in Australia is hardly a revolutionary concept. Yet it has been attacked by the Opposition on various peculiar grounds, some of them quite contradictory. But none of the grounds mustered by the Opposition in its attack on this proposal satisfied Mr Innes, the Leader of the Queensland Liberal Party, who said: Liberals elsewhere have no personal experience with the distortion of democracy in Queensland. I question their commitment to States rights. I would have thought most of the nation would find our gerrymander unacceptable. That is what Mr Innes is reported to have said on 14 May 1988. He called upon the people of Queensland and Australia to rely on their fundamental sense of justice and fairness to pass the referendum proposal. I am sure that Mr Innes would be normally put in the category of those who advocate certain political propositions under the banner of States rights. But he recognises that his fellow Queenslanders in their predicament need to call on their fellow Australians in order to secure this simple proposition. He is asserting that right because he lives in a democratic society-what purports, or claims to be, a democratic Australia. It should make no difference whether he happens to live in Queensland rather than Victoria; he should be able to assert that right. The most curious claim of all is that we have not gone far enough. Senator Walters claimed that we should deal with the gerrymander, as she called it, rather than merely tinkering around with one vote one value. Senator Walters —Don't misquote me, Senator. Senator TATE —I think you said that we should deal with the gerrymander, that that is what is actually creating the distortions in our political system. The fact is that the Labor Party in any case does not want to get into the question of the gerrymander because the fact is that we believe the independent commissions elected by the Commonwealth in the Commonwealth sphere and by the States in the State sphere ought to have the job of drawing the electoral boundaries. We do not believe it is proper that a Commonwealth body should impose electoral boundaries on the various States in the Federation. In fact, we are not trying to attempt to do that by means of this referendum proposal. There are some additional matters covered in this particular fair and democratic elections proposal which I will just touch on very briefly. Some Australians, I think, would be astonished to learn that there is no constitutionally entrenched right to vote covering State and Federal elections to the parliaments which make the laws which bind us. That is remedied in this proposal. I believe that Australians would be even more astonished to learn-I see that Senator Collins is in the chamber-that the Constitution acquiesces in a situation where a State can deprive a resident of the right to vote for the House of Assembly on account of his or her race and there are consequences within our own Federal electoral system as a result. Clearly this particular provision had its origins in the anti-Chinese sentiment at the turn of the century, but it is quite possible that that sort of sentiment could be raised once again and I do not think that anyone in this chamber would dare assert that those sorts of embers of racism could not be fanned by the unscrupulous in the community. It is unthinkable that the Constitution of this great Commonwealth of so many peoples should countenance the consequential impact on the right to vote of those unfortunate victims of prejudice and that provision will be done away with. As to the recognition of local government, this particular proposal is so universally applauded out in the community that it is hard to believe that many on the Opposition benches do not harbour some envy that we have actually been the party that has decided to put it to the people. It is a response to a constant plea of local government representatives over all the years that I recall the constitutional convention meeting and it has led to a situation where the Australian Local Government Association has said, in a Press release of 11 May-- Senator Walters —Wait until we go back to the Tasmanians. Senator TATE —I will quote a local government person from Tasmania in a moment if the honourable senator would like and will hear his point of view. Certainly the Australian Local Government Association has said of the Liberal and National parties' current stand against this proposal: Local Government will be disappointed to realise that those statements- he was speaking of support in previous years- are mere platitudes to be rejected as soon as it is politically suitable to do so. It is that approach to politics that led to the downfall of the Fraser Government and has kept the Opposition out of government ever since. Those are the disappointed words of the Australian Local Government Association. Since Senator Walters mentioned Tasmania, Mr Len Armsby of the Municipal Association of Tasmania has strongly criticised the Federal Opposition for opposing the referendum. He stated: It recognises that we have a three-tiered system of government in Australia. He continued: . . . too often the state and federal governments treated local government more as a community group rather than another level of government. He expressed the disappointment of Tasmanian local governments in that respect. The proposal concerning local government will, no doubt, be the subject of debate in the committee stage, but I think it has to be recognised that this particular proposal does not try to fetter State parliaments or governments unduly in their dealing with local governments. They will be able to reform individual local governments when amalgamation or even dismissal is necessary. That is quite proper, but it does for the first time invite the Australian people to recognise in our fundamental and basic law the fact that a system of local government is one of the strengths of our democracy and no State or Federal government should be able to displace it utterly from our political and governmental arrangements. Finally, we come to the extension of certain rights already recognised in the Constitution as able to be asserted against the Commonwealth. These are not novel or trendy matters but matters which were considered to be so important that the framers put them in the Constitution despite an overall failure to emulate the United States Bill of Rights. The framers did not want a comprehensive list, but they did want to assert the right to trial by jury, freedom of religion and the right to fair compensation for one's property if taken by government. They thought that those rights were important to the formation of the sort of Federation that they were establishing. All the proposals put in this referendum package do is say that all Australians should enjoy the free exercise of those rights or freedoms without any hindrance or restriction which depends on the fact that they are being asserted against State or Territory governments and parliaments rather than the Commonwealth Parliament. As to trial by jury, it is one of those fundamental rights which are recognised in the Magna Carta which, until a few weeks ago when it was removed to the new Parliament House, was in King's Hall, just a few yards from the Senate chamber. Yet we know that the provision in the Federal Constitution in relation to trial by jury has been rendered reasonably ineffectual and it has been fairly easy to avoid the clear intention of the framers. Any State parliament can simply provide for no jury trial in any matter within its jurisdiction. That is something which really ought to be remedied and is remedied in this proposition. As to freedom of religion, it is well known that one of the very few freedoms set out in the Constitution is section 116, which provides: The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth. The fact is that that particular provision helps make Australia the very excellent place it is to live in, a place where a person is free to choose what ultimate principle, deity or system of belief he or she wishes to give his or her ultimate allegiance to and that cannot be affected by any law passed by this Commonwealth Parliament. The fact is that the common law does not provide any strong barrier against a State parliament overriding that usual freedom of religion which we enjoy. The South Australian Supreme Court made that very clear in the Grace Bible Church case very recently. Those who say that minority or even bizarre religions will get undue recognition miss the point. This is not a freedom for particular religious denominations; it is a freedom for Australians to choose for themselves what ultimate principle they wish to adhere to and, indeed, in the scientology case, both Mr Justice Mason and Mr Justice Brennan in a joint judgment made the point that, indeed, the right that is secured by this particular provision is a right which inheres in the individual and is, to that extent, a matter of great importance to the ordinary person rather than, as I say, giving any special attention to any organised denomination. The judges in that particular case stated: Though religious freedom and religious equality are beneficial to all true religions, minority religions-not well established and accepted-stand in need of especial protection . . . It is more accurate to say that protection is required for the adherents of religions not for the religions themselves. Protection is not accorded to safeguard the tenets of each religion; no such protection can be given by the law and it would be contradictory of the law to protect at once the tenets of different religions which are incompatible with one another. Protection is accorded to preserve the dignity and freedom of each man so that he may adhere to any religion of his choosing or to none. I think that is the point which needs to be secured against State parliaments and governments in a way which is not possible at the moment given the really weak character of the common law as against a State parliament which is determined to infringe on those traditional freedoms. As to the right to compensation for the acquisition of property, private property should not be arbitrarily acquired by the community without fair compensation-that would be simple theft. It matters not whether the community in taking the property is wearing the face of the Commonwealth, the State or some Territory. It is equally unjust for it to take property without compensation. The framers thought so and so provided against the Commonwealth. Recent political history teaches us that State governments can be tempted and succumb in a way which ought to be provided against. Indeed, that is what this particular extension of a right already given by the Constitution seeks to do. I move finally to the Democrats' proposal on their electors' initiative referendum. The Government's view is that it should await the considered views and report of the Constitutional Commission on electors' initiated measures. I understand that that review is now taking place and will be available by the end of June 1988. We should await that report, but in the meantime although I believe that the proposal has merit, speaking for myself at least, and I know for many of my colleagues, a great deal of thought must be given to the sort of new political system that we would be creating by adopting such an electors' initiative in regard to both constitutional change and the making of ordinary legislation. At the moment elected representatives are clearly accountable to the people at every election time, and in particular in the imposition of taxes and expenditure of moneys. It is not very clear to me exactly how the ordinary Australian community, and the electors within it, can hold any particular body of people to account if a law were passed by way of electors' initiative in a way which either imposed a tax or had to do with the expenditure of moneys raised by way of taxation. Against whom is the electorate to have redress in that situation, where at the moment there is the redress of taking to task the government which has imposed that taxation or authorised the expenditure of that money at the following election. Those lines of accountability in relation to the imposition of tax and expenditure of money, which have been a very crucial feature of the Westminster system which Australia has inherited and which enables the Government to sit in the Parliament in a way that is not the case in the United States, where most of these ideas originate, should be thought through a lot more. That aspect is also part of a wider tension that would exist between our perceived role as elected representatives and not mere automatons and the situation that would be created by this proposal. The fact is, as we all know, that even laws passed in good faith in this Parliament can have unintended consequences. Certainly it is unclear to me how, if a law adopted by way of the process put forward by the Democrats comes into being and has unintended consequences, it can be easily or readily undone. In the meantime, people out in the community would be suffering in one way or another, unless the Parliament was given some means to amend or even repeal an elector-initiated law which was having an undesirable impact which may or may not have been foreseen by those who initiated it. I do not believe we would be doing our duty as elected representatives of the people, if we allowed this to proceed at a time when this chamber is asserting its role in respect of ordinary legislation brought into this chamber by a government or even by private members. Quite often one has reports from the Scrutiny of Bills Committee to the effect that a particular provision has been either overlooked or carelessly inserted in a way which has an impact on the rights and freedoms of citizens and should be amended. How are we to amend a provision in an electors' initiated law which comes into effect and is found to have a defect which may not have been apparent to those who drafted it in good faith? I believe that the proposition needs a lot more thought and for the moment is not in a ready state to be put to the Australian people. I do not think that we could put it to the Australian people ourselves in good faith at this stage of its development. We commend the Government Bills to the Senate. In regard to the Democrats' proposal, we shall be voting with the Opposition on its second reading amendment. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(8.26) —In the long debate on the Constitution Alteration (Electors' Initiative) Bill and other Bills honourable senators have commented on the Bill which I introduced on behalf of my Party to put before the people a proposition on the Constitution Alteration (Electors' Initiative) Bill. This proposal has had a long history from the point of view of my Party in this place. On 22 August 1978, now almost 10 years ago, Senator Colin Mason in his maiden speech commented on: The desirability and practicability of consulting the Australian people on whether or not they wish to have the right to initiate Federal legislation . . . He sought to have a reference to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs to consider this matter. He was opposed by the then Liberal Government with the Labor Party Opposition. On 10 September 1980, Senator Mason introduced his Constitution Alteration (Electors' Initiative) Bill. I took over that Bill in 1983 when it eventually came to the vote. In that debate Senator Durack, leading for the Opposition, then said: The Opposition is opposed to such a proposal because it would lead to quite fantastic and fundamental changes in not only our parliamentary democracy but respon- sible government. Senator Tate at that time referred to the referendum process as `the highest expression of our democracy'. He then went on to suggest that the proposal for electors to be able to initiate the referendum process is `misconceived and comes from a completely different political culture'. I was pleased that in his comments tonight Senator Tate had moved beyond that position. Senator Gareth Evans, in his well known style, in that debate said that it would constitute `a paradise for single-issue loonies in this country'. Senator Evans has not moved very far from that position. There was a vote on the Bill and the Liberal, Labor and National parties voted against the Democrats on that occasion and defeated it. That was six years ago, and yet tonight Senator Puplick gave one reason why the Liberal Party could not make a decision on this and had to move this amendment because the Liberals did not have enough time to be able to work out their stance. Six years ago they voted against it, and that is not enough time to get a policy on this issue. People who have supported this proposal in the community will read that reason with a great deal of interest. The battle continued, and in the following year as a member of the Constitutional Amendment Sub-Committee of the Australian Constitutional Convention, I sought to have placed on its agenda my private member's Bill which I had reintroduced on this matter. To enable that to occur-Senator Tate will remember this because at that stage he was chairing the committee-I presented a paper on the case for a popular initiative. The Constitutional Amendment Sub-committee recommended that a motion be put to the Convention, which was going to hold its next meeting in Brisbane. On 1 August 1985 my proposal, which was then proposal E, was put to the plenary session of the Australian Constitutional Convention in Brisbane and defeated again, by 57 votes to 11. However, the item was restored to the Notice Paper here in subsequent parliaments as we went through election after election. Last year Michelle Grattan wrote an article in the Age headed `Battle Ahead for Bowen's Reforms'. At that time Mr Bowen `favoured a sweeping agenda for possible referendum questions and supported the Commission's Advisory committee'-that is the Constitutional Commission's Advisory Committee on Individual and Democratic Rights-`for citizens' initiated referenda'. The Individual and Democratic Rights Committee-and this is the report of the Commission that the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) said he was waiting for-said in its recommendation in September 1987: There should be provision in the Constitution for voter-initiated referendums for constitutional change . . . if a substantial section of the people (say 500,000 voters) are prepared to petition for constitutional change, the proposed change should be submitted to a referendum. The mechanics of such referendums would be a matter for consideration by the Federal Parliament. That is in fact what was advised by the Individual and Democratic Rights Committee. So the issue moves on until today. This proposal was set down for debate following a non-contested motion of mine last month to have the question put at every stage and to have it voted on. What do we find now? We find that the Opposition in the last six weeks, not the last six years, has suddenly discovered that it does not have a position on this. It has not been able to get its act together. Having previously not opposed this matter going on and being voted on at every stage, it has now put up this proposition. I think anybody reading it would know full well what type of proposition it is in parliamentary terms. In other words the Opposition is saying, `We do not want to vote but we do not want the people to get upset with us, so we will put down a nice-sounding amendment and hope they will be fooled by the exercise'. I assure those who are promoting that proposition that the people will not be fooled by it. I return to the points that were made by Senator Puplick this afternoon as to why the Opposition is not voting for this Bill. The Government's proposition is obviously so transparent as to really not be worthy of address. The Opposition's propositions were put by Senator Puplick this afternoon in a much more considered address and I think they are worthy of reply. They are substantive propositions put in and attempt to meet the issue. It is indeed a chance to have a debate in this place where someone attempts to put up serious propositions with regard to whatever is going on, and not just the fanciful types of propositions that Senator Puplick put down here, but we know where they have come from. One of Senator Puplick's propositions was that one should be careful in making applications of overseas experience. I agree with that. One should be very careful about making applications of experience of another country to this country, and likewise from this country to another country. I think that is a point we take. It seems a perfectly acceptable point to me. However, he did not elaborate on which particular bits we should be cautious about, other than to refer to a couple of propositions with regard to things such as the death penalty, and I will return to that in a moment. The types of overseas experiences I am concerned about relate to countries such as the United States of America, a country from which we received a vast bulk of our Constitution. It is a very similar country to our own in terms of ethnic mix and precedence. The experience in the United States is a very interesting one-it is one which I think a lot of people should give more consideration to than they do at the moment-and that is that this wholesale exercise of talking down the people in this country by saying they are apathetic is a false analysis of what is going on in the community. The community is not apathetic with regard to politics; it is powerless. It may look as though they are apathetic because the actions of people in those situations are the same; that is, they will not undertake activities in the political process and they will stay away from it if they have no reason to be in it. If one analyses the context of the Australian political scene as apathy, one says what the community needs is a good dose of education. That is what we have tried all the way through to date and it has not worked because our basic analysis is flawed. However, if we make the analysis that it is not apathy and therefore a big heavy dose of education will fix it, but rather that it is a lack of power that is actually exhibiting itself, the only way to remedy that is to provide power to the people. Once people have that power, they are then pursued in their own interests to find out what is going on and they will exercise that power. I put to honourable senators a very simple proposition that everybody can test, and everybody in this place would have done this time and again in terms of the various organisations in the community to which they have belonged. When they go into a meeting in which there are people who have some power, those people have some interest. If they go into a meeting where the people have no power, the people have no interest. That is the essential analysis that people have got wrong about the political and constitutional aspects of our society as it exists today. The reduction of alienation and voter apathy must be done with regard to the generation of power to the people to enable them to intervene. They will then seek education, and seek it everywhere they can. That has been the experience in the American political scene in those States where it has occurred. For example, there have been a number of analyses-Senator Puplick alluded to this in his objections-of situations where there is voluntary voting. The analysis revealed that in those States which have the voter initiative system-they all have voluntary voting in America-over 50 per cent of those States have high turnouts. In those States which have low turnouts only 14 per cent have the initiative. In other words, when the people have the power they will actually use it. In addition the analyses have discovered a very simple fact which I think would not need any research for people to know. In a voluntary voting situation every public opinion poll taken in the United States recently has shown what happens when people are asked whether the fact that they are voting on a citizens' initiated referendum makes any difference. What do honourable senators think they reply? Well, the obvious happens. More people say they will vote if there is a citizens' initiated proposal than if there is not. In other words, people are drawn out of their apathy by the fact that they can exercise some power. I hope the Opposition and the Government will address themselves to those types of issues, because this is a fundamental exercise and one which unfortunately has been brushed aside yet again by the political parties. What we were putting was a very simple proposition. It was not that the Liberal Party should establish its policy on this item but that the people should be allowed to have a vote about whether they can have a say. That is what we were talking about. We are shortly going to find a vote in this place which is going to deny that chance yet again. It really does not matter whether the Liberal Party, the National Party of Australia, the Australian Labor Party or the Australian Democrats have a policy. It is not up to us as to whether we want a policy; it is up to the people as to whether they want to have a say. Just because the Liberal Party has not been able to establish its policy in the last six years is neither here nor there. It is not important. If the people vote this down, it is because they do not want it now. Fine; they may want it in 10 years time. That is their choice. It is not Senator Chaney's choice or that of the Liberal Party in terms of its policy formation-slow as that might be. It is the people's choice whether they want to do that. But we are having a blocking mechanism put in place in this chamber to prevent the people having a say about this matter. Why are we doing that? We are doing it for the types of reasons that Senator Puplick mentioned. Senator Puplick said that it might help those who are powerful within the community. That is an important argument in terms of the power in the community. I refer the Senate to the excellent book published by Professor Walker, the Dean of the School of Law at Queensland University on this matter. In a fine-grain analysis, he looks at whether the powerful actually get up. I should have thought that if Senator Puplick was