31st Parliament · 1st Session
The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Condor Laucke) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.
page 1787
– I present the following petition from 1 85 citizens of Australia:
To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled the petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That restoration of provisions of the Social Security Act that applied prior to the 1978-79 Budget is of vital concern to offset the rising cost of goods and services.
The reason advanced by the Government for yearly payments ‘that the lower level of inflation made twice-yearly payments appropriate’ is not valid.
Great injury will be caused to 920,000 aged, invalid, widows and supporting parents, who rely solely on the pension or whose income, other than the pension, is $6 or less per week. Once-a-year payments strike a cruel blow to their expectation and make a mockery of a solemn election pledge.
Accordingly, your petitioners call upon their legislators to:
Restore twice-yearly pension adjustments in the Autumn session.
Raise pensions and unemployed benefits above the poverty level to 30 per cent of average weekly earnings.
And your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received and read.
-I present the following petition from 309 citizens of Australia:
The Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.
The petition of Whalan School Parents and Citizens Association respectfully showeth:
That we deplore the reduction in Federal Government expenditure on Community Health programmes which could lead to a severe reduction in services offered to the residents of our community. We are especially concerned that lack of funds may eventually curtail the training and employment of community nurses.’
Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should:
Urgently remedy this situation by restoring the entire range of community health services which existed prior to the freeze in funding.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
Petition received and read.
– I present the following petition from 60 citizens of Australia:
To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:
The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That the plan to obliterate the traditional weights and measures of this country does not have the support of the people;
That the change is causing and will continue to cause, widespread, serious and costly problems:
That the compulsory tactics being used to force the change are a violation of all democratic principles.
Your petitioners therefore pray:
That the Metric Conversion Act be repealed to ensure that the people are free to utilize whichever system they prefer and so enable the return to imperial weights and measures wherever the people so desire;
That weather reporting be as it was prior to the passing of the Metric Conversion Act;
That the Australian Government take urgent steps to cause the traditional mile units to be restored to our highways;
That the Australian Government request the State Governments to procure that the imperial and metric systems be taught together in schools.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
Petition received and read.
– I present the following petition from 212 citizens of Australia:
To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled the petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That restoration of provisions of the Social Security Act that applied prior to the 1978-79 Budget is of vital concern to offset the rising cost of goods and services.
The reason advanced by the Government for yearly payments ‘that the lower level of inflation made twice-yearly payments inappropriate’ is not valid.
Great injury will be caused to 920,000 aged, invalid, widows and supporting parents, who rely solely on the pension or whose income, other than the pension, is $6 or less per week. Once-a-year payments strike a cruel blow to their expectation and make a mockery of a solemn election pledge.
Accordingly, your petitioners call upon their legislators to:
Restore twice-yearly pension adjustments in the Autumn session.
Raise pensions and unemployed benefits above the poverty level to 30 per cent of average weekly earnings.
And your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received.
– 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 citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That the plan to obliterate the traditional weights and measures of this country does not have the support of the people;
That the change is causing and will continue to cause, widespread, serious and costly problems:
That the compulsory tactics being used to force the change arc a violation of all democratic principles.
Your petitioners therefore pray:
That the Metric Conversion Act be repealed to ensure that the people are free to utilize whichever system they prefer and so enable the return to imperial weights and measures wherever the people so desire;
That weather reporting be as it was prior to the passing of the Metric Conversion Act;
That the Australian Government take urgent steps to cause the traditional mile units to be restored to our highways:
That the Australian Government request the State Governments to procure that the imperial and metric systems be taught together in schools.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senators Chipp, Colston, Evans, Hamer, MacGibbon, Douglas McClelland, Primmer and Scott.
Petitions received.
To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled the petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That restoration of provisions of the Social Security Act that applied prior to the 1978-79 Budget is of vital concern to offset the rising cost of goods and services.
The reason advanced by the Government for yearly payments ‘that the lower level of inflation made twice-yearly payments inappropriate ‘ is not valid.
Great injury will be caused to 920,000 aged, invalid, widows and supporting parents, who rely solely on the pension or whose income, other than the pension, is $6 or less per week. Once-a-year payments strike a cruel blow to their expectation and make a mockery of a solemn election pledge.
Accordingly, your petitioners call upon their legislators to:
And your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Rocher.
Petition received.
To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled the petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That restoration of provisions of the Social Security Act that applied prior to the 1978-79 Budget is of vital concern to offset the rising cost of goods and services.
The reason advanced by the Government for yearly payments ‘that the lower level of inflation made twice yearly payments inappropriate ‘ is not valid.
Great injury will be caused to 920,000 aged, invalid, widows and supporting parents, who rely solely on the pension or whose income, other than the pension, is $6 or less per week. Once-a-ycar payments strike a cruel blow to their expectation and make a mockery of a solemn election pledge.
Accordingly, your petitioners call upon their legislators to:
And your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Archer, Cavanagh, Elstob, Lewis, MacGibbon, Messner, Mulvihill, Primmer, Puplick, Rae and Watson.
Petitions received.
page 1788
Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, will move:
That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Crimes (Aircraft) Act 1963.
page 1788
– I give notice that, pursuant to Standing Order 36AA, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:
That the following matter be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources: The Commonwealth ‘s responsibility for the development of the Australian fishing industry following the declaration of ‘200 mile offshore sovereignty ‘.
page 1788
page 1788
– My question is addressed to the Minister for Science and the Environment. Did he see the television program Nationwide last evening in which the interviewer, Mr Richard Carleton, said that he had invited him to discuss the Great Barrier Reef issue with the Opposition spokesman on the environment, Mr Barry Cohen. Did the Minister or a member of his staff tell Mr Carleton that he would not be able to appear because he was required by the Leader of the Government in the Senate to be present- that is, in the Senate- because of legislation before the Senate last evening? I ask whether that was the real reason for his declining the invitation or was it because he was not prepared to debate the issue with Mr Cohen.
-The answer to the first question is no. In answer to the second question, I would not like to interpret what I or my staff happened to say to a journalist. I am aware that the journalist in question apparently believed he had some control of the Senate because the Opposition Whip apparently commented to the journalist- so the journalist told me- that he would certainly give Senator Webster a pair to appear on the Richard Carleton show. I can assure the honourable senator that I was engaged from 8 o’clock until 9.55 p.m. in a committee of the Cabinet on Budget matters. In answer to his question whether I saw the show, I am afraid that I did not.
-I ask Senator Webster a supplementary question. I advise him, if he did not see the show, that according to the transcript Mr Carleton said:
An hour ago, Senator Webster’s office called me here at the Canberra studios of the ABC to say that he would not be able to appear because he was required by the Government Leader in the Senate to be present because of legislation before the Senate this evening.
Instead of giving interpretations in answer to my question, I ask Senator Webster to tell me whether he did, in fact, have contact with the Leader of the Government in the Senate and whether the Leader of the Government issued instructions, either personally or through one of his staff, that the Minister was to be not on that program but present in this chamber.
– I really feel that the honourable senator is attempting to turn some words around and that he should put the question on the Notice Paper. In relation to the matter of my presence in the Parliament, I think the honourable senator would know that it is very difficult for Ministers to be paired to enable them to be absent from this place at any stage. It was with the approval of the Leader of the Government that I was not paired last night.
page 1789
– My question is directed to the Minister for Science and the Environment and concerns the statements reported today of the newly appointed Chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Mr Higgs. I say by way of preface that I welcome the appointment of such an experienced and good man to such a position. He is reported as saying that the Authority was trying to determine that part of the reef region which should be park and that part which does not need to be park. I ask: What are the Government’s guidelines in the determination of the boundaries of the park and when is it expected that the park will be declared?
– I thank the honourable senator for his comments about Mr Horrie Higgs. I fully endorse them. I think the Parliament and indeed the people of Australia will be proud to have such an experienced man as Mr Higgs as the Chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Marine
Park Authority. The comments that Mr Higgs made have been subject to misinterpretation by many people. I have seen the transcript of what Mr Higgs said and I completely endorse the comments that he made. In relation to the honourable senator’s question regarding the declaration of marine parks, there has been one proposition from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority for the declaration of a marine park in the Capricornia section of the reef. There has been no other proposal by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. I think I may misinterpret the question unless I see it in writing.
– I ask a supplementary question of the Minister for Science and the Environment. The Minister has not answered the latter part of my question which was: When is it expected that the park will be declared?
-This matter has been the subject of debate in this place during this week. The point has been made on several occasions during the week that the declaration of the park is held up awaiting discussions between the Commonwealth and Queensland AttorneysGeneral, relating to constitutional matters in regard to the reef area. The honourable senator will be aware that there was a ruling of the High Court of Australia that territorial waters were under the control of the central government and that they had not previously been the responsibility of the adjacent State governments. A decision was made at last year’s Premiers Conference in relation to this matter. The whole question of jurisdiction over the Queensland offshore waters has yet to be determined.
page 1789
– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and relates to a question asked by Senator Wriedt of the Minister for Science and the Environment. I understand that the Leader is in a position to clear the matter up. I ask: Did he receive a request from Senator Webster to have leave of absence from the Senate last night in order to appear on the ABC television program and was Senator Webster informed that he would not be able to appear on the program because he would be required to be present in the Senate?
– Since when has Richard Carleton been running the Senate?
– He is the one who rubbished the Parliament about the tennis courts.
-I am indebted to Government senators for their instruction on how I should ask a question. If I may, I will continue.
Did the Minister inform Senator Webster that he would not be able to appear on the program because he would be required to be present in the Senate because of legislation before it last evening? I ask the question because I had an interest in the legislation.
– Yesterday, by my own initiative, I informed Senator Webster that he might be required for duty in the Senate because it was not clear how the actual program of business was emerging and because I and other Ministers might have Cabinet duties. Therefore I stated that, if the program was to include not the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Bill and associated Bills but other matters, Senator Webster, as he does so well and so readily, might be required for duty. He informed me then that he had been asked to appear on the program. I told him that I believed that the Senate duty came before other matters.
page 1790
– My question of the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce relates to the Prime Minister’s speech in Manila yesterday during which he attacked the protectionist policies of developed countries. As Australia is frequently criticised by developing countries for its own protectionist policies, can the Prime Minister’s comments be construed to include criticism of our policies? Does the Prime Minister’s speech indicate a change in our trading policies which could lead to considerable benefit to our export industries?
– I have seen reports of the speech which the Prime Minister gave in Manila. The reports indicate that he laid emphasis on the importance of not adopting protectionist policies in light of the world economic situation. That is a theme which I think is not new to speeches which have been given by the Prime Minister and I think other Ministers representing the Government. I do not believe that the speech represents a startling change of direction for the Government at all. The matter has been brought to the public’s attention in a series of papers which have been put before the Government and before the public. The White Paper on manufacturing industry, for example, talks of the issue in terms of the difference between the short and long term problems facing the Australian economy and the conflict which can exist between short and long term objectives.
I think that the speech is a valuable contribution to a matter of great international concern. Obviously it is relevant to our domestic situation because it relates to domestic actions taken by different countries and to how they can affect the international situation. I will refer the question to the Minister I represent. He may care to add to the reply I have given today.
page 1790
– My question is directed to the Minister for Education. Is the Government taking any steps to discover the extent of functional illiteracy amongst adult Australians? Is the Government providing any programs to overcome the problems of illiteracy amongst adults?
– The answer is lengthy and involved. The whole question of approach to adult and juvenile illiteracy is heavily upon us. The Williams committee has indicated a very serious degree of illiteracy in the community. For example, it has indicated that some 25 per cent of all 14-year-olds in Australia are incapable of independent reading. That highlights the fact that this will produce illiterate adults quite apart from the problems of our multi-cultural society. I take the question seriously. Instead of giving what would be a simplistic answer, 1 think I should seek out a more detailed reply. If the honourable senator is willing it can be incorporated in Hansard after I give it to her.
page 1790
– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I draw his attention to the disturbing reports received from political prisoners recently released from camps in northern Laos. These reports relate to the alleged deterioration in Laos’s economy and to the effect that this is having on the treatment of prisoners detained in these camps. Will the Minister advise of any knowledge concerning claims that many of the 12,000 prisoners detained in these camps are suffering severely due to lack of adequate medical attention and proper rations? Will the Minister investigate these claims, and in doing so assure the Senate that whatever support possible will be rendered to the prisoners? In the hope of encouraging some economic independence from the Soviet Union and Vietnam, will the Minister also urge the Government to provide whatever aid is possible to Laos for the development of its untapped resources and to request other Western nations, particularly the United States, to do likewise?
- Senator Missen very properly points to one of the sadly many focal points of grave deprivation and suffering in this world of ours. Laos, of course, like its neighbour
Kampuchea, is suffering from its geography, its long history and the politics not only of its people but also of the great powers around it. One has to note that the people of Laos, including prisoners, have suffered great deprivation. I am not aware of the extent of the problem that Senator Missen has raised. I am not aware of the exact and particular steps that the Government has taken in this regard. But because the question is an important one I should like to take it on board and treat it in the same way as my answer to Senator Ryan, that is, to get a detailed answer and, with the approval of the Senate, incorporate it in Hansard for the availability of all honourable senators.
page 1791
– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Productivity, refers to the hazards to health occasioned by working with or in close proximity to asbestos. The Minister will probably know, by way of a number of public reports, that asbestos is now acknowledged to be a serious problem. The figures in respect of people working in the industry are compiled only by State authorities and not by the Australian Government. A most recent case in Adelaide involving waterside workers handling asbestos indicates that asbestos is a health hazard also on the waterfront. To what extent is the Australian Government taking an active part in monitoring and preparing necessary statistics to ensure that there will be as much public awareness as possible of this matter and to produce whatever remedies are available after proper monitoring?
– I think Senator Bishop was present at the meeting of Estimates Committee E last week when there was a very useful discussion between senators and officers of the Department of Productivity about that Department’s national role in the area to which the honourable senator referred. There was no specific mention of asbestos, but that line of country was generally canvassed. The amount of information I have available to me is about the same at the moment as that which is available to the honourable senator through that meeting. As we were informed then, the Department plays a non-directive role in trying to achieve Australiawide standards in various areas. It consults on a very regular basis with State governments. Indeed, there is quite an extraordinarily high number of ministerial meetings between the Federal Minister and State Ministers, all dealing with this area of occupational safety and standards and so on.
I will ask the Minister whether he can give Senator Bishop the information he requires about the question of asbestos. Senator Bishop has said that figures are compiled only by the States. He would be aware, I think, that there has been a lot of activity by State governments in this area. In my own State of Western Australia, the town of Wittenoom, has been the subject of a great deal of action because of the health hazard that has been related to asbestos mining there. 1 know that it has received a great deal of State government attention, but as to the extent it has received attention from the Commonwealth, I am not sure.
page 1791
-Is the Minister for Social Security aware of criticism by the President of the Australian College of Paediatrics that the Government’s disbanding of the Children’s Commission has resulted in a breakdown of communication between professional workers in the field of early childhood services and the Federal Department of Social Security’? Will the Minister refute the allegations that valuable information identifying warning signs of possible child abuse has failed to reach the welfare agencies because the co-ordination which used to operate through the Children’s Commission is no longer in existence?
– I am aware of the criticism by the President of the Australian College of Paediatrics of the Government’s disabanding of the Children’s Commission, lt was an interim Children’s Commission not one that had been proclaimed as a commission by the Labor Government. The present Government does not see the co-ordination of State government activities as a prime function of the Office of Child Care of my Department. The consultative committees to the interim committee of the Children’s Commission varied from State to State but they were essentially concerned with making recommendations on the allocation of Commonwealth funds in the child care and preschool areas. As I understand it, their main function was never to facilitate the exchange of information between persons involved in the early childhood field.
However, the Commonwealth, through the children’s services program in the Office of Child Care and acting on advice from committees and community groups, gives grants to facilitate the sharing of information through, for example, the funding of conferences and in other ways. In addition, the children’s services program is now funding a number of projects concerned with child abuse. Projects funded in this way include telephone and personal counselling services, programs for mothers and children at risk and a number of neighbourhood centres which provide facilities for crisis relief for parents under stress. Funds also have been provided to the States for the expansion of services to children whose mothers are temporarily accommodated in women’s refuges, frequently because of domestic violence.
There are many ways in which the Office of Child Care and professional groups are able to share information. I would be concerned if any professional group felt that it did not have access to the Office of Child Care or that the Office would not communicate usefully with it. I state in respect of the comment of the President of the Australian College of Paediatrics that I hope his organisation, State governments and the Office of Child Care together will be able to do a great deal to assist children in the ways the College may think important and in the ways which fit in with the Government’s program.
page 1792
– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. I remind her of the Government’s attempt to control hospital costs. Is she aware that part of the success of the multinational private hospital companies can be attributed to their working the medical benefit system to their best advantage or, put another way, at greater cost to the health funds and, ultimately, to the Government and the taxpayer? I ask the Minister whether she is aware that a senior vice-president of the Hospital Corporation of America has stated:
Just the way the big companies make money in knowing how to fill out their tax forms, its a real art in hospitals knowing how to get the maximum amount of dollars by cost accounting for reimbursement.
Does this indicate a potential increase in medical benefit claims in Australia as a result of the entry of these big firms into Australian hospital management?
– I am aware of Senator O ‘Byrne’s interest in this matter because of the previous questions which he has raised on it. I will need to refer his question today with regard to any projected or proposed increases in hospital costs because of private hospital arrangements to the Minister for Health and seek his advice for the honourable senator.
page 1792
– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for National
Development. I refer to the inquiry into matters related to pollution in the River Murray. Can the Minister say whether a report has been presented to the River Murray Commission steering committee? If so, will details of this report be made available to the Senate?
– I will refer that question to the Minister for National Development and ask him to let me have an early answer.
page 1792
– My question is directed to Senator Durack in his capacity as AttorneyGeneral and as Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations. In view of yesterday’s dismissal by the Federal Court of Australia of the Industrial Relations Bureau prosecution of the Melbourne City Council in the Kane case and also the pending challenge to the constitutionality of the IRB legislation in the High Court of Australia, will the Government now acknowledge that the legislation has been not only counter-productive to industrial harmony but also quite impotent to serve the purposes the Government intended for it? Under the circumstances, when will the Government end the whole charade and act to put Mr Linehan and everybody else out of their collective misery by repealing this absurd and dangerous legislation?
– The Government certainly will not acknowledge that the legislation dealing with the Industrial Relations Bureau is of the character that Senator Evans suggests in his question and the Government is not contemplating withdrawing that legislation, as he seems to suggest it ought to do. The Government is studying the decision made yesterday by the court. I have nothing to add at this stage, but I will refer the question to the Minister for Industrial Relations in case he wants to add to the answer.
page 1792
– Has the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications seen a report this morning that the Sydney Chamber of Commerce has imposed a ban on its employees’ making subscriber trunk dialling calls because ‘inaccurate billing is costing New South Wales businessmen millions of dollars a year’ and that the Chamber has called on Telecom Australia to install checking equipment as a matter of top priority? I ask the Minister: Has the inaccuracy of STD billing been a major cause of dispute between the public and Telecom? Can inaccurate billing occur with the present equipment? Finally, will Telecom proceed with the installation of accurate checking equipment as a matter of urgency?
– This matter has come up in the Senate on a number of occasions, usually because of questions asked by either Senator Townley or Senator Wriedt. I have not seen the report to which the honourable senator has referred about a complaint in Sydney. As to whether inaccurate charging has been a major cause of dispute, honourable senators may remember that some specific statistics were put before the Senate, 1 think last year, about the actual number of complaints which are quite large but have to be viewed in the context of the very much larger number of accounts which are actually involved. I am sorry that I do not remember the precise figures but it is a relatively small proportion of accounts which are involved. It does seem to be clear that there can be inaccuracies in accounts using the current equipment.
– Eighty thousand.
- Senator Wriedt tells me it is 80,000. He might be able to help me with the total number of accounts. But I do stand by my statement that it is a very small proportion of accounts. The fact that there can be mistakes does appear to have been established. Honourable senators may remember that I have on previous occasions given the Telecom estimate of the cost of installing alternative equipment. It is many tens of millions of dollars. I am not completely up to date on this matter. I will find out what has happened since it was last raised with Telecom. I understand that there have been discussions with the people who have been making representations over the last two months, and 1 will let the honourable senator have a more detailed reply.
page 1793
– My question is addressed to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Will the Minister confirm that when he wrote to the National Times on 12 May this year stating that between 1975-76 and 1978-79 funds for the Victorian Aboriginal Health Service have increased by 56 per cent he included in that calculation the capital cost of establishing a dental service? If so, is it correct that, if that amount is excluded from the calculation, the funding and the recurrent capital costs of the service over that period have in real terms been reduced?
– My recollection of the letter is that the total funds made available to the
Service were included in the figures provided. I do not have a clear recollection of the precise breakdown. I will seek that information for the honourable senator.
page 1793
– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. Is it a fact that departmental officers have now completed the review which was initiated by government following the statement by the Australian National Line that the Darwin Trader, which operates from the eastern States to Darwin, was to be removed from the route? If this is so, is the Minister in a position to indicate the action the Federal Government intends to take to ensure that there will be a continuity of service to Darwin?
– This matter has been raised on at least one previous occasion by Senator Kilgariff. I advised him then that the service would be continued pending a review. The review was not conducted by the Commonwealth Department but was undertaken by the Northern Territory Government. I am advised by the Minister for Transport that officers of his Department were not involved directly in the review which was undertaken. However, Mr Nixon did agree to discussions between the Australian National Line and a Northern Territory delegation to assist with the review. The Minister has not received a copy of the report but he has been contacted by Mr Roger Steele, the Northern Territory Minister for Transport and Works, who advised him of some aspects of the review which related to the operation of the Darwin Trader. These matters are currently under consideration. The Commission has advised Mr Nixon that it is not intended to cease services by the Darwin Trader in the immediate future, pending further consultations with the Northern Territory Government.
page 1793
– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Health aware that persons insured with private medical benefits funds are finding that, after they have contributed to a fund for lengthy periods, their fund reduces the benefit to 75 per cent payment because those persons have made too many claims? Does the Minister for Health intend to take any action to prevent this practice since it often imposes unfair hardship on elderly sick persons?