going to throw that around, he may have had a look at that and sought to critique the point made by Professor Walker. But he did not do that, and Professor Walker's comment on that is overwhelming. It is not the evidence that powerful groups get up. The reason for that is quite simple, again: because the essential element about which we are talking is whether the people want that particular type of vote, not whether or not this particular proposition gets up. An analysis of the ideological cover in the United States of America showed that about one-third of the propositions put up could be said vaguely to be those of the Left, about a third of the propositions put up could vaguely be said to be those of the Right, and the other third were not able to be cat- egorised because they were essentially neutral items, often of a local and regional interest. What was the success rate in those? It was rather fascinating. A little less than half of those on the Left got up; a little less than half of those on the Right got up; and a little over half of the ones which could not be classified got up. In other words, here we have a completely ideologically neutral proposal within the American context. I would propose that it would be similar within the Australian context. But does that really matter? In a democracy, whether or not one agrees with the outcome, presumably what the people want in their country is what should occur. Senator Puplick then said that the people might want to ask some questions-for example, about in vitro fertilisation, abortion, animal welfare, land rights, moral issues, or economic issues. What, may I ask, is wrong in a democracy with the people wanting to ask questions about those sorts of matters? I would be glad if more citizens of this country wanted to ask questions about those items. I would not be depressed or fearful; I would be glad, because one of the things that we need is more citizen participation in the running of this country. I am not worried that they may wish to ask hard questions. I would welcome it. We have just had a change of Minister at the table, with the arrival of the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson). I am sure that he would welcome it if the people wanted to ask hard questions about the Lemonthyme Forest in Tasmania, or hard questions about other environmental problems. Why not? What is wrong in that? What is wrong if they ask this year, next year and the year after? Senator Puplick was fearful about it. I am not fearful about the people discussing questions which bear upon their own lives, their country and their society. That is what a democracy is about. Senator Puplick then went into a relatively old debating tactic. In terms of the analysis of the Bill, he said, `Well, you know, you could end up in the situation down the track where you have 50 per cent of the people being able to change the Constitution'. With my proposal, first we had to get two-thirds of the people to say that they wanted only 50 per cent of the people to be able to change the Constitution. Anyone can pull these types of things out of a hat. Senator Puplick then went on to say that with voluntary voting there may even be less than half of the people doing it. Frankly, I challenge Senator Chaney to deny that all of the examples used by Senator Puplick could operate now under the current arrangements, if a Bill to that effect went through this chamber and the people supported it. None of the proposals that Senator Puplick raised have anything to do with my proposal. They have everything to do with whether the people wish to change their proposition. Senator Chaney —The two-thirds majority does not apply now. Senator MACKLIN —One proposition was 50 per cent voluntary voting, and the other one was that we might end up getting conscription. Senator Tate raised this issue too, with regard to how factors might arise in relation to a Bill that went through and produced, in Senator Tate's terms, unintended consequences. That is relatively easily dealt with. If there are unintended consequences that the people do not like, they have the proposition to change them. It is relatively simple, and it is easily handled. If there are some unintended consequences that the people do not like-other than, of course, the ones that the politicians do not happen to like at any particular time-fine; they can change them. It has to be shown, first, that they are unintended consequences, and the people must be convinced that they are unintended consequences. Just because a politician happens to think that they are will not be sufficient. The people are able to amend the propositions, and those that they put in they are able to take out. It is interesting, for those who are interested in these matters in terms of the overseas experience to consider the Californian Proposition 13 which is often bandied around. At public meetings that I attend, that seems to be about the only one that anyone in this country has ever heard of. Despite the fact that there are literally thousands of such propositions all the time, they hear about Proposition 13. Why? That is because it halved property taxes. People voting to halve property taxes is a good thing to make politicians twitch, and the politicians say, `There you are. The people cannot be trusted. They halved property taxes'. Interestingly enough, when the people did that, it was long before politicians in this place started talking about lowering taxes. Those people halved their property taxes. Why did they do that? It was because the State of California, year in and year out, had had a massive surplus, and the people said, `That's enough. You are not running things the way we want them run', and they halved the property taxes. What happened two years later? It is always forgotten. Exactly the same person and the same organisation put forward another proposition-Proposition 14. What was that to do? It was to halve income taxes. What happened? It lost in a landslide. Why? It was because the people knew that they did not want to halve their income taxes, for the very real reason that with halving income taxes they would get fewer services in terms of schools, hospitals, roads and other items that the people wanted. They were happy with their level of income tax. They were unhappy with their level of property tax. All one has to do in those contexts is actually to believe that one is in a democratic country, and a democratic country is one in which presumably the people will actually end up running the country. Senator Puplick then went on to say that I had a number of omissions in my Bill. I find that very odd. He defined the omissions as those things that had been included in the Opposition's Green Paper. I did not want to include the things that were included in the Green Paper because every one of those-items like parliamentary committees-was basically a method of politicians again controlling the agenda. That is all that they were. What we are attempting to do in this Bill is put in a whole new avenue for people's involvement within a democratic life. They were not omissions from my Bill. I did not want them there. I did not want politicians intervening and controlling the whole exercise and pulling the strings, as they would do under the types of arrangements put in the Green Paper. It is nothing to do with omissions. They were deliberately left out. So, what we have, then, is an exercise where yet again we have a quite reasonable proposition killed off-a proposition on which the people would have liked to have a vote, and probably the one on which they would most have liked to have a vote. It is very clear why this is about to be killed off in this chamber, and let no-one be disabused of that fact. It is because the politicians do not wish to unleash that type of power in our community. That is because, essentially, it is terrifying to the politicians. I would urge them again to go back and look at what happens in other communities where this occurs. It has actually enhanced the legislative process. In every state that it occurs, one finds a much greater level of responsibility on the part of the politicians to their electorates; a much better attention to the duties that the legislature has; a much greater listening power on the part of the legislatures to their electoral bases. That is an enhancement of the process of democracy, not its denial. It is a difficult proposition. In some respects, it is a terrifying power that would be unleashed. But may I suggest that it is as terrifying as the power that was unleashed in Britain with the first reform Bills. When one reads the House of Commons debate when people were talking about giving workers the right to vote, that was absolutely terrifying. Why? Because giving the workers the right to vote in the 1830s was at a time when the French Revolution, where people's heads had rolled, was still in the living memory of many people. Senator Chaney —They would have been very old. Senator MACKLIN —They were, and that was still in their living memory. It was 40 years on, Senator Chaney. It was an exercise of giving workers the right to vote. A little later on another terrifying explosion occurred in the democratic process when women got the right to vote. When one reads the debates in the House of Commons, one has only to read the terror in the words of giving women the right to vote. Thank God that women eventually got the right to vote because it is only since then that there has been a growth of sanity within the political context. Hopefully, when these chambers finally respond to the weighting in the electorate, we will have at least 50 per cent of women, if not more, in this chamber and it will be a vastly superior place. It is the unleashing of those types of power that was terrifying, and there is no doubt about that. It terrified the politicians of the day because they were relinquishing power and any relinquishing of power is a terrifying experience. But we know that giving the workers the right to vote and giving women the right to vote enhanced democracy 100, 200, 1,000 fold. We know it was the development of the democratic process and not its nemesis. I believe that when we come to vote on this issue people could at least consider that, yet again, we might be far reaching enough; we might look ahead far enough; we might consider that we too have a unique historical opportunity, and that is to grasp this opportunity and pass this Bill to allow the people to have a say upon this matter. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Burns) —Order! The question is that the Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill be now read a second time. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 4 —— Aulich, T. G. Jenkins, J. A.Beahan, M. E. McKiernan, J. P.Black, J. R. McLean, P. A.Bolkus, N. McMullan, R. F.Burns, B. R. Macklin, M. J.Childs, B. K. Maguire, G. R. (Teller)Coates, J. Morris, J. J.Collins, R. L. Ray, RobertColston, M. A. Reynolds, M.Cooney, B. C. Richardson, G. F.Coulter, J. R. Sanders, N. K.Crowley, R. A. Schacht, C. C.Devlin, A. R. Sibraa, K. W.Evans, Gareth Tate, M. C.Foreman, D. J. Vallentine, J.Gietzelt, A. T. Zakharov, A. O.Giles, P. J. Alston, R. K. R. Knowles, S. C.Archer, B. R. McGauran, J. J.Baume, Michael MacGibbon, D. J.Bishop, B. K. Messner, A. J.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Newman, J. M.Boswell, R. L. D. Panizza, J. H.Brownhill, D. G. C. Patterson, K. C. L.Calvert, P. H. Puplick, C. J. G.Chaney, F. M. Sheil, G.Chapman, H. G. P. Short, J. R.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Tambling, G. E. J. (Teller)Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C.Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S.Harradine, B. Watson, J. O. W.Hill, R. M. Jones, G. N. Stone, J. O.Cook, P. F. S. Parer, W. R.Devereux, J. R. Reid, M. E.Button, J. N. Baume, PeterWalsh, P. A. Lewis, A. W. R.Haines, J. Vanstone, A. E. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The PRESIDENT —Order! The question now is that the amendment moved by Senator Puplick to the motion for the second reading of the Constitution Alteration (Electors' Initiative) Bill be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 49 —— Alston, R. K. R. Hamer, D. J.Archer, B. R. Harradine, B.Aulich, T. G. Hill, R. M.Baume, Michael Knowles, S. C.Beahan, M. E. McGauran, J. J.Bishop, B. K. MacGibbon, D. J.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. McKiernan, J. P.Black, J. R. McMullan, R. F.Bolkus, N. Maguire, G. R. (Teller)Boswell, R. L. D. Messner, A. J.Brownhill, D. G. C. Morris, J. J.Burns, B. R. Newman, J. M.Calvert, P. H. Panizza, J. H.Chaney, F. M. Patterson, K. C. L.Chapman, H. G. P. Puplick, C. J. G.Childs, B. K. Ray, RobertCoates, J. Reynolds, M.Collins, R. L. Richardson, G. F.Colston, M. A. Schacht, C. C.Cooney, B. C. Sheil, G.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Short, J. R.Crowley, R. A. Tambling, G. E. J.Devlin, A. R. Tate, M. C.Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C.Evans, Gareth Walters, M. S.Foreman, D. J. Watson, J. O. W.Gietzelt, A. T. Zakharov, A. O.Giles, P. J. Coulter, J. R. Macklin, M. J. (Teller)Jenkins, J. A. Sanders, N. K.McLean, P. A. Vallentine, J. Button, J. N. Haines, J. Question so resolved in the affirmative. The PRESIDENT —Order! The question now is that the original motion, as amended, be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (PARLIAMENTARY TERMS) BILL 1988 Clause 1 agreed to. Clause 2 (The Senate). Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(9.10) —The fundamental concern of the Opposition in the debate on the committee stage of the Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill 1988 and, indeed, the Constitution Alteration (Fair Elections) Bill 1988, relates to our concern about the accuracy or otherwise of the question which will be put before the people of Australia if these Bills are finally given a third reading and there is a referendum. Given the vote at the second reading stage, I suppose that there is a very high probability that that will be so. At this stage of the committee debate our concern is primarily aimed at the content of these Bills and the accurate reflection of the content of the Bills in the long title, which is fundamentally important because it represents the question which is put to the people of Australia. There may well be other contributions that other Opposition senators wish to make but my main concern is simply to ensure that we have in the committee stage a full understanding of the different measures which are proposed by the Bill and which will be effective if the referendum goes to the people and is carried. We are dealing with clause 2 of the Bill and that clause, which is in simple terms, states: Section 7 of the Constitution is altered by omitting from the fourth paragraph `senators shall be chosen for a term of six years and the'. Turning to section 7 of the Constitution, we find that it appears in part II of the Constitution under the heading `The Senate', and it indicates: The Senate shall be composed of senators for each State, directly chosen by the people of the State, voting, until the Parliament otherwise provides, as one electorate. That is a very important element of our Constitution because it makes the fundamental provision for senators for each State to be directly chosen by the people. I will not quote the rest of it but it goes on to talk about how the senators are to be chosen, and then it states: Until the Parliament otherwise provides there shall be six senators . . . That is in the original version. Of course, that has now been increased. We now have 12 senators, because the Parliament has otherwise determined, for each State. But we have the fundamental requirement in this section that there be equal representation of the original States. The provision states that that shall be maintained. So we are dealing here with an amendment to a section which sets out the fundamental nature of the Senate and a fundamental element of the compact-which is the Australian Constitution-between the federating States which, until that time, had been separate political entities. The point about this section in the Constitution is that it also contains this provision: The senators shall be chosen for a term of six years . . . I simply put it to the Committee and to the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) that this is one of the fundamental characteristics of the Senate, as set out in the Constitution. They are quite different from the fundamental characteristics of the House of Representatives. We have in this body of the Australian Parliament and in no other Australian parliamentary body a fixed term. That has been in the Constitution since 1901 and, on my understanding of this Bill and of this clause, we would be removing that fundamental quality of the Senate. I ask for the Minister's confirmation of the fact that this clause involves removing the fixed term of the Senate, destroying what has been one of its essential characteristics-namely, that it is not, other than in a double dissolution situation, subject to the whim of the Prime Minister of the day. The reality is that the House of Representatives, because of the provisions elsewhere in this Constitution and because of our overall laws, is at the whim, effectively, of the Prime Minister of the day. Provided he can come up with some sort of excuse-and we have seen plenty of evidence that the excuse does not have to be very much-he can virtually at whim have an election for the House of Representatives. I seek the Minister's confirmation that, by this clause, we are removing one of the basic characteristics which have differentiated the Senate not only from the House of Representatives but also from other elective chambers in the various Australian parliaments. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(9.14) —This provision of the referendum Bill would change the current provision in the Constitution and would change the situation whereby senators have a fixed term which they serve unless affected by a double dissolution. In that respect this proposal alters what the framers had envisaged as the way in which the Senate would be composed and would operate as to the terms of the members of the Senate chamber. Of course, the proposal before the chamber today is not a new one. It has been put before. I seem to remember that it was put in 1974. It was certainly put in 1977. Senator Walters —That is not so. Senator TATE —As to doing away with the fixed term-Senator Chaney nods his head in concurrence-which is the question that was being asked by Senator Chaney. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(9.15) —I do not wish to be the only senator contributing to the debate on this clause but I wish to finish dealing with this point. The Minister went perilously close to misrepresenting the position again, as I believe he did in his earlier response, and I took a point of order at that time. The proposition for the substitution of the fixed term of six years for a variable term of a maximum of four years is not the proposition which was before the Parliament in 1977. I see that on this occasion that the Minister is nodding his head in agreement with what I am saying. I think we will have a more orderly committee debate if there is no confusion between the 1977 proposition and the 1988 proposition. I am really asking the Minister whether he, on behalf of the Government, denies that, to this point, one of the fundamental characteristics of the Senate has been its fixed term. I agree with him that unsuccessful attempts have been made to destroy the fixed term and substitute simultaneous elections, but it seems to me that that is not the point. I think that has been put forward three times and defeated by the vote of the people of Australia on each occasion. My question to the Minister is whether there is any argument between the Opposition and the Government on the simple proposition that the fixed term, as the Constitution is at present and as the Senate has been constituted for the last 88 years, is one of the fundamental characteristics of this chamber. Perhaps the expression `distinguishing characteristics' is a more meaningful expression. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(9.16) —The proposition that fixed terms are a distinguishing characteristic of this chamber as provided for at the moment under the constitutional provisions, particularly obviously, under section 7 of the Constitution, is absolutely correct. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.17) —Senator Tate said earlier tonight that this Bill will not strip the Senate of any power at all. Does he say that a fixed term of the Senate whereby a Prime Minister is unable to call an election is not a power greater than that of the House of Representatives? Perhaps I should phrase my question in a different way as the Minister is frowning and might not have understood it. Is the Prime Minister able at this stage to call the Senate to an election whenever he likes? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(9.18) —Clearly-- Senator Walters —I am surprised you had to take so much advice before answering such a simple question. Senator TATE —I am not taking advice; I am just clarifying that when the trigger of a double dissolution is provided the Prime Minister has the opportunity to take the Senate to an election at any time. A half Senate election can occur within one year of the expiry of the term of the senators involved. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.19) —I was very surprised to see the Minister taking such a lot of advice on such a simple question. The Minister did not answer my question. I asked a simple question. He has been in this place some time now and ought to be able to answer it without advice. Can the Prime Minister of the day call the Senate to an election whenever he likes? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(9.20) —The answer to that clearly, is no. I was trying to describe the situations where he can. I have given a fuller answer than if I merely had said no. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.20) —The Minister's answer was clearly no. I then asked him whether the Senate has a power of independence in the Parliament that the House of Representatives lacks because the House of Representatives goes to the people whenever the Prime Minister, on advice to the Governor-General, says so. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(9.20) —It is a quality, or characteristic, of the Senate chamber that it has, under the present Constitution, a guaranteed term, except in the two instances which I mentioned where the Prime Minister can call a half Senate or a double dissolution election. I do not describe that as a power. As I say, it is a quality or characteristic of the Senate provided for in the Constitution. Senator Walters —So you acknowledge that the Senate has an independence, Minister, that the House of Representatives does not have? Is that correct? Senator TATE —Under the Constitution, as presently drafted, the Senate remains as a fixed entity, apart from the two instances which I outlined, which is not something shared by the House of Representatives. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.21) —I find it incredible that the Minister does not want to use the word `independence'. He skirts around it. He will use any term, any phrase, but he is frightened of saying that the Senate has an `independence' from the Prime Minister, from the lower House, from the executive form of government. For some reason or other he is so terrified by the sound of the word `independence' that he skirts around it. But he has made it obvious to those in the gallery and to everyone in the chamber tonight that I am correct. The Senate has a certain independence in the Parliament from the Executive and from the Prime Minister of the day, even though the Minister does not like to use that term. If the Senate has an independence from the Executive of the day, surely the Minister must admit that that is a power of this chamber that the House of Representatives does not have. Is that so? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(9.22) —I do not want to get into a terminological dispute. I have said that that is a quality of the chamber which is not shared by the House of Representatives. I do not describe it as a power. When we talk about powers in relation to constitutional provisions we are talking about the powers which may be exercised in this chamber as part of its deliberative and voting procedures, for example, the powers to pass certain laws or to disallow regulations and so on and so forth. In no way does the proposal being put to the people strip the Senate of any of those powers which enable it to discharge its deliberative and voting duties and which are conferred on it by the Constitution. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.24) —The gallery must certainly understand that the Minister has said in his speech, at the request of his Government, that the Senate is not being stripped of its power. He has carried on in this chamber using words to get around the subject, being too frightened to admit that this chamber has an independence from the Executive of the Government and, therefore, has a special power as put forward and insisted upon by the founding fathers when they formed the Federation. That was agreed to by the Premiers of all the States, including the small States, who would not be part of a federation unless the Senate were given this power, this independence from the Executive of the Government. Now the Minister and his Government wish to destroy that independence and power which we, on this side of the chamber, have cherished for many years. There is no doubt left in anyone's mind that the Minister has been using fancy words. But that has not taken away from the fact that this Bill will certainly strip the Senate of its power of independence, its power to say to the Prime Minister of the day, `You cannot take us to the people whenever you like unless you have very special circumstances because we have a fixed term. You cannot take us to the people within six months of an election, as you can do in the House of Representatives. You cannot take us to the people within 12 months. You cannot take us to the people under our fixed term'. That, whether the Minister likes it or not, is something that the people of Australia need. They need that sort of protection from any rogue government-any government which is willing to pass radical laws like the Bill of Rights-- Senator Michael Baume —The ID card. Senator WALTERS —Like the ID card, or any of the radical legislation which this Government has brought forward and which the Senate, in its wisdom, has protected the people of Australia from. That is something the people of Australia understand and cherish. There is no way they will vote for this ridiculous Bill. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(9.27) —Am I to understand that the principal reason advanced by the Government for this measure is that it would do something to solve the problems of the Senate blocking Supply? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(9.27) —No, this proposal does not attempt to address that problem. In fact, that is the distinguishing characteristic between this proposal and that which was put, I think, in Senator Rae's referendum proposal and by the Australian Electoral Commission. We do not attempt to address the question of Supply at all. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(9.28) —Therefore, we can anticipate that there will be nothing in the Yes proposals which would indicate that one of the reasons for persons voting for this measure would concern the Senate rejecting Supply. So it has nothing to do with blocking Supply. I will be interested to read the Yes case. Senator Macklin —The Minister cannot answer for all the Yes case. He can answer only for his part of the Yes case. Senator HARRADINE —Perhaps, through you, Mr Chairman, I can ask Senator Macklin. Senator Macklin —The answer is no. Senator HARRADINE —I come to the next point. With a double dissolution election available to a government at its pleasure, is there any constitutional or practical constraint on a Prime Minister who wants an election calling one at any time? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(9.29) —The answer to that is no. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(9.30) —So that we can complete consideration of this clause in a tidy way, let me say the Minister has told us that the fixed term is a distinguishing feature of the constitution of the Senate. It is a quality or characteristic of the Senate. I ask for his confirmation that the effect of this proposal would be to destroy that particular quality or characteristic of the Senate. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(9.30) —If this proposal were passed, that quality or characteristic would obviously not be part of the defining description of the Senate chamber. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(9.31) —This proposal contains two questions. One deals with the maximum terms of the House of Representatives, which changes from three to four years, and the other reduces the term of the Senate from six years to three years. In fact, there are three questions because it also abolishes the fixed term for senators. I presume that Senator Tate agrees with that. The amendment is designed to explain that more fully and adequately than the title proposed by the Government. The Government is arguing in favour of this proposal ostensibly because it says that there should be longer terms for Parliament and fewer elections. That seems to be the standard argument in favour of a proposal of this kind. We are dealing not only with the future of the Senate but with the future of the whole Parliament. I note that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), who is seeking the new proposals, was elected to government on 5 March 1983. He called an election for 1 December 1984, within 21 months of being elected. His government was elected in March 1983. The life of that Parliament under the existing Constitution would have run for a little over three years. So there was no basis for an election before 1986. He called an election for 1 December 1984, when his government was again elected for a little more than three years. There was a lot of speculation that there was to be a bicentennial election in February or March 1988. His government was elected for a period of over three years. He called an election, without any excuse, on 11 July 1987, about 2 1/2 years after the previous election. So in the space of just over four years, he called two elections. Am I right in thinking that this is the same Prime Minister who is leading a government which is proposing to complain to the electorate about there being too many elections and that parliaments are too short-- Senator MacGibbon —Basically the same Ministry too. Senator DURACK —Yes. I suppose that Senator Tate would not have been here if we had not had some of these elections. Will Senator Tate give some guarantees on behalf of this Prime Minister that if this Bill is passed-it is designed to give us fewer elections and longer parliaments-an election will not be called every two years, whenever he feels like it? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(9.35) —I think there is a general sentiment in the Australian community that elections have been held too frequently. The average term of two years and four months in the last several decades has been of concern not only to ordinary electors but also to organisations within the community, including the business community. The Business Council of Australia has been one of the strongest advocates of a four-year term. Within that outer limit a Prime Minister will retain that ability to go to the people. It is an important feature of our democratic process that at times the Parliament might be dissolved in order that the wish and will of the electorate be determined. No particular limit can be set on the ability of the Prime Minister to request the Governor-General that that testing of the electorates will be undertaken by way of election. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(9.36) —The question was quite deliberately not answered because Senator Tate cannot answer it. I would like him to admit that he cannot answer it. I repeat: Will the Minister give a guarantee-yes or no-on behalf of the Prime Minister, of the Government of which he is a member, that if this Bill is passed fewer elections will be called by his present leader, having regard to his past record? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(9.37) —I am not in the Perth Magistrates Court so I do not have to say yes or no in relation to whatever Senator Durack might pose to me. I am entitled to give an answer which is sensitive to the constitutional realities. As I pointed out, under the provision the Prime Minister will be able to call an election by seeking the concurrence of the Governor-General to the proposition that the will of the electorate ought to be tested at any time that a situation is created where that will ought to be tested by way of sending the Parliament to an election. Whether that occurs at the extreme outer limit of four years, or at some point short of that, is a matter on which the Prime Minister can give advice to the Governor-General. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(9.38) —Would Senator Tate, who has said that the business community has been most anxious for this proposal for lengthening the term of parliaments in order to have fewer elections, tell us whether he will send a copy of the answers he has just given me to the business community? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(9.38) —I will send a copy to the Business Council of Australia. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.38) —Could the Minister tell me what other democratic countries have equal terms for both houses of parliament? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(9.38) —I do not have a list of nations which provide for equal terms for both chambers under a bicameral system of parliament. We are not trying to imitate any other nation. We are trying to create the best possible situation for the Australian people to exercise their democratic rights to have both chambers of the Parliament answerable to them at the same time, so that both chambers can be composed-in their very different ways, as is evidenced by the composition of each chamber-by the electorate at the same time to represent during their terms of office the current will of the people. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.39) —Is the Minister aware of some of the countries that do have equal terms for both Houses? If not, I would like to give him a list. They are: Bolivia, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Zimbabwe and the Soviet Union. I ask the Minister: Are those the types of controlled parliaments that he thinks Australia ought to join? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(9.40) —No, I do not believe that they are. That is why I was saying that we are not trying to emulate any other nation. We are trying to create within the Australian democracy a means of government which is appropriate to us and we certainly do not look to those nations or any others to provide us with that model. None of those particular nations-I have not got a complete list of those the honourable senator has mentioned-incorporate the Westminster system of parliamentary representative democracy which is the characteristic of our particular Federal Parliament wedded as it is to the Senate system. I believe that that particular juxtaposition has served Australia well and it in no way ought to be changed in order to emulate any of the controlled democracies-as the honourable senator called them, though I would not have called them democracies-named in her list. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(9.41) —I ask the Minister: Has the Government given serious consideration to maintaining and preserving the powers of the Senate as they are and extending the term of the House of Representatives to four years by having four years for the House of Representatives and eight years for the Senate? This is a proposition which presumably would get bipartisan support within this Parliament and, on the basis of the Minister's proposition, would get support from the business community and would have a greater prospect of succeeding at a referendum than will the proposition that the Minister has put, which has not got the support of our Party or of a significant part of the community. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(9.41) —Does the honourable senator say that he would offer bipartisan support-presumably he is speaking after discussions in his Opposition Party room-in relation to an eight-year term in the sense of a concurrent term, or does the honourable senator mean an eight-year fixed term? Senator Crichton-Browne —Extending the term of the Senate from six years to eight years. Senator TATE —A fixed term? Senator Crichton-Browne —Yes, a fixed term. Senator TATE —There is a difference in the two propositions. Senator Archer —Totally. Senator TATE —Totally. I and the Government do not believe that the Australian people would countenance an elected representative exercising the power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth having an eight-year term of a fixed character. That seems to be too long a time to have a person put into this particular-- Senator Archer —But it is okay in New South Wales. Senator TATE —I am talking about the Federal Parliament, which is what we are concerned about. I do not believe that the Australian people would countenance the idea of a person being sent to exercise legislative power on behalf of this great Commonwealth of Australia for eight years of a fixed term. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(9.43) —I would like to follow up that point by pointing to the fact that it is only in the last two to three years that precisely that change has been made in my own State of Victoria where the term for the upper House is eight years. It was accepted by the community without any dispute. It was accepted on a bipartisan basis by both Houses of the Parliament. I follow Senator Crichton-Browne's question to the Minister and ask: Why would it not be acceptable here in the Federal sense? Why not put it to the test? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(9.44) —Forgive me for not being utterly familiar with the Victorian situation, but I think I am right in saying in relation to the Victorian situation that it is an eight-year maximum, but it is not a fixed term. But even if it were, I do not know whether it was put to the people by way of referendum. So whilst the honourable senator may be correct in a general sense in saying that there have been no revolutions in the streets about it, I think it is quite a different proposition to put to the Australian people that they should countenance sending to the Senate chamber, as part of the Federal legislature, persons who would be able to exercise tremendous power for eight fixed years. I do not think there is any analogy with the Victorian situation but, as I say, I am not utterly familiar with Victoria. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(9.45) —What has changed the minds of members of the Labor Party in this respect? Is it not a fact that the Labor Party in 1983 proposed an eight-year term for senators in the Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(9.45) —That may have been the case. I am not sure whether it was, but the fact is that we believe now, with the benefit of consideration, that it would be quite compatible and indeed would be an added democratic dimension to our arrangements if, in every four years maximum, this chamber were constituted by the people. I believe that the Senate's standing and political clout in the general Australian community would be enhanced because it would be composed freshly by the electors every four years. Given the different way in which it is actually composed, and given the fact that one would only need a 7 1/2 per cent quota in order to gain or secure a place in this chamber, we will have a type of representation of the Australian community every four years which would give to this chamber added weight in its deliberations on matters sent up by the other House. In fact, I believe that this particular proposal will enhance paradoxically-I see Senator Newman is a bit quizzical-the political weight of the deliberations of this chamber. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(9.46) —I put it to the Minister that the only advance in the thinking of the Government is that this is the best way for the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to get control of the Senate. It is none of this other highfalutin rubbish that the Minister has been going on with. I take honourable senators back to the 1890s where at least mature people of considerable legal consequence kicked this around for a long time without the pressure of whether they were going to individually and personally control the Senate and be able to screw it down in the way that the present Prime Minister has in mind. They made a suggestion which has stood the test of time and done it very well. Can the Minister please tell me how this proposal will give us a better result than has been achieved for 87 years? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(9.47) —I can only repeat that it is the belief of the Government that by composing the Senate at a general election every four years as a maximum we will have a chamber which clearly is more contemporaneously reflecting the views of the electorate. Senator Archer —Based on what experience? Senator TATE —I recall my own situation. I was elected in December 1977. I could not get into this chamber until the Budget session of 1978. Whilst the people of Tasmania had said that they wanted me to be in this place, I could not be because of these peculiar fixed term arrangements. I believe that it would be much more representative of the current thinking of the electorate if this chamber were, as I say, composed freshly every four years. It would give it added weight in its deliberations in relation to matters originating in the other place. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(9.48) —Does the Minister think that it would be even better if we did it every year or every two years? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(9.48) —Certainly not because one of the balancing factors-that is why I did mention the Business Council of Australia-is that it is generally recognised that with a three-year term the pressure in the run-up year to that maximum can create a situation where a government is tempted not to take the proper and strong decisions which it should take in the interests of the nation because it is concerned about the electoral consequences. I believe that the two-year term or a one-year term, which the honourable senator speculates about, would be an absolute disaster, given those criteria. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(9.50) —When the Minister says that the Government's judgment is that four and eight would not succeed in a referendum, I take it that that is not an intuitive judgment, but the result of careful and sophisticated research. I take it that the Minister would not be introducing this legislation to gut the power of the Senate, to disrupt the smooth functioning that we understand, simply on an instinctive feel that perhaps this proposition will get through, but the four and eight will not. Is it the Government's concern to reduce the powers of the Senate as well as extend the four-year term, or is the Government's primary concern for the four-year term? What is the purpose of this proposal? Is the Government's primary consideration a four-year term for the House of Representatives, or is it to reduce the powers of the Senate and to have the proposal which the Government has put in respect of the Senate as paramount? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(9.51) —Neither is the primary reason. The primary reason is to give greater stability and effectiveness to the government of this country and, as I indicated to Senator Archer, to try to create a situation where because four years is set as the outer limit for the Parliament to sit, it may be possible for governments to take decisions in the interests of this nation; whereas at the moment they may succumb to the temptation to make bad decisions because of a looming election in the second to third year. That is the primary objective. The means to accomplish that better government for the people of Australia is to introduce the four-year term proposal. It is a consequence of seeking to govern this nation better in the interests of all Australians. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(9.52) —I ask the Minister to respond to the first part of the question, and that is: On what authority does the Minister make the judgment? Furthermore, in the event that the Government were to draw the conclusion that the Minister's last response was wrong and that four and eight would be likely to be more successful than four and four, would the Government withdraw this Bill and introduce a four and eight Bill? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(9.53) —The Government's decision was not taken on the basis of some mere opinion poll taking. Obviously there was a political judgment-and we are politicians-that the electorate would not be able to countenance the idea of an elected representative in the Federal Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia not being accountable perhaps for some eight years. Apart from any sense of what the general public might or might not accept in that regard, the Government has taken the view that it would be wrong in principle to have persons sitting in this chamber with a fixed eight-year term of office. Apart from any opinion polls, which apparently Senator Crichton-Browne considers might determine the shape of constitutional proposals to be put to the people by way of referendum-we do not take that view-we believe that an eight-year fixed term is far too long in a democracy where accountability back to the electorate is one of the treasured features of such a system. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(9.55) —I have listened with great interest to the debate back and forth in the last 10 minutes or so, in which there has been great emphasis on the question of the term of senators and senators' accountability to the electorate. I ask the Minister whether it is not a fact that the fundamental change that is being made here is not so much a question of the length of term of a senator, whether it is four, six or eight years. The fundamental change that is being made, which far outweighs the one that has been focused upon in the recent debate, is that under the Constitution as it stands at present, except in the circumstances of double dissolution to which the Minister referred, senators are not at the behest of the Prime Minister. In other words, a quite different quality is involved. The Prime Minister of the day maintains his executive power because he has the support of the majority in the House of Representatives. The Prime Minister is able to say to the House of Representatives at any time, `I will take you to the people'. The extraordinary subjection of Parliament which has occurred during this century has reduced the Parliament to a meaningless place. I listened with great interest to Senator Macklin's remarks about the quality of meetings where people actually have some power to make decisions. Senator Macklin, in a fine speech advancing his views of his measure, made that very important point. He said that there is an enormous difference when one goes to a meeting where people have some power or authority to make a decision as against a meeting where those who attend are just ciphers. One goes to the other place and it is a very exciting place. I often find some of my colleagues, like my good friend Senator Michael Baume, thirsting for the blood sport atmosphere in the House of Representatives, as do quite a number of my colleagues. This is a chance for me to chastise them publicly for being in the other place instead of being here in the Senate. Senator Crichton-Browne is another one. He is a great patriotic senator, but is always hanging about the Senators' Gallery in the House of Representatives because of the excitement there. The reality is that to a large extent our colleagues in the other place are ciphers. They perform a role as an electoral college. They elect the leader of the party-the Prime Minister and in the case of the Australian Labor Party they elect Ministers, and when the Government says `jump', they jump. Senator Macklin may claim that the only reason that does not happen here is that the Government does not have a majority-he said that the other day-and neither does the Opposition. There is some strength in that, but I would remind Senator Macklin of what I said the other day. When the Fraser Government had a majority in this place for some time in the early life of that Government through to 1981, this chamber retained many of its characteristics and differences from the House of Representatives. There is a different quality to this place, defective as it is-and I would be the last person to suggest that the Senate is without defects for it has many: For example, I express my personal disappointment as to our incapacity, on a regular, accepted and orderly basis, to send Bills to committees for more careful scrutiny. Senator Macklin nods; it is a matter on which I have spoken to him over a period. In both government and opposition I have always seen that as something we could do more frequently to good legislative effect. I stray a little from my point. My point is that in a sense we can reduce the case we are making by making it sound as though we are concentrating on our own terms and talking about a term of six years or eight years for me, or whatever it is. As someone who has now had six or seven elections to serve 14 years in this place, I can see that some of this can be regarded as rather academic. But I do not think that it is academic to say-and I ask the Minister as a person far more learned in the law than I will ever be-to consider the proposition I am now putting. It is that to the extent that there is a genuine legislative element in this Parliament, it is in this place. It is in this place because there are some degrees of insulation from the power of executive government. Some of the power of this place comes simply because some senators are very ornery critters, to use a colloquialism. We had some ex-senators here recently, and who could forget that Senator Reg Wright was many times in a political or executive government sense a pain in the neck. That is one of the contributions of this place. We have had people of some considerable personal quality which has enabled them to take their role as legislators very seriously, and in a way that was never aimed at narrow, political advantage or self-political advancement. I remember with affection the fact that Neville Bonner crossed the floor in ways which effectively cost him his endorsement. There have been various people of character who have added to this place, but for most of us the reality is that this chamber is different because it has some degree of insulation from executive government. Does the Minister agree with the proposition that the quality of the Senate is in part related to that degree of insulation from the executive government, and that the fixed term is, in turn, one of the elements of that insulation from executive government? In my view, there can be no argument about those propositions; I think they are self-evident. I ask the Minister whether he is prepared to contest those propositions. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(10.00) —I do believe that this chamber does have a different quality. I am glad that Senator Chaney has adopted that particular terminology because I think it correctly characterises the chamber. This chamber does have a deliberative aspect to it which does not immediately characterise the House of Representatives. The Government quite clearly, under our system of government, although it was under some challenge in 1975, is formed out of the members who can command a majority in the House of Representatives. So there is a very clear link between the majority in the House of Representatives and any Executive Government of the Commonwealth of Australia. That does lead to a type of approach to the passage of legislation initiated by the Government which does not normally characterise this place. But I do not believe that the proposition being put by way of this Bill for a referendum to the people will in any way prevent the Senate chamber from engaging in those deliberative activities which it does well, such as the committee system, which honourable senators mentioned. Clearly that is a feature which can be and is utilised in order to scrutinise legislation. Of course, that brings to mind the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills which has a role which I think we know from our discussions in setting up that Committee is one peculiarly suited to the Senate chamber. Hence it operates here and not as a joint committee of both chambers. I believe that the proposal being put-I know I am repeating myself-in requiring or allowing senators to be elected on 7.5 per cent of the vote in their respective States will in fact continue a situation where this chamber is much more representative of the various strands of political thought out in the Australian community than the House of Representatives. That continuous, more representative character-I say that knowing the implications of it-I think gives it greater weight in its deliberations, and in that sense I believe this proposal will continue to give that extra quality to the Senate in its deliberations that is missing in the House of Representatives. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(10.04) —Can the Minister tell us why the Australian Labor Party gave up its great belief in fixed terms, which it pushed so strongly over the last decade? What led the Party to move away from the belief in a fixed term for the Parliament now it has the opportunity to put it in place? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(10.04) —Some in the Labor Party may have thought that was a proposition worthy of consideration. The fact is, particularly in relation to the House of Representatives, that the fixed term proposal does not allow for that testing of the will of the electorate which can be required I think at any time short of the maximum that might be set. I believe that testing of the will of the electorate, which is often spoken about from the other side of the chamber in relation to the events of 1975, is something which ought to be preserved in our system. I do not mean the trigger events of 1975, but clearly at times of crisis it is a good thing in a democracy that the people's will be divined by way of fair elections. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(10.05) — Going back to an earlier point, the Minister did say that political considerations entered into the construction of this clause. Was it not a fact that by taking the whole Senate out, it enabled the minor parties, with a 7.5 per cent quota, to get representation in the place, and thereby it made the task of the Labor Party easier in so far as it finds it easier to suborn minor parties than the Opposition to get its legislation through? Was that not a really critical point in the 4-year term proposal? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(10.05) —My remark about political considerations of course went to the question-I think posed by Senator Walters or Senator Crichton-Browne-about eight-year terms and fixed terms and why we rejected those. They were the political considerations I was speaking of in that context. The idea that this proposition has been pushed through in order to create a situation where we can have our legislative program bedevilled by the Australian Democrats is, I think, just too silly. It is not designed to achieve any such end. But a consequence of the proposal is, I believe, that such parties, if not the Democrats then some other party and independents such as Senator Harradine and Senator Vallentine, will find their place in this chamber and we, as a Labor Government, with all the frustrations that leads to nevertheless are prepared to accept that composition of the chamber because we are prepared to accept, as I say, that indeed in a paradoxical way it becomes a chamber more representative of the general Australian community. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.06) —I am disappointed that the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) was not prepared to respond more directly to my comments about the insulation of the Senate from the direct control and power of the Executive Government. I suppose that as a Minister in charge of this Bill it would be a difficult concession for him to make, although I have no doubt in my mind that it would reflect his own considered view. However, I am a little puzzled by his falling back on to the point that he made in response to me when he started to talk to the committee about the fact that the 7.5 per cent quota meant that the Senate had a certain quality. Where in the Constitution is it guaranteed that we will continue the method of election that we have for the Senate? If the Minister cannot point to anything in the Constitution that guarantees that, can he tell us what there is in the Constitution that would prevent the Senate method of election being altered in a way which could produce a totally different sort of Senate? I remind the Minister that until, I think, 1949-I see one of the advisers nodding-there were extraordinary imbalances in this place because a different method of election was followed. Since we are dealing with the area of the constitutional guarantees as to the institutional structure that we have, would he not agree that this argument is in fact a red herring; that the quality he fell back on as in a sense guaranteeing the continuity of a Senate which was different in kind and in nature from the House of Representatives, is in fact based on legislation rather than the Constitution and something therefore which is open to change should a government, through some accident or some extraordinarily political circumstance, gain control of this chamber and decide to have a totally different electoral system which could provide that once again the Senate was a place where virtually everybody came from one side of politics? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(10.09) —The electoral system is not set down in the constitutional provisions themselves for this chamber, and therefore it is true that it can be altered. But I was trying to answer the rather, I thought, overstated proposition that if this is passed, somehow we are stripping the Senate of its power and when we reconvene we will find that we have a completely different quality to the deliberations of this chamber. I think I was simply pointing out that that would not be the case, and in fact the various powers that we exercise as a deliberative and voting chamber in relation to laws which govern the Commonwealth will be exercised, if this proposal is passed in 1989, in the same way as they have been in 1987-88. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(10.10) —I should like the Minister to respond to the view that has been put by a number of his colleagues from the Senate from time to time, particularly when we have debated fixed terms and simultaneous elections. The view put on his side of politics is that the Senate is no longer a States House but simply a House which reflects the views of two political parties, from time to time interfered with by others. Is it a fair proposition that they put to say that the pattern of voting by members of the Labor Party in the Senate is a direct reflection of decisions of Caucus? Decisions of Caucus presumably are simple majority decisions. At any one time all the members of the House of Representatives are within, at a maximum, four years of an election. At any one time under an eight-year proposal, half the senators on the Minister's side of politics would be within four years of an election. It simply means that perhaps 15 senators on the Labor side would, to use the Minister's expression, not be contemporary. The same would apply on our side-except, of course, we are not caucused; we do not get expelled for reflecting our personal views or the views of our State, as we are sent here to do. Does the Minister accept that argument, whether or not senators representing the Labor Party are always contemporary in their views? As I said, Labor has the vast majority within four years, which is what the Government is calling for now, and the rest are compelled in their vote by the decision of the contemporary senators. Does not that in itself make certain that the Minister will have a contemporary Senate? Senator Tate —I do not quite grasp that. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I am sorry, Minister. The Minister has argued that an eight-year term would provide a scenario in which the Senate would not be contemporary. Is that right? Senator Tate —Yes. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I have explained that the decisions in the Senate, as long as the Labor Party forms the government, would be contemporary, because the views accepted in the Senate, given the Caucus system that Labor has, reflect the views of the House of Representatives, and half of the senators are within four-year term; so the great majority of Labor's Caucus would fit within the framework of four years. Therefore, their views are contemporary, and therefore their views will carry. That in itself binds those who are outside the four-year term into the decision. Surely that is pretty clear, Minister. I am talking just about the Labor side of politics for the moment. Surely that dismisses the proposition that because the senators have eight-year terms, they are not contemporary and they are not reflecting in their votes in the Senate the views of modern society. Surely in the real world that is not so. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(10.14) —I do not think that we can make constitutional provisions on the basis of what might be thought to be a situation in a party room from time to time. I cannot say for sure, but when I entered the Parliament eventually in 1978-and what I am about to say probably applied even more in the previous parliament-there certainly were not many House of Representatives members in that Caucus in the Labor Party. It was a very diminished bench. I remember sitting in the Senators Gallery in the House of Representatives and seeing the few members of the Labor Party in one small arc of the House of Representatives seating arrangements. I just do not think it is really practical to try even to mentally construct constitutional propositions on the basis of what might or might not be the balance between senators and members of the House of Representatives in any party room from time to time. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(10.15) —I should like to ask the Minister about the Bills that were introduced and, I think, passed in this chamber in 1983. They were introduced by the then Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, in September 1983. There were two Bills which gave effect to the proposed changes to the Constitution endorsed by the Australian Constitutional Convention at its meeting in Adelaide earlier in 1983. They were the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill and the Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill 1983. I quote from the second reading speech on the parliamentary terms Bill: This Bill proposes to amend the Constitution first by extending from 3 years to 4 years the maximum term of the House of Representatives and, secondly, by increasing the fixed terms of senators from 6 years to 8 years. In the debate on those Bills on 12 October 1983, as reported in Senate Hansard at page 1502, Senator Tate made a very valuable and important contribution. In particular, I thought that his first sentence was most significant, because he said: I support these very important Bills brought into the Senate by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). Could the Minister tell us why he has apparently changed his view so strongly over the intervening period? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(10.17) —I am one of those few individuals who, obviously, can reflect and learn and change their views. Senator Michael Baume —When told. Senator TATE —No, not when told. The fact is that over the intervening years I have come to the conclusions which I have outlined in great detail over the last hour as being of greater weight and significance than those which may have swayed me back in 1983. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(10.18) —I thank the Minister. I have not quite understood that part of the debate. Perhaps the Minister could enlighten me a little more on what have been the factors that changed his view on the question of the terms for the Senate. Perhaps we could concentrate on that part. What are the factors that now make the Minister believe that an extension of the term of the Senate from six years to eight years is, first, wrong, and, secondly, something that the Australian electorate would not wear, when in 1983 he believed and said the opposite? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(10.18) —I have come to a conclusion that an eight-year fixed term is something on which I, in good conscience, could not go to the people of Tasmania and say, `Send me to the Senate chamber of the Commonwealth of Australia to pass laws for eight fixed years'. Perhaps it is a simple question of having more confidence in one's ability to be elected. Perhaps back in 1983 I was looking-- Senator Walters —You weren't self-seeking before. Senator TATE —I am just trying to explain the possible psychology. Perhaps in 1983 I was keener to get myself an eight-year fixed term; I do not know. But now I have formed a very definite view that an eight-year fixed term is just far too long. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.19) —In defence of the Minister, whilst he may have had a view about eight-year terms in 1983 and has changed his view on that in 1988, in 1982 he had this to say in answer to Senator Missen as reported at page 1052 of Hansard: The fact is that we are not arguing for a four-year term; we are arguing for a fixed three-year term. That in itself brings certain restraints and limitations to bear on what a government will attempt to do during that term. Senator Missen said: Why not both-fixed terms and four years? The Minister then said: Because it is important, I believe, that honourable senators enjoy two concurrent House of Representatives measured terms. To ask the electorate to endorse their elected representatives in this place for some eight years would be, I believe, to ask too much of the democratic process. I think six years in this chamber is enough. It appears that the Minister has changed his mind three times in that period. Clearly, the Government Ministers who have proposed this have done the same. I am trying to ascertain from the Minister what is the real core behind this proposition. Is it really to create a situation where there will be unpredictable elections as opposed to fixed-term elections and perhaps even more elections than we have under the current three-year term for the House of Representatives? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(10.22) —No, that is not the core. The core objective is to create a situation where elections are not held, as they have been in the past several decades, every two years and four months. By setting an outer term of four years, governments will more closely approximate that outer limit than obviously is the case at the moment. As to predictability or unpredictability, I have already stated that the Prime Minister will retain that ability to go to the Governor-General and seek to test the will of the electorate. That need not be at the outer limit of the four years. But I do believe, and obviously this is why the Business Council of Australia, among many other organisations, let alone the people, believes that a four-year term will create an environment in which governments will be able to make decisions which are not made in thrall of some impending election. That more stable and measured decision-making by governments will by itself enable parliaments to see out their terms in a way reaching towards that four-year outer limit. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.23) —It appears that much reliance has been given to the Business Council of Australia. This is concerning to me. Even under the current three-year provision, it appears that the Business Council of Australia can get its own way to have company tax reduced by 10 per cent when the persons who run the most important businesses in Australia, namely, the taxpayers with families and average income earners with children, are taxed blind. Senator Chaney —But their tax is only going up 12 per cent this year. Senator HARRADINE —Yes, taxes are going up 12 per cent. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(10.24) —Now that the Minister for Justice is suffering from a scoreline that reads, `Harradine a short two; Tate nil', could I draw the attention of the Minister for Justice to his response to Senator Chaney in which he agreed, it seemed to me, that the special quality-he preferred that word-that the Senate had would be retained under the new arrangement and even enhanced to some degree, if I recall what he said, because of the proposed changes. I ask the Minister whether it would be reasonable to suggest that perhaps exactly the opposite is the case. I would like the Minister to address his mind to this matter. Would not the Senate be, in effect, in ter- rorem if under the new arrangements, as we have seen from the answers to earlier questions, the Minister could at any time send both the single-term chambers to the people? I wonder how the Minister can assert that it would not be held in terrorem. Can he explain to me why, for example, in the case of the ID card the Senate would not be at severe risk of being immediately called to the people in total if it took a view on an issue that the Executive Government strongly favoured? I refer in particular to the ID card because that was an issue for which the Government had no popular mandate whatsoever. It had not gone to the people with that even appearing on its election manifesto. The point seems to me that one of the ways a Senate can courageously stand up to the all encompassing power of an arrogant Executive, like the one we have now, is the degree of protection-the Minister does not like to call it a power-the Senate has, particularly in terms of the immediacy of forcing a Senate which is being difficult to the people. As honourable senators know, the double dissolution arrangements take some time and require the putting of a particularly strong case to the Crown to bring about that situation. The Minister's responses tonight clearly indicate that the imperative, the strength of the case required to establish a double dissolution, would not be needed in the changed environment. In the changed environment, all that would need to happen would be for the Prime Minister to recommend to the Governor-General that it was necessary to test the view of the people, which, as the Minister has admitted tonight, could happen every 10 minutes under this Bill. Can the Minister indicate to me why in such a situation of being in terrorem and being held under the threat of constant and repeated elections the Senate would lose none of the special qualities that the Minister himself said are important? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(10.28) —It is very hard to predict the future political culture that might be brought about by these changes. But I have put the view, and I hold to it, that rather than being in ter- rorem, because the general public would know and understand that constitutionally it was composed in a fresh, contemporaneous way with the House of Representatives, the Senate would, in fact, have a greater sense of the support of the electorate in its deliberations. It is in that way that I believe the point Senator Michael Baume has raised has been put too strongly and that the countervailing sense of having been constituted at the same time as the House of Representatives would give to senators deliberating on such a matter as the Australia Card a confidence in their ability to withstand politically any critical comment that might be made to them from the other place. It is that balance which is the important factor that would enable my sense of the increased weight and stature of this chamber to find fulfilment in those circumstances. I believe that with a matter like the Australia Card, the Senate would be as firm, if it wished to be, as it was because it would have had that fresh mandate composed as it is in a completely different way from the House of Representatives and that would give it its confidence. The CHAIRMAN —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Chairman do now leave the chair and report to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. The Chairman having reported accordingly- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —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. until 2 p.m. on Monday, 30 May. The following paper was tabled: Dairy Produce Levy (No. 1) Act-Regulation- Statutory Rules 1988-No. 98. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 79) Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 7 October 1987: (1) Is the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade aware of the significant humanitarian work done by the Human Rights-First the Child organisation at the Char Fassion Orphanage in Bangladesh. (2) Can the Minister explain why full tax deductibility status is not permitted for donations to the Human Rights-First the Child organisation. (3) Is the Minister aware that by not permitting such full tax deductibility status, on the grounds that this charitable organisation has insufficient sponsors, a `Catch 22' situation arises, where it cannot find sufficient sponsors because of its inability to gain tax deductibility status and it cannot gain this tax deductibility status because it cannot get enough sponsors. (4) Will the Minister allow donations to the Human Rights-First the Child organisation to be immediately given full tax deductibility status, and thus facilitate the noble work of the Char Fassion Orphanage to continue without the threat to its funding, which has hung over it in recent times. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) No. (2) The application of the organisation Human Rights-First the Child, to receive the tax concession, was carefully considered in September 1986 but it was considered that it did not meet the criteria to be determined as an organisation eligible for the concession under Sub-Section 78 (12) of the Income Tax Act Assessment 1936. (3) Taxation deductibility under Sub-Section 78 (12) of the Income Tax Assessment Act is a considerable concession extended by the Commonwealth. It can only be given to established community organisations which meet the criteria set down. It is not the purpose of that provision to assist to establish such organisations but rather to provide support to those whose capabilities are already proved. (4) I am required to review the case of Human Rights-First the Child on the basis of any additional information which establishes that it meets the criteria laid down. On receipt of such information I will arrange for such an assessment to take place. These criteria have been given to the organisation. (Question No. 228) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 22 February 1988: (1) How many apprentices has the Department employed since 1 January 1988. (2) How many apprentices have been employed by Statutory Authorities for which the Minister is responsible since 1 January 1988. (3) Can the Minister provide a breakdown of the numbers of these apprentices in their respective trades. (4) Can the Minister also provide a further breakdown showing in which State or Territory the apprentices have been employed. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has not employed any apprentices since 1 January 1988. (2) Statutory Authorities for which the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade is responsible have not employed any apprentices since 1 January 1988. (3) Not applicable. (4) Not applicable. (Question No. 324) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 10 May 1988: (1) Has the Government yet considered the implications of the recent decision of the Full Bench of the Federal Court which ruled that family allowance should be paid to a Vietnamese refugee living in Australia but whose family is still domiciled in Vietnam. (2) How many applications were received since 1984 by the Minister's Department from persons in similar circumstances, ie, with dependent family members domiciled outside Australia. (3) How many of these applications were favourably considered or rejected and how many are still under consideration. Senator Bolkus —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The decision to which the question refers involved a claim for family allowance in respect of children in Vietnam who had never resided in Australia. Some media reports of the decision were misleading. The Full Bench of the Federal Court did not rule that family allowance should be paid; it found that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal had erred in its interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Social Security Act 1947 and remitted the case to the AAT for rehearing. The Social Security Act was amended, with effect from 1 October 1987, to include residence requirements for family allowance payment. Section 82 now provides that no family allowance is payable in respect of a dependent child unless the child is living with the claimant who is an Australian resident (as defined in the Act) or the child is an Australian resident. The amendment will not affect the decision on the above claim in the AAT. (2) Statistics on applications from persons in similar cases were not collected. (3) See answer to (2).