– I am not aware of the circumstances mentioned by Senator Sibraa. I would need to refer the matter to the Minister for
Health to get his views on the arrangements that may be made by private contract between people and their private health funds. I will see that an answer is given as soon as possible.
page 1794
– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. What is the present situation regarding the confiscation and sale of Taiwanese fishing trawlers caught poaching in the waters of the Great Barrier Reef? Has the Government officially protested recently to the Taiwanese Government about this illegal fishing? If so, what has been the response from the Taiwanese Government?
– I am afraid that I am unable to tell the honourable senator what the current situation is.
page 1794
– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Because of the serious nature of the disaster that overtook the nuclear power station at Harrisburg and the increasing cloud of doubt that now hovers over every nuclear power station, can the individual States of Australia act unilaterally by deciding to go nuclear, deciding on reactor design, and deciding on location? As these decisions affect every Australian, should it not be the responsibility of the Federal Government, in conjunction with the Atomic Energy Commission, to say whether atomic power stations should be built or not? If the answer is to the effect that the States do have the power, would they have the power to build fast breeder reactors for power generation?
– I think the question was directed to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development; but, like him, I did not hear to whom it was directed. The honourable senator may like to redirect the question; alternatively I will undertake to get the information and let him have it. I understand the question. I will undertake to let him have an answer.
– I directed the question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, but I am not too sure who would be the better Minister to answer it.
– I apologise. I thought the question by its nature was directed to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development. I will get the information and let the honourable senator have it.
page 1794
-Has the Minister representing the Minister for National Development noted the remarks of Mr Keating, the shadow Minister for minerals and energy, calling for the raising to import parity of the price of natural gas produced at the Cooper Basin fields in South Australia? Would such an action raise astronomically the price of electricity in South Australia? Is it a fact that this policy is diametrically opposed to that of Mr Hudson, his Australian Labor Party colleague and Minister of Mines and Energy in South Australia? Would such a policy, like the Federal Government’s petrol pricing policy, be conducive to conservation? Is it not strange that in one of the few places where the ALP does actually govern rather than luxuriate in opposition–
– I raise a point of order. The honourable senator is quoting from a Press report in this morning’s Australian words which are not directly the words of either Mr Hudson or Mr Keating. This is simply supposition, and I suggest that the question should be ruled out of order.
- Senator Messner, you will continue to ask your question.
– Is it not strange that in one of the few places where the ALP does actually govern rather than luxuriate in opposition and does not have to answer for its statements it does not implement the key policies enunciated by its Federal minerals spokesman?
– Only questions on matters directly relevant to a Minister’s portfolio should be directed to a Minister.
– I am not aware of the statements to which Senator Messner refers or what policies are espoused by the Opposition here or the Government in South Australia on this matter. I will refer the question to the Minister for National Development.
page 1794
– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Is it correct, as reported last week in the agricultural Press, that the Government plans to place the Bureau of Agricultural Economics under stricter departmental and ministerial control because the Bureau’s objective assessment of agricultural issues embarrasses the Government? Can the Minister guarantee that the BAE will not be muzzled or transformed into yet another Government propaganda outlet?
– If the honourable senator is interested in an answer to that question I ask that he put it on notice.
page 1795
-Has the Minister representing the Treasurer read Press reports indicating a record level of housing loans approved by permanent building societies during March? Do the March figures indicate a continuing and healthy economic trend? Do present levels of activity in this area make a nonsense of calls made earlier this financial year for massive injections of taxpayers’ funds to supplement those available in the market place?
– My understanding from reading the documents is that what Senator Rocher says is correct. A record level of permanent building society loans was revealed in March and this trend is a significant one. It is a significant one not only in terms of building but in terms of the upturn of the whole economy. Senator Rocher will know that building has been an economic indicator over the years. I think it is a solid trend. It indicates that housing funds are becoming very significantly larger throughout the community. I think that is a very healthy sign.
page 1795
Senator McLaren having addressed a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer-
– Order! The honourable senator knows that he cannot refer to what goes on in Cabinet. That is well known to the honourable senator. I rule that question out of order.
page 1795
– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Did the National Therapeutic Goods Committee recommend in November 1976 that the Government take immediate steps to ensure that drugs which have commonly proved dangerous to children be packaged in childresistant containers? What action has the Government taken to implement these recommendations in this, the International Year of the Child? Can the Minister give the Senate any information as to when an appropriate order is likely to be forthcoming?
– I am advised by the Minister for Health that on the recommendation of the National Therapeutic Goods Committee he instructed his Department to prepare a draft ministerial order that would require the childresistant packaging of drugs known to be commonly implicated in the accidental poisoning of children. The order has been completed as to its technical content, but it awaits legislative drafting. The Minister for Health has asked the Attorney-General whether this and a number of other therapeutic goods orders could be expedited. I am advised that as soon as it is finalised the Minister for Health will take steps for its immediate promulgation and implementation at the earliest feasible date.
page 1795
– I direct a question to the Minister for Social Security. Does the present mothers or guardians allowance for age, invalid and widow pensioners and for supporting parents beneficiaries currently stand at $4 a week, or $6 a week if a child is under six years of age or is an invalid child requiring full time care? Would it not be reasonable to expect that as a child becomes older greater expense is incurred by the guardian? If this assumption is reasonable, what is the reason for a $2-a-week reduction in the guardians allowance when a child reaches the age of six years?
– I am not really able to state the reason for the disparity between the two rates that are paid in respect of children of different ages. I assume that there were sound reasons when they were introduced. I could perhaps examine these reasons and advise Senator Colston of them. The rates have been in existence for quite some time without change. If there is any information or background that I can give I will provide it to Senator Colston.
page 1795
– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. As part of the functions of the Auditor-General in the conduct of efficiency audits, will the Auditor-General’s duties include a close surveillance of extravagant and unnecessary expense resulting in a tremendous cost to the taxpayer, whereby many Government departments deliberately set out to expend fully their allocation by 30 June to ensure that their Budget allocation is not reduced in the following year? Will the Government give consideration to the implementation of an incentive to those departments effecting substantial cost savings?
- Senator Watson’s question requires specialist information from the Treasurer by way of reply. The second part of his question is a policy matter and, therefore, is not one to which I can respond at the moment. Nevertheless, as the first part of the question needs study, I will seek an answer for him and let him have it.
page 1796
– The Minister representing the Treasurer will be aware that disputes as to the correct payment of wages or allowances under an award may not be settled in the year or years in which the wages ought to have been paid. This means that upon payment of the due wages in a subsequent year or upon retirement the wage earner has to pay a higher rate of tax on that year’s income, supplemented as it is by the lump sum back pay. Can the Government, in formulating the Budget, consider giving relief so that the back pay obtained is allocated to the year of income in which it ought to have been paid, otherwise the after-tax position of the wage earner is seriously disadvantaged? In the meantime, can Senator Carrick indicate his sympathy for the plight of those wage earners who, through no fault of their own, receive payment of lawful wages after the year in which they were earned?
– This is a policy matter and it requires a Government response. I will bring the question to the attention of my colleague, the Treasurer.
page 1796
– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport: In view of the recommendations made arising from a meeting of many interests convened by the Victorian Institute of Marine Sciences and held in Melbourne on 2 March 1979, can the Minister advise what steps the Government has taken to assist in the assessment of the need for and the type of navigation and position fixing equipment in both the waters off south-eastern Australia and other Australian waters and the method by which such aids, if required, should be funded?
– 1 am advised by the Minister for Transport that the report of the meeting to which Senator Archer referred in his question was received by him only during the latter part of last month. It is currently under examination by the Department of Transport. I am assured by the Minister that when the implications of the report have been examined in full the Victorian Institute of Marine Sciences will receive a considered reply. A copy of that reply will be sent to Senator Archer for his information.
page 1796
– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. Is the Minister aware that last year the Australian Broadcasting Commission refused an offer by Channel 7 enabling the ABC to have at no cost replays of international rugby league matches for screening to country areas beyond the reach of Channel 7? Can the Minister indicate to the Senate what the attitude of the ABC will be to a similar offer made by Channel 9 for replays of international cricket matches? Has the Government taken any steps that will ensure that country viewers receive these services?
– I think that the Minister for Post and Telecommunications has publicly expressed his concern that the Australian Broadcasting Commission should address itself to this matter. As honourable senators opposite continuously remind us, and no doubt properly, the ABC is an independent Commission and is not subject to direction in these matters. I commend to the attention of honourable senators the evidence given before the Estimates Committee last week when a series of questions with respect to cricket was put to representatives of the ABC. It was made clear in the answers given by the ABC witnesses that at that time no contact had been made with the ABC on the matter, no offer had been made to the Commission and, therefore, it was not in a position to respond to it. There was also some evidence given about the problems which arise when an attempt is made to put different programs through on the same network. I am sure that the honourable senator will find in those answers a great deal of instruction.
page 1796
-My question, which is directed to the Minister for Education, concerns the course for social workers being conducted at the Darwin Community College by a senior lecturer, Mr John Tomlinson. I am advised that police have obtained a list of names of the students attending this course and have questioned the students both at home and at the College about the content of the course. I ask the Minister why this investigation has been carried out, and seek his assurance that it will in no way affect the accreditation of the students involved.
-Of course, I give a full assurance in regard to the latter part of the question. My attention has been drawn to the fact that some police inquiries have been taking place in connection with a member of the academic staff of the Darwin Community College. This has been done in the normal pursuit of the duties of the police officers concerned. In due course, the police no doubt will take appropriate action on the basis of the evidence before them. It is not for me at this stage to comment on the nature of any suggested offence or on the actions of the police. Suffice it to say that the College will observe the normal rules in relation, firstly, to assisting the police in their proper duties and, secondly, to protecting individuals’ rights. As Senator Robertson, having an educational background, would know, that is a nice, fine line to walk down. I think the College will manage to do both those things. If other information comes forward in due course I will let the honourable senator know. Any students who may have been approached by the police will have their rights strictly preserved, as would any ordinary citizen in this country.
page 1797
– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. Has his attention been drawn to the report of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal entitled ‘Television and Children’ which indicated that a large percentage of children had asked their parents to purchase items which they had seen advertised on television, that in the overwhelming majority of cases parents had bought the items advertised, and that the most popular advertising among children related to food and confectionary items? Further, has the Minister seen the report that the United States Federal Trade Commission has recommended that all television advertising aimed at children under the age of eight be banned, and that all television advertising of presweetened and artificially sweetened products aimed at children under the age of 12 be banned? In light of these findings and the reports of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts on advertising in children’s programs, will he ask the Minister for Post and Telecommunications to give urgent consideration to enforcing stricter guidelines for advertising during children’s television programs?
– My attention has been drawn to these reports, I think, both in this chamber and by media reports about them. However, 1 have not yet had an opportunity to study them. I have no doubt that they are receiving the attention of my colleague, the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. I will refer the question to him. The matter is not simple. I have found that my own children, who watch mainly the Australian Broadcasting Commission, currently because of -
– Very good.
– I was about to point out to the Senate that advertising can occur in strange ways. Because of the program Marque, they are considerably discontented with the standard of motor vehicle I now drive, and I am thinking of restricting their viewing to commercial television.
page 1797
-Will the Minister for Science and the Environment clearly define the role of the consultative committee in relation to the Great Barrier Reef Authority? Can he assure the Senate that the decisions of the committee are not binding on the Authority? Is the Authority able to resist attempts by the Department of National Development through its membership of the committee to dismember the area of the Great Barrier Reef and so to allow the entry of oil exploration interests into the area?
– If the honourable senator is interested in receiving an answer to that question, I ask him to put it on the Notice Paper.
page 1797
– On 4 April I asked the Minister br Social Security, who represents the Minister for Health, a question concerning the Victorian Western Region Women’s Refuge advertisement which appeared in the *Age and which stated:
The refuge operates as a feminist collective, and the positions involve organising political actions around women’s issues, as well as co-ordinating the day-to-day running of the house.
I have received a copy of a letter sent presumably by the Victorian Refuge Group to the Assistant Director of the Department of Health in Canberra. Is the Minister aware that in this letter the Victorian Refuge Group states that the original and continued funding of the refuge program was for more than emergency accommodation for women and children at risk, and that in an attachment to the letter the refuge group declares that women’s refuges are ‘primarily concerned with the status of women in society and not with providing welfare and health services’. How can the Government continue to fund such political refuges through the community health program? Will the Government ensure that sufficient funds are made available through the community health program to groups with bona fide welfare experience to meet the needs for women’s refuges?
– 1 recall that on 4 April Senator Harradine asked me a question on women ‘s refuges. The Acting Minister for Health has provided information on that question. He advises that it is legitimate for a women ‘s refuge organisation to be concerned with women’s welfare and the advancement of the status of women in our society. However, an advertisement in these terms is completely unacceptable in the context of approval of the refuge for the purpose of funding by the Commonwealth. Community health program salary funds in relation to women ‘s refuges are intended solely for the employment of workers to undertake the care of women and children in refuges and not for outside activities of any kind.
The Acting Minister for Health further advises that the Victorian welfare authorities, which have the immediate responsibility for the supervision of refuges in that State and through which the Commonwealth funds are channelled, will be requested to obtain from the organisation a firm written undertaking that future advertisements will not contain statements of this type and further that in the course of their employment refuge workers will be engaged fully in the care of refuge residents and not in any other outside activities such as political actions. If such an undertaking is not given or, if given, is not adhered to, immediate consideration will be given to the withdrawal of Commonwealth financial support. Senator Harradine asked a further question with regard to the funding of new groups under the community health program. I will refer that part of the question to the Minister for Health for his consideration.
page 1798
– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. A joint Commonwealth-State committee of inquiry was established about five years ago and charged with the responsibility of reporting on the future development of the Perth Airport. Because of serious and increasing overcrowding and because of the long lead time for the planning and construction of new buildings, will the Minister indicate to the Minister he represents that the committee should report as soon as possible?
– My recollection is that the Commonwealth is involved with the State in a joint exercise to look at the Perth Airport. I further understand that the committee has already reported on short term measures which could be taken to alleviate the position. Some recent changes made to the airport flow, I think, from the work of the committee. With respect to the longer term development of the airport, I am not quite sure of the point the committee has reached. I will refer the matter to the Minister for Transport and put to him the view which has been put by Senator Thomas.
page 1798
– I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. In view of the explanation he gave earlier in Question Time of the reasons for Senator Webster’s inability to appear on a television program last night, I ask: Will he give us an assurance that, if a similar invitation is extended to Senator Webster today to debate the matter with Mr Cohen, the Opposition spokesman on the environment or with any other member of the Opposition, he will permit Senator Webster time to appear on that program? If he will not, is it because he realises that Senator Webster is an incompetent embarrassment to this Government, as evidenced by Senator Webster’s answer to Senator Georges five minutes ago?
– The question shows how the Labor Opposition is groping to find something and how miserably it is failing. Apparently it felt that it could arrange with some television commentator to organise pairs.
– Nothing of the sort.
– It relies upon the statement and therefore it seems to me to be an extraordinary breach of protocol, if not of privilege, in this matter. The Opposition is trying to drum up something out of this situation. Whether or not a Minister is free to make a media appearance -
– Depends upon his competence.
– It depends upon his commitments elsewhere. Every Minister and every ex-Minister will know that from moment to moment it is impossible for a Minister to be sure what his program will be in the hours ahead. My own program yesterday was constantly rearranged owing to the vagaries of this chamber. Therefore, as in the normal process, it would be a matter for a Minister to look to his own commitments.
-Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. Is the Minister saying, in effect, that the defence of his ministerial colleague, against whom a motion of no confidence has been debated in this chamber only two days ago, whose credibility is at risk and who is placing the credibility of this Government at risk, is less important in the eyes of the public than the so-called vagaries of the Senate procedures?
– No, I am not saying that. Senator Wriedt is saying that- and quite improperly and with no basis of fact at all. The fact is that there is no challenge to the credibility of Senator Webster. The Opposition put forward with a whimper a pathetic case. It failed in its case and it is now trying to whimper along in an attempt to salvage something from the wreck. I am not saying it at all. These rhetorical questions are typical of Senator Wriedt ‘s approach. They do not reflect in any way what I am saying.
page 1799
– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, follows the question asked by Senator Lewis this morning. By way of introduction, I say that the equipment already installed by Telecom Australia in some exchanges, one of which I believe is Sydney, has the capacity to provide a detailed statement of international subscriber dialling accounts. The same equipment also has the technical capacity to provide this service in respect of subscriber trunk dialling accounts. Will the Minister, as a matter of urgency, instruct Telecom to provide this service to subscribers in areas where it has this equipment installed, so that some Australian subscribers may enjoy a service which private enterprise has supplied to subscribers in the United States of America for many years and which, if provided, would go a long way towards dispelling the public disquiet about Telecom?
– I doubt whether it is within the competence of the Minister to instruct Telecom in the terms requested. However, I will refer the question to Mr Staley for a definitive reply.
page 1799
-Mr President, I wish to make a personal explanation.
– Does the honourable senator claim to have been misrepresented?
-Yes, Mr President. The Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick), in his reply to a question by Senator Wriedt, used certain words concerning an incident last night. He mentioned protocol being breached and suggested that there might also have been a breach of privilege. It is true that some contact was made with me, through my office, while 1 was in the chamber yesterday as to whether I would grant a pair to Senator Webster. I informed the person who made the request that it was not my position to be granting pairs to Senator Webster and that that was a matter for the Government Whip. But I said that if I were asked -
- Senator, was there any approach from the Government Whip to you?
– Thank you.
– But I would say that my reply was that if I were asked to grant a pair to Senator Webster, I would be glad to do so. I am beginning to get a little tired of the thinly veiled threats of the Leader of the Government. Whenever some matter like this arises, he starts to speak of matters of privelege and protocol. He endeavours to diminish to the lowest possible level any action on the part of members of the Opposition. He would do better not to provoke Opposition senators in this way.
– That is a threat in itsel f.
– No, it is a response to a threat.
page 1799
– I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter dated 9 May 1 979 from Senator Wriedt:
Dear Mr President,
In accordance with Standing Order 64, I give notice that tomorrow (Thursday, 10 May) I shall move:
That in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:
The continuing refusal of the Federal Government to make clear its intentions with respect to oil drilling in the area of the Barrier Reef. ‘
Yours sincerely, K..S. WRIEDT
Is the motion supported?
More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places-
– I move:
Last Tuesday when I moved a motion of no confidence in the Minister for Science and the Environment (Senator Webster), I indicated to the Senate that I was not bringing on that motion light-heartedly. I was aware of the seriousness of the charges being made against Senator Webster, but I was also aware of the seriousness of the subject matter that gave rise to that debate. Although at that time I realised that the Minister, because of his statements to the Senate last week, had given the Senate reasonable grounds to believe that he had knowingly misled this chamber and at the same time being aware that not only he, but several of his colleagues, were involved in a deliberate cover-up as to the Government’s intentions in respect of drilling on the Great Barrier Reef, I was not aware of the extent to which Ministers had gone and were prepared to go to attempt to extricate themselves individually and collectively.
The last two days have exposed in a clearer light the extent to which this Government cannot be trusted and it is those more recent events to which I now direct my remarks. The Federal Government is involved in a major cover-up of plans to permit oil drilling on and in the vicinity of the Great Barrier Reef. Specifically, Ministers who are involved in this cover-up and who have played some part in it are the Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Anthony, the Minister for National Development, Mr Newman, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Carrick, the Minister for Science and the Environment, Senator Webster, the Minister for Housing and Construction, Mr Groom, and the Minister for Administrative Services, Mr McLeay. That list is not necessarily complete but certainly everyone of those Ministers has been a direct party to cover up government intentions on the reef.
Let the Senate be quite clear. This Government plans two alternatives in relation to the reef. Either it will allow drilling or mining in the Great Barrier Reef region as defined in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act or, alternatively, it will hand over control of the reef to the Queensland Government which is tantamount to permitting mining in that area as we all know. As a result of new evidence obtained in the last 48 hours, government intentions have been exposed in a way which demonstrates that the statements made by a series of Ministers to allay public fears have created a totally false impression. During recent times there have been a number of protestations by Ministers concerning drilling or mining on the reef. For example, the Prime Minister, gave what he called: ‘A complete and unequivocal guarantee that the Government would not allow any drilling or mining that would damage the Great Barrier Reef. The Deputy Prime
Minister, Mr Anthony, in January of this year said:
The attitude of the Government is that there will not bc any mining on the Great Barrier Reef.
As recently as last Tuesday, the Minister for Administrative Services, Mr McLeay, said:
We would not allow any mining or drilling that would do anything to damage that reef.
I have already indicated to the Senate that the Opposition does not believe any of those statements in view of the correspondence which passed between the Minister for National Development and the Minister for Science and the Environment. In that correspondence which I had incorporated in Hansard on Tuesday, the Minister for National Development expressed a view that permits to allow oil exploration in the Capricornia channel off Rockhampton should be processed and that proclamation of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park should be held up until such times as those permits had been renewed. The Minister’s letter also suggested that only those areas which the holder of permits Q/4P and Q/5P, that is, the Australian Gulf Oil Co. did not wish to drill should be included in that section of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. In other words, the Minister for National Development was laying the groundwork for the revival of drilling on or in the vicinity of the reef.
During the debate as to whether Senator Webster misled the Senate on this issue, the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) pointed out in this chamber that the Government had made no decision to renew the permits. He put that as an argument in defence of Senator Webster’s answers last Thursday. It is interesting to note that that argument was not used by Senator Webster in his inadequate explanation of what the Opposition still maintains was a deliberate attempt to mislead the Senate. Senator Durack may be right in asserting that the Government has made no decision in this matter, but he is well aware of the decision-making process of this Government. Matters are considered in secret, completely away from the public gaze. Once the decision is taken, there is little or no opportunity to have that decision reversed. The fact is that this Government has gone a long way to ensure that the Reef will be mined or drilled in the near future.
During the past 48 hours, four damaging pieces of evidence have come to light. It is on this information that the Opposition now confidently charges that the Reef is at great risk unless this Government changes its policy. These four items are: Firstly, an admission by Senator Webster that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority had done a deal with Australian Gulf Oil over the boundaries of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. This cosy little arrangement has the approval of Mr Groom, who was the responsible Minister at the time, and Senator Webster who is currently responsible for that Authority. Secondly, the Chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park has stated publicly that mining may be permitted in certain areas of the Great Barrier Reef. Thirdly, Senator Webster has indicated that the Chairman’s statement is not necessarily in conflict with Government policy. Fourthly, Senator Webster has disclosed there is a real chance that the Commonwealth may hand over total control of the Barrier Reef to the Queensland Government.
Before dealing with those matters, I want to clear up a couple of definitional issues. It is clear that when Ministers of this Government talk about the Reef, they are being highly evasive. The only proper way to look at the area of the Great Barrier Reef is to use the definition of the Great Barrier Reef region contained in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act. That region is the area described in the Schedule to that Act and covers the waters from Cape York to south of Gladstone between the coastline and a line somewhere to the east of the actual Reef. Any mining or drilling in the Great Barrier Reef region has potentially serious consequences for the Reef. When the Opposition complains about the possibility of drilling or mining on or in the vicinity of the Reef, it is referring to drilling or mining in the Great Barrier Reef region.
In 1975 the Federal Parliament passed the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act, the object of which is stated in Section 5, which reads:
The object of this Act is to make provision for and in relation to the establishment, control, care and development of a marine park in the Great Barrier Reef region in accordance with the provisions of this Act, . . .
To that end, the Act established the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority whose functions were to make recommendations to the Minister, including recommendations as to the areas that should be declared to be parts of the Marine Park. In nearly four years since the Act was passed, no parts of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park have been declared. The Opposition specifically charges that the reason for failing to declare any section of the Park was to leave open the possibility of drilling in the Great Barrier Reef region. The argument, recently raised by Senator Webster, that it was only the constitutional issue holding up the proclamation of the
Park, does not carry any weight. That constitutional issue has arisen only since the Premiers Conference in October 1977 as it was at that Conference that the Commonwealth decided to hand over control of off-shore waters to the States, including the Queensland Government. However, prior to that Premiers Conference, there was no constitutional issue but the Park was still not proclaimed.
Let us be clear on one point; even now, the sole legal control of the Great Barrier Reef region resides with the Commonwealth Government. If any mining or drilling is permitted in that region, it will be solely the responsibility of this Government. If this Government hands over total control of that region to the Queensland Government, it will be a total abrogation of its responsibility to the Australian people and it must bear the blame for any acts perpetrated on the reef by the Queensland Government. Let us also be quite clear that the Queensland Government has made its intentions obvious. On Christmas eve last year, Mr Camm, the Queensland Mines Minister, issued a statement in which he advocated oil drilling in off-shore waters in Queensland, including the Barrier Reef. If the Commonwealth hands over the reef to Queensland, it could expect that it will be drilled or mined. Having these preliminary issues out of the way, I now return to the four items of evidence which have surfaced in the last two days.
During his inadequate attempt to convince the Senate that he had not deliberately misled it, Senator Webster quoted from what he asserted was a letter from Mr Groom to Mr Newman, the Minister for National Development. Let me note that Senator Webster did not produce a copy of the letter, did not read the full copy of the letter to the Senate, did not tell the Senate when the letter was written and quoted selectively from it. We have only Senator Webster’s word for what is in the letter and as we have learned in recent days, that is not a very reliable source. In any event this is what Mr Groom is supposed to have told Mr Newman:
Recognising that operations for the recovery of petroleum are excluded from the Marine Park under Section 33 of the Act, the Authority has resolved to recommend an eastern boundary of the Capricornia Section of the Park which avoids the areas which it is understood may be sought in any renewal application for permits Q/4P and Q/5P.
Because Senator Webster has declined to tell the Senate what else is in the letter, we can only assume that that statement had the approval of Mr Groom and has the approval of Senator Webster. Let there be no doubt about the meaning of that sentence. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, an Authority charged under the Act to make recommendations to the Minister about the Marine Park, has entered into some arrangement with Australian Gulf Oil Co. that it will not recommend any inclusion of those areas which Australian Gulf Oil wants to drill. That is the essence of it. The Senate may recall that both Senator Webster and Senator Durack were at great pains last Tuesday to persuade us that there were no arrangements between any oil companies and the Government. Yet, here we have clear evidence of an arrangement between a government authority and an oil company which will be detrimental to the environment but which has had the approval of the current Minister for the Environment and his predecessor. Indeed, the current Minister for Science and the Environment, is even proud to come into this Senate to give us this information completely unaware of what he is doing.
What confidence can the Parliament or the people have in this Government’s stated intentions to protect the reef when it lets the authority responsible for protecting the reef make a deal with an oil company which benefits the oil company but which puts the reef at risk. Of what worth now is the Prime Minister’s ‘complete and unequivocal guarantee that the Government would not allow any drilling or mining that would damage the Great Barrier Reef. The Opposition wants to know just what was the arrangement between the Authority and Gulf Oil. The Opposition wants to know what was the recommendation of the Authority. The Opposition wants to know what is the relationship between the proposed boundaries of the park and the areas of permits Q/4P and Q/5P which are sought to be renewed. The Opposition wants to know what the Government has decided in relation to the Authority’s recommendation.
The second piece of evidence is even more damaging. Before dealing with it, let me make one point. During Senator Webster’s attempt to defend himself against charges of misleading the Senate, his advisor, sitting in the official advisor’s seat, was none other than Mr H. J. Higgs, the newly appointed Chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Mr Higgs would have been fully aware of Senator Webster’s reliance on the arrangement between the Authority and Gulf Oil. No doubt he was responsible for that arrangement. Mr Higgs did not let the matter rest there. The following day he told an Australian Broadcasting Commission interviewer that the Reef would have multiple uses including ‘tourism, transport, fishing and in some areas, possibly mining’.
In answer to a question whether the Barrier Reef could be zoned for mineral exploitation, Mr Higgs said: 1 would be guessing. I think at the moment, I think it is probably only a small percentage that would ever bc used for exploitation in that way.
This makes it clear that the Chairman of the Authority which is making the recommendation to the government about the future of the Great Barrier Reef, believes that one of the uses of the reef will be mineral exploitation. No doubt that includes drilling for oil.
The third piece of evidence follows on from Mr Higgs’ statement. In response to a question from Senator Cavanagh, the Minister for Science and the Environment, Senator Webster, indicated that there was no conflict between Mr Higgs’ statement and his own views. Whilst it is true that Mr Higgs’ statement did not indicate that there would definitely not be mining on the reef, he certainly made it clear that mining was a definite possibility. As this is not in conflict with Senator Webster’s views, it is clear that the Minister also believes it is a possibility.
It is well to remember Senator Webster’s position in the Government in that he is responsible for the environment. If the Environment Minister is not fearful of the prospect of mining or drilling on the Barrier Reef, there is little chance that any resistance will be raised in Cabinet to the views of those ministers, such as the Minister for National Development, who favour such activities.
The fourth piece of evidence is possibly the most damaging. As a result of an interview Senator Webster gave to the Melbourne Age, I think two days ago, an article appeared in that paper suggesting that Senator Webster and the Attorney-General, Senator Durack, are expected, in meetings in Queensland, to argue against Queensland having total control of the Great Barrier Reef region.
It seems extraordinary to me that the Government has got itself into that sort of position. As we all know, the Commonwealth has total control over the region but, in the interests of maintaining amicable relations with the Queensland Government, has given the Queensland Government representation on the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Now it appears, as a result of decisions taken in the October 1977 and June 1978 Premiers Conferences, that the Queensland Government may get complete control over the Great Barrier Reef region. In view of that possibility, it is about time the Senate gave some thought to Commonwealth proposals in relation to off-shore waters. This is what Senator Webster describes as the constitutional issue.
At the Premiers Conference in October 1977 five resolutions were passed. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a copy of those five resolutions.
Leave granted.
– I would be grateful if I could see them.
-I will seek leave after you have seen them.
– No. I just want to see them now, that is all. ] am not objecting to this paper being incorporated, I just want to see them.
The document read as follows-
OCTOBER 1977 PREMIERS’ CONFERENCE
I ) That, subject to the resolutions hereunder with respect to off-shore mining and fisheries, the territorial sea should be the responsibility of the States and that for this purpose the limits or powers of each State should be extended to embrace the territorial sea adjacent to it. This would not affect the Commonwealth ‘s international responsibilities.
2 ) That, in the case of off-shore mining for petroleu m and other minerals beyond present State limits, there should bc a joint Commonwealth/State authority or authorities, with the essential day-to-day administration being in the hands of the State concerned and so as to preserve the present arrangement for the sharing of royalties in the case of petroleum. The functions of these authorities and royalty arrangements in the case of other minerals are to be the subject of further examination.
That control of fisheries be further considered at a later Premiers’ Conference. In the meantime, the question is to bc considered by the Australian Fisheries Council and the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General.
The Commonwealth’s constitutional powers with respect to navigation and shipping arc acknowledged and no joint authority is contemplated. This is subject to the reservations made by the States in respect of certain vessels.
The Standing Committee of Attorneys-General should bc asked to advise as to the legal means of achieving these ends. ‘
-For the purpose of this discussion, the two important resolutions were the first two. They were that the powers of each State should be extended to embrace the territorial sea adjacent to it and that there should be a joint Commonwealth/ State authority for offshore mining of petroleum and other minerals beyond State limits.
As a result of that Premiers Conference, the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General was asked to advise as to the legal means of achieving those ends. That Committee came up with five possibilities of achieving that result. The five were: the use of section 123 of the Constitution, the use of section 128 of the Constitution, the use of section 5 1 (xxxviii) of the Constitution, by inviting the United Kingdom to pass legislation and by using the United Kingdom Act, the Colonial Boundaries Act of 1 895.
Ultimately, it was suggested that section 5 1 (xxxviii) of the Australian Constitution be the vehicle for achieving these objectives. Using section 123 or 128 was rejected because both involved a referendum and it was recognised that it was by no means clear that such a referendum would be successful. Going cap in hand to the United Kingdom Parliament was thought to be politically undesirable. Thus the AttorneysGeneral recommended the use of section 51 (xxxviii) plus an amendment to the Seas and Submerged Lands Act.
This proposal is not without difficulties as the transcript of the 1978 Premiers Conference shows. Section 5 1 (xxxviii) of the Constitution reads as follows:
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: (xxxviii) the exercise within the Commonwealth, at the request or with the concurrence of the parliaments of all of the States directly concerned, of any power which can at the establishment of this Constitution be exercised only by the Parliament of the United Kingdom or by the Federal Council of Australasia:
This obscure power was dug up by the Attorneys-General as a way of achieving the aims of the Commonwealth without involving too much public debate. However, it was recognised at the Premiers Conference that this method might not be legally sound. For example, Neville Wran, the Premier of New South Wales, has this to say about it:
As I read the report, the view was that the granting of powers and of proprietorial rights to the States was a bit dicky. If it is, there will be plenty of people who use the territorial waters wanting to challenge the arrangements.
This view was endorsed by the Queensland Premier, who suggested that the only legally watertight way of doing it was to go back to the United Kingdom and get it to produce some legislation. The Commonwealth AttorneyGeneral put it less colourfully in these terms:
The matter admittedly is not free from doubt because it is an untested power of the Constitution. No doubt there will be challenges to it. Whatever we do there will probably be challenges to it. I cannot give a cast iron guarantee that Section 5 1 (38) will be affected.
So the first point to note is that the Commonwealth is about to embark on some scheme of handing over control of off-shore waters to the States by a means which is legally unreliable. The second point to note is that the Government recognises that it may not get the matter through the Senate. For example, this is what Mr
Malcolm Fraser’s views were on this issue. He said:
There is one problem which sometimes premiers can influence-I am sure they can- in relation to some resistance in the Senate to the use of placitum 38. That is not a reason for not trying or making that approach. John Carrick thinks there could be a problem. What the Senate will do in certain matters especially affecting the Constitution is not entirely predictable.
To which Mr Hamer responded:
It is the States’ House-
That drew this response from Malcolm Fraser:
It is sometimes a States’ House; it is sometimes a people’s house: it is sometimes an independent house.
On top of that, the whole scheme has been devised to prevent any future Federal Government from reversing the process. This worried the Queensland Premier. He said:
If this Commonwealth Government merely agrees to refrain from legislating then that is something that of course another government can change at any time. If a Commonwealth Government legislates then its laws could override the State laws and we could be back in the position in which we are in now. That is why I suggest we should all agree and then we should ask the British Government to go ahead.
Sir Charles Court put the matter even more directly when he said:
If the Commonwealth did this -
That is, using section 5 1 - could not the next Commonwealth Government reverse it? We are trying to avoid this.
To which the Commonwealth Attorney-General, Senator Durack, replied -
– Who was that again?
-That was Sir Charles Court. Senator Durack ‘s reply was as follows:
There is strong legal opinion that an action taken by the Commonwealth under 38 at the request of the States could not be repealed without the request of the States.
Ultimately Premier Hamer read a proposal which the Premiers Conference appeared to adopt. It read:
That the powers of the States be extended to the territorial sea by the use ofSection 51 (38) to confer sovereignty upon each State in respect of the territorial sea and seabed adjacent to it. That the use ofSection 5 1 (38) be supported by appropriate amendment of the Seas and Submerged Lands Act and the vesting of proprietorial rights in the States in respect of the adjacent seabed in the territorial sea.
The second leg of the proposal was that there would be joint Commonwealth-State Authorities responsible for the general management of all off-shore mining beyond the territorial sea. This was a generous proposal in view of the fact that the Commonwealth has complete control over the area.
However, the Commonwealth found out that even this generous offer was not acceptable to three of the States. I have no doubt honourable senators will have no trouble guessing which three States they were. Western Australia, Queensland and Victoria all insisted that the Commonwealth had no right to be involved in those authorities even though that issue had been agreed on at the 1 977 Conference. So we have a situation that, even though the Commonwealth has abrogated its responsibility in respect of offshore waters, it has still not solved its problems with the States. The fact that the Commonwealth has that responsibility was recognised by the Prime Minister in these terms:
What we are talking about is the area over which the Commonwealth has sole responsibility. Whether we like that or not, that is the circumstance. In coming to any arrangement in relation to a joint authority, the Commonwealth is giving away power, rights and responsibility or sharing it with other people. We are prepared to do that but we cannot ignore- whether you want to ignore it or not- the High Court and its decisions. You cannot go back before the High Court and say something exists that does not exist.
The thing that puzzles us- at least I was under this impression- is that the Commonwealth made it clear that this transfer of powers to the States was to apply only up to the three-mile limit with some joint control over off-shore mining in other areas. What then are Senator Durack and Senator Webster doing in Queensland attempting to stave off total Queensland control of the Great Barrier Reef region? I am unable to say how such a position could have arisen if the Commonwealth is serious about its responsibilities in relation to the reef. Certainly if it were serious it would not send two negotiators from this Federal Parliament, such as Senators Durack and Webster to try to hold the line. Surely the Government is not going to transfer control over the reef to the Queensland Government? One thing is sure. If the Government does transfer that control to the Queensland Government, it will be tantamount to authorising the mining and drilling of the reef, and there should be no misunderstanding in any shape or form about that.
It seems extraordinary that these major constitutional shifts are being organised by the Commonwealth in this secretive way. When those constitutional shifts involve the likelihood of serious damage to the Great Barrier Reef, it is about time this Senate put its foot down and demanded to know in advance just what the Commonwealth has in mind. That is the reason why the Opposition calls on the Government to make a full statement in relation to the reef and calls on it to table all the relevant documentation, including correspondence, setting out the position concerning the reef. We cannot be satisfied any longer with the semantic answers we have been listening to in the last couple of days.
The Opposition asserts that there is real danger to the reef from potential drilling and possible mining on or in the vicinity of the reef. To date the Government has avoided the issue by saying that it would ensure that no such activities would be allowed to damage the reef. Since Senator Webster misled the Senate last Thursday, the Government has begun to realise that it is facing a very serious situation. Apparently it has expedited consideration of the report of the Royal Commissions into Petroleum Drilling in the Area of the Great Barrier Reef. That in itself is extraordinary as that report is approximately five years old.
Those of us who have been involved in politics for some years have seen many examples of governments being secretive in their actions and even under questioning not being open and frank on what they are about. This case must surely rank as a classic in our political experience. Even if the subject matter was of little consequence, it would be inexcusable. Where the subject matter is not only of Australia-wide concern but in fact of world-wide concern, it is both inexcusable and reprehensible. That one of the great natural wonders of this planet should be the play thing of miserable political attitudes and equally miserable commercial interests is evidence that those responsible must stand condemned, not only in the eyes of the Australian people but in the eyes of the whole world.
– The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Wriedt) has brought forward for debate today as a matter of urgency what he refers to as the continuing refusal of the Federal Government to make clear its intentions with respect to oil drilling in the area of the Great Barrier Reef. This is the second occasion this week on which the Opposition has in essence, raised this matter. It has asked numerous questions about it during this week. It seems to me that the urgency motion today is an attempt to squeeze some drop out of a very dry lemon. Despite the very full debate we had here on Tuesday, Senator Wriedt still persists on claiming that the Federal Government has not made its position clear. Senator Wriedt expresses an attitude despite very clear and unequivocal statements that have been made not only by Ministers but by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in relation to this matter. When he says: ‘I do not believe it’, it is very hard for anyone to take the matter any further. The people can judge, not Senator Wriedt. The people will judge what the
Government’s intentions are in these matters. Senator Wriedt, in order to bolster his case today, widens that attack which he started earlier in the week against the Minister for Science and the Environment (Senator Webster). Today he is widening the attack to include the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony), the Minister for National Development (Mr Newman) and the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr McLeay). The only thing that surprises me is that Senator Wriedt did not include me in this list of Ministers who are being tried.
– Next time.
-No doubt Senator Primmer is right when he says that the next list that is issued will include me and a few others as well. The Government’s position has been clarified.
Let me make one or two major points at the beginning of my answer to Senator Wriedt. He talked about the refusal of the Federal Government. Let me make it clear that so far as this Government is concerned, the body that governs the country and the body that makes the decisions is the Cabinet. I hope that is clear. I am sure Senator Wriedt understands it. When he talks about the Federal Government I assume that he means the same thing as I do, namely the Cabinet. He has been a Minister in a government. He knows that the processes of government extend down through various levels of the Public Service and into authorities that are set up, statutory bodies and so on. As 1 said the other day, when there are letters, inquiries, submissions, discussions and so on at these levels, that does not mean to say that the Government of the country, the Cabinet, has made decisions in relation to these matters.
The other question which I think has to be cleared up- again I think Senator Wriedt is clear in his statement- is that we are talking about exploration and drilling in the Great Barrier Reef region. That is a very vast area. I have a map which delineates the boundaries of the area. I seek leave to table the map, for the greater edification of us all.
Leave granted.
-What we are talking about in this debate is what may happen in this vast region off the Queensland coast. We are not simply debating what may happen on the reef itself. The map does show, within that region, the reef and the various sections of the reef. It also shows very vast areas which are not part of the reef itself. There is a very real distinction between the actual reef itself and the area or region of the Barrier Reef.
Senator Wriedt referred to several matters which have occurred this week and which give him cause for further concern and justification for bringing forward his motion today. I just want to run through these points briefly. He referred in particular to statements that were made by Senator Webster and Mr Higgs, the Chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, to the effect that there had been some arrangement entered into with the permittee of some exploration permits that have been granted in the area of the Great Barrier Reef region known as the Capricornia section. Some reference was made to this matter by Senator Webster and by me in debate the other day. All that had happened is that the authority had made some inquiries from the permittee as to what were the boundaries of these permits which it was interested in retaining. I have just inquired with the Chairman of the Authority, who is here beside me today, and there is no arrangement in existence. Quite simply, some inquiry was made as to the boundaries. I made clear, I thought, in the debate the other day that in considering declarations of a park the boundaries were most important. If it could be found that there was not going to be any conflict between the respective boundaries of the proposed park and the permit areas which were the subject of applications of renewal of permits, then of course that was the elimination of one major area of difficulty and conflict. That is the only question which has arisen and which has related to discussions between the authority and the permittees.
– Minister, will you table the whole of the letter? Will you do that? Are you game to table it? Are you game to table the rest of the letter?
-I will refer that matter to the Minister for Science and the Environment. It is not my letter and I do not have the letter with me. Senator Wriedt also referred to a statement attributed to Mr Higgs on a radio program in which Mr Higgs said, when he was apparently pressed to answer, what might happen in the future. His guess was that only a very small percentage of that Barrier Reef region as set out on the map which I tabled might be mined. That was simply a view that Mr Higgs has expressed. It was only put by Senator Wriedt as a view or some guess that he might have made. I would like to emphasise that it is far, far removed from any decision-making by the Government itself.
This leads me to the other matter that Senator Wriedt raised, which he believes is a matter of concern; that is the discussions that have taken place between Premiers and between AttorneysGeneral as to the constitutional and legal problems that arise in the off-shore areas all around Australia. Senator Wriedt quoted extensively from the minutes of the Premiers Conference. I might say that the minutes are confidential documents and always have been. So here we have another revelation of the use of confidential matters by the Opposition. I will let that pass. The statements that Senator Wriedt quoted from the Prime Minister or from other people, including myself, I would have thought, were a fairly clear indication of the understanding by the Commonwealth Government of what its powers are and what its responsibilities are. I can assure the Senate that the Commonwealth Government is very conscious of what its legal powers are and what its responsibilities are in these matters.
As I have said, the Commonwealth Government is engaged in a very major effort to reach a constitutional settlement with the States in regard to the territorial sea. That has been the subject of great conflict between the Commonwealth and States over many years. I think it is true to say that various ways of resolving the conflict are being canvassed. The decision of the last Premiers Conference was that the conflict would be resolved by legislative means within the powers of this Parliament and State parliaments and would not be attempted to be resolved by referendums or by resort to the United Kingdom. That is the way we are proceeding within the powers of the Australian parliaments. Legislation will be introduced into these parliaments and passed by them. There should be no concern whatsoever expressed about what the Commonwealth Government and the State governments are discussing because anything that is decided will have to be agreeable to the Senate and to this Parliament.
Senator Wriedt has tabled some resolutions of Premiers conferences. I add that many other subjects and problems have been discussed at Premiers conferences, apart from the ones that are the subject of the resolutions tabled by Senator Wriedt. One of the matters of great difficulty and concern is the future management and control of marine parks. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority has the power to declare areas as marine parks and this is probably the major matter of concern. The Premiers have yet to consider recommendations to solve these problems. The
Commonwealth and State Ministers for the environment have met recently and have come to some conclusions. These conclusions will be before the Premiers when they meet at the end of June. Because of the very special problems that arise in relation to the Barrier Reef, it is thought proper that we should have some discussions specifically with the Queensland Ministers before the Premiers Conference to see whether these problems can be resolved. That is all Senator Webster and I are doing. We will discuss these matters with the Queensland Ministers to see whether agreements can be reached which are satisfactory to both Governments and which are within the responsibilities of which the Commonweatlh Government is very conscious that it has in these matters.
No suggestion has been made by the Commonwealth that the whole of the Barrier Reef will be handed over to Queensland. 1 do not understand the fear that Senator Wriedt was expressing. Was he afraid that the whole of the region would be handed over to the responsibility of Queensland? That is far and away beyond any matter that has been discussed with the States at these conferences. Discussions have been concerned with matters of State control of the territorial sea and possible methods of joint control of areas beyond the territorial sea, whether they be in relation to mining, fishing or related matters such as marine dumping, pollution, et cetera. A whole host of matters is involved. The assurances that the Government is giving now have been given already. I propose to repeat them again; although Senator Wriedt is well aware of them and he has referred to them. But he chooses simply to say, ‘I do not believe them’. But I will repeat the assurances given by this Government that whatever settlements may be reached with the States, they will be within, in accord with and consistent with the undertakings that have been made by the Prime Minister on behalf of this Government. I refer to what the Prime Minister said in answer to a question asked in the House of Representatives on 2 1 February. He said two things and both are very important. Firstly, he stated:
The Commonwealth’s position is unequivocal: There will not be drilling on the reef.
He was referring to drilling on the reef itself, the area which is set out clearly in the map that I have tabled. The second undertaking the Prime Minister gave was:
But let mc give a complete and unequivocal guarantee that this Government would not allow any drilling or any mining that would do anything to damage the Reef.
– I hope that that is the important part.
-That is right. I would have thought that both statements are very important.
– There was some ambiguity about the second one.
– As far as the second undertaking is concerned, I made it clear in the Senate during the debate on Tuesday that the Government has not yet made any decisions in relation to the report of the Royal Commissions into petroleum drilling in the area of the Great Barrier Reef. Those Royal Commissions have called for material to be prepared and provided to them so that the matter can be considered and decisions can be made in due course. The Government has taken the greatest care to ensure that it has the proper advice before it in relation to the report of the Royal Commissions. Let me reiterate again that there was a conflict between the commissioners. The majority view was that under certain conditions some drilling could be allowed in a portion of that region. The minority view of the Chairman of the Royal Commissions was that there should not be any drilling until full research had been undertaken in relation to the whole matter. The Government has already referred the matter to and has received advice from the Australian Science and Technology Council on how a research program could be undertaken. It has recently asked the Australian Science and Technology Council also to look at the question of what type of research program should be entered into to deal not only with the effect of drilling or of oil exploration in this area but also with what would be the impact on the reef of various other activities that may occur. The Government wants to have before it the fullest advice on what the problems are and on the possible solutions to those problems before it formally considers, the matter as a Cabinet and as a Government and decides what its policy will be in relation to this matter that we are debating today.
Senator Wriedt has brought forward an urgency motion which states that the Government should make clear its intentions with respect to drilling on the Great Barrier Reef. Does the Opposition suggest that the Government should decide this question hurriedly, without proper consideration, without all the details and without taking note of the advice that it has? The Government has been delaying a decision on this matter because it wants to ensure that it has before it the fullest advice and options before it makes a decision. I think the Government should be commended for not rushing into these sorts of decisions. I think the Opposition should be pleased with that attitude and should not complain that the Government has not made a decision.
While the Government is considering these matters, an embargo is placed on any drilling or exploration in this area. That was made quite clear by the Minister for National Development as recently as last Thursday in a statement to which reference has already been made in the Senate. I thought that the Prime Minister, the Minister for National Development, the Minister for Science and the Environment and I- Senator Webster and I have referred to the matter this week- have made the Government’s position quite clear.
– The Prime Minister said that you could be drilling two kilometres off the reef. He is on record, in Hansard, as saying that.
– That is a real distortion of what the Prime Minister said.
– Will you read his reply? Read the reply to Mr Barry Cohen.
-I will read what the Prime Minister said because Senator Chipp has just distorted the Prime Minister’s remarks. The Prime Minister said: . . honourable members will understand that if we are talking about the environment of the Reef but not the Reef itself we have to ask the question: Where does it begin; where does it end? Are we talking about one or two kilometres, 20 kilometres or 50 kilometres?
The Prime Minister raises the question: What are we talking about?
– Ah, that’s different.
– Of course it is different. Senator Chipp, in his interjection, totally distorted what the Prime Minister said. As I stated earlier, this motion has been brought forward today in an effort to squeeze the last little bit of juice out of a very dry lemon. We had a debate on this matter on Tuesday. We are having a debate on it today. I understand that arrangements have been made that the debate should be limited to speeches by Senator Wriedt and myself. For those reasons, I move:
– May I ask the Minister whether he is prepared to withdraw the motion that the question be now put in order to enable me to move for the suspension of Standing Orders to allow Senator Webster to take part in this debate?
– The arrangements have been made; I will proceed with them.
Question put. The Senate divided. (The President- Senator the Hon. Sir Condor Laucke)
AYES: 30
NOES: 23
Majority……. 7
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Original question put-
That the motion (Senator Wriedt’s) be agreed to.
The Senate divided. (The President- Senator the Hon. Sir Condor Laucke)
AYES: 22
NOES: 30
Majority……. 8
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
page 1809
– Pursuant to section 29 of the Dairy Produce Export Control Act 1924 I present the annual report of the Australian Dairy Corporation for the year ended 30 June 1978.
The construction of a dairy plant, under the auspices of the Australian Development Assistance Bureau, in Vietnam continued despite many administrative frustrations.
One would expect that the Australian Development Assistance Bureau, in seeking to establish a dairy plant in a war-ravaged country such as Vietnam, would come up against many problems, including administrative frustrations. One presumes- and this is to be regretted- that Mr Webster, in his report next year will have to report that due to the actions of this Government, the construction of that dairy plant, has been halted. I find that an extremely distasteful Australian attitude -
Leave granted, debate adjourned.
page 1810
– Pursuant to section 6 of the Environment (Financial Assistance) Act 1977 1 present an agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and Tasmania in relation to the provision of financial assistance for projects related to the environment for 1978-79 made under the provisions of that Act. I seek leave to make a statement relating to the agreement.
Leave granted.
-The Hon. D. A. Lowe, the Tasmanian Premier and I signed the agreement on 19 March 1979. It provides for financial assistance to Tasmania in the form of nonrepayable grants for this financial year. The financial assistance covered by this agreement is for two purposes: Firstly, to assist the south-west Tasmania resources survey, and secondly, for the purchase of air quality monitoring equipment.
The agreement to assist the south-west Tasmania resources survey reflects this Government’s firm commitment to assist the Tasmanian Government in establishing a national park of world significance in south-west Tasmania. A sum of $150,000 has been made available since 1976, and a further $75,000 is provided this year under the agreement. In addition, $75,000 has been set aside for next year. The purpose of the south-west Tasmania resources survey is to compile a detailed inventory of the resources of south-west Tasmania. In particular, it will identify those attributes which may require the reservation and management of areas of south-west Tasmania as national parks.
Honourable senators will be aware that the south-west of Tasmania is one of the few remaining wilderness areas in the temperate regions of the world and, together with Cape York, shares the distinction of being the largest remaining wilderness area in the eastern coastal region of Australia. As such, it is of national significance and in the opinion of some, is a potential candidate for world heritage status under the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation’s World Cultural and Natural Heritage Convention, to which Australia is a signatory. I believe the material being produced by the resources survey will provide a most practical basis for rational planning and future decision making in the region.
The agreement with Tasmania also provides assistance with expenditure on air quality monitoring projects approved last year. A sum of $40,000 has been made available for the purchase of sophisticated air quality monitoring equipment which will enable Tasmania to contribute to the collection of air quality data from across the nation in a standard format as part of the Commonwealth State air quality monitoring program. This program is an important part of the Government’s overall national air quality assessment program. Apart from the assistance to Tasmania which I have just mentioned, the national assessment program also includes the development of a national air quality data centre, standardised national calibration facilities and a national network of reference monitoring stations.
– by leave- The statement put down by the Minister for Science and the Environment (Senator Webster) is one in respect of which I find virtually no grounds for criticism. The agreement entered into between the Tasmanian and Federal Governments for preservation work in south-west Tasmania has obviously been of benefit to Tasmania. I think that that is recognised by everybody concerned. In putting in a free commercial for Tasmania, I recommend to every honourable senator who goes to Tasmania that he should see the remarkable work that has been done in the development of the second stage of the hydro-electric scheme on the Gordon River. It is a revelation to everyone who sees it. The survey of resources in south-west Tasmania has assisted in the development of that scheme. The hydro-electric authorities have used information which has been gathered in the survey. In the Opposition’s view, it has been a most worthwhile exercise.
The only other point I make concerns the air quality monitoring program. There is some concern that there does not appear to be any reference to a continuing financial commitment in the coming financial year. I realise that the Minister is not able to give such a commitment. The two amounts which have been provided, $25,000 in the 1975-76 financial year and $40,000 in the current financial year, have undoubtedly been valuable, but I cannot see any commitment in the Minister’s statement that that support will be continued. I put it to the Minister and the Government that it is important that this program be maintained and that it gets an adequate appropriation in the coming Budget.
page 1811
– On behalf of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, I present a report on the proposals for variations to the plan of lay-out of the city of Canberra and its environs, 67th series, together with extracts from the minutes of proceedings of the Committee.
Ordered that the report be printed.
– I seek leave to make a statement relating to the report.
Leave granted.
-This report, which is the third report of the Committee to be tabled during this period of sittings, deals with the 67th series of variations to the plan of lay-out of the national capital. There are thirteen proposed variations in this series and the Committee has approved of 10, approved parts of another two and suggested that another be regazetted. The total cost involved in these variations is about $lm.
This series of variations caused considerable public interest concerning proposed roads in Yarralumla. The only submissions and objections received by the Committee on this series of proposed variations in fact related to developments in Yarralumla. During the inquiry some 20 witnesses representing 14 organisations appeared before the Committee at public hearings. One of the witnesses to appear before the Committee was the Chairman of” the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly’s Committee on Lands, Planning and Environment. The report of that Committee on the proposed variations was incorporated in the transcript of evidence. The Committee intends to follow this procedure in future consideration of variations.
The proposed variations involved many areas of Canberra. There were proposals for cycle paths in Phillip, Kaleen and Giralang which will be parts of the Canberra cycleway system. There are also improvements to the Pine Island recreation area. The present area has been subject to heavy use at peak periods and the proposals in this series of variations will provide picnic and other facilities as well as additional car parking. There are also variations aimed at improving road safety within the Australian Capital Territory. One proposal involves improving the road alignment of the intersection of Canberra Avenue, Manuka Circle and Captain Cook Crescent, which has been the site of a large number of accidents. Another involves the elimination of a dangerous curve at the intersection of Whyalla Street and Canberra Avenue in Fyshwick. All of these variations have been approved by the Committee.
The main proposal for Yarralumla was for the construction of stage 1 of a tourist road which will eventually link the Cotter Road with Weston Park and roads along the southern shores of Lake Burley Griffin. The completion of stage 1 would provide access to the Old Canberra Brickworks which is now being redeveloped as a major tourist and historical centre. There was also a proposal for a link road to connect the tourist road to the existing residential street system. Yarralumla is a suburb which has been undergoing significant change. The population has been declining while the number of visitors travelling through residential streets has been increasing. With the redevelopment of the Brickworks the number of visitors will increase, particularly as a number of these visitors might continue on to visit Weston Park and other nearby recreational areas. To preserve the residential amenity of the suburb the Committee has recommended that the second stage of the tourist road be included in the next series of variations later this year. Such a recommendation is likely to affect a number of organisations, particularly the Royal Canberra Golf Club and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation’s Division of Forest Research.
The Committee recognises the importance of the Royal Canberra Golf Club as a local club and as a national and international sporting venue. The Committee has therefore suggested measures which could allow expansion of the Club into the Yarralumla Nursery and across Dunrossil Drive into the area known as Lee’s Paddock. The Committee has supported the view of the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly that if Lee’s Paddock is to be given to the golf club other comparable agistment in the immediate area should be made available. The Committee has recommended that proposals on these matters, plus details of any problems likely to be encountered by the CSIRO be presented at the hearings on stage 2 of the tourist road. The Committee has also sought to protect the local residents from much of the tourist and visitor traffic by ensuring that such traffic goes around rather than through the residential streets. The tourist road, when completed, would provide direct access from Cotter Road to Weston Park on a route which avoids the residential part of Yarralumla. The Committee does not approve of the proposal for the link road at this time. Such a road would provide an easy opportunity for commuters to use the residential streets. The Committee considered proposals for a cul-de-sac as an alternative but considered that the Committee should be provided with a detailed road lay-out for the proposed residential development around the brickworks.
In respect of the other variations, the Committee has recommended that Variation 12 be regazetted since there was a mistake in the gazettal notice. It has also recommended that Part 3 of Variation 8 dealing with the ‘address frontage’ for the Hellenic Club in Woden not be approved until the Committee is provided with more details on the proposal, particularly as to the necessity for the work. I commend the report to the Senate.
Sitting suspended from 1.1 to 2.15 p.m.
page 1812
-Mr President, I seek leave to table certain evidence taken by the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts during its inquiry into the impact of television on the development and learning behaviour of children. I also seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave granted.
-I lay on the table of the Senate, volumes 3, 4 and 5 of the transcript of evidence taken by the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts during its inquiry into the impact of television on the development and learning behaviour of children. Volumes 1 and 2 of the transcript of evidence taken by the former Senate Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts in relation to earlier hearings into all aspects of television and broadcasting, including the Australian content of television programs, were tabled in the Senate on 8 December 1976.
Since the report on this inquiry was tabled last November, there has been a wide public response. Newspaper editors, public authorities, education and social leaders have enthusiastically endorsed the Committee’s recommendations. The Committee has also received a large number of letters from many people throughout the community expressing their satisfaction with the main thrust of the Committee’s report. Together, they have all expressed the hope that the Government and the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal will implement the Committee’s recommendations. Apart from the report itself, I believe that the inquiry into children’s television has helped stimulate public debate. This debate has ranged over the whole area of the effects of television on children and, in particular, the effects of televised advertising. I should also mention that the Committee has received, interestingly enough, a number of requests from overseas for copies of the report. As I think will be readily understood, these requests have come particularly from the United States of America, where there is also a widespread and growing public concern about televisions impact on children.
I return for a moment to deal with those people who have made comments on the Senate Committee’s report. They have drawn attention to the alarming statistics relating to children’s television viewing habits. Others have commended the concept of media education in schools which would be designed to train children to be appreciative and critical viewers. Others again have expressed opinions relating to the general influence of our report. For example, one leading Australian daily paper said that the Committee report should be compulsory reading for all parents. Again a recent Gallup Poll conducted a survey in relation to our report. This revealed major public support for some of the key recommendations. The poll also revealed a very strong view on the lack of parental control in relation to television use. In fairness, I think I should say that the report has not been without its critics. These have come mostly from the commercial television and advertising industries. As may be expected, these criticisms rejected many of the Committee’s recommendations.
It is not appropriate for me to reply to these criticisms today, but I make the personal observation that these arguments do not appear to add anything new to the evidence taken during our inquiry. All in all, the Committee’s report, based on the evidence which I have tabled today, has made its contribution to the quality of life situation in Australia. It remains now for the Government to recognise the force of community argument in the report, and take all these things into account.
– by leave- I rise briefly to endorse the remarks of Senator Davidson, the Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts, in respect of the transcripts which he has just tabled of the inquiry into the effects of television on children’s learning and development. I endorse his expressed concern that all members of the Senate and, indeed, all members of the Parliament, should take note of the material he has tabled today because undoubtedly the quality of children’s television has become an extremely topical and controversial issue in our community. There is no doubt in my mind, as I think there can be no doubt in the minds of any of the members of the Committee, that there is widespread discontent throughout the community about the standard of children’s television in Australia. There is widespread concern also about the effects of excessive television watching on children’s learning and development.
In considering the material that has been tabled today, the Committee sought to formulate recommendations which were feasible and practicable, which could be implemented by the Government and the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal without encroaching on the rights of the licencees of television stations to make profits and to have a very high degree of freedom in their choice of programming. We recognised the kind of contribution made by the industry to our community. However, we feel that it is quite possible, without venturing into the area of censorship or undue government regulation, to take steps which will ensure that some of the concern about children’s television viewing habits in Australia can be alleviated. Given too the recent research report released by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal with regard to children’s television, I support Senator Davidson’s request to the Government that action be taken immediately to consider and to act upon the recommendations of the Senate Committee’s report.
page 1813
Ministerial Statement
– by leave- I wish to make a statement relating to the visit to North America and Japan by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Resources (Mr Anthony) in March 1979 and I ask leave to have the text of the statement incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The statement read as follows-
Honourable Senators will be aware that the prime purpose of this overseas visit was to finalise important bilateral negotiations with the United States and Japan. These negotiations were part of the bilateral settlements within the Multilateral Trade Negotiations, or MTN. Because of the wide range of trade issues addressed in the MTN their outcome will shape the world trading environment for at least the next decade. As a major trading nation Australia has a vital interest in the outcome.
The MTN has now substantially concluded so far as the multilateral aspects are concerned. At a meeting in Geneva on 12 April representatives of the world’s major trading nations adopted the texts of a number of agreements about international trading rules which will form the central part of the final result. These agreements are now to be considered by governments.
The time table for the formal finalization of the MTN is linked to United States Congressional examination and approval. Under its own legislation Congress must accept or reject the package in its entirety- it cannot amend it. This process must be completed before the end of 1979 when the President’s mandate will expire. While some negotiations are still to be completed, for all practical purposes no further changes of substance can be negotiated into the draft accords already reached. It is up to governments to either accept or reject them.
The package encompasses the results of both bilateral negotiations and multilateral negotiations on new trade rules. Among the latter are arrangements or ‘codes of conduct’ on trade in civil aircraft, customs valuation, government procurement, export subsidies and countervailing duties, import licensing procedures, standards and the settlement of disputes on trade issues. At a later date I intend to report to the Senate on the MTN outcome in its entirety.
The bilateral agreements which have been concluded with the United States and Japan are an important part of the overall MTN package for Australia. A central objective in these negotiations was to secure effective guarantees for our beef exports to these key markets. Predictable and firm access arrangements are essential to the future well-being and planning of the Australian beef industry which exports more than half of its production. And well over half of our beef exports are marketed in the United States and Japan where there have always been strong protectionist pressures.
Honourable Senators will be aware that in recent years our beef industry has suffered more than any other Australian industry as a result of restrictive trade policies. In 1974 the problems for our beef producers were worsened by the precipitate imposition of total bans on meat imports by Japan and the EEC, compounded by the introduction of restrictive quotas by Canada in the same year. In the following year the United States imposed restraints on imports at a level significantly below that of the immediately preceding years.
Although not in government at the time, we resolved that we would do everything we could to ensure that never again should such a vital rural industry be subject to a collective shutout or severe restriction in its traditional markets; to see that never again should our beef producers not have minimum access assurances in their key markets; that never again should their prosperity be crippled by the lack of Government action to secure existing markets and to gain new markets.
This Government has taken energetic steps in these directions. In our two major beef markets of the United States and Japan we have negotiated access commitments of at least 380,000 tonnes a year- or almost a third higher than our actual exports in 1974-75. I will explain the basis of these commitments in a moment.
I understand that some members of the Opposition have been critical of the beef arrangements negotiated. They say the amounts are lower than the current access levels. Such criticisms completely miss the point of the value of access assurances. They ignore the fundamental stability and basic insurance for the beef industry that such secure access levels provide. They ignore them in exactly the same way as a Labor Government ignored them in 1974-75 and presided over the disastrous market shutouts that helped put the beef industry on its knees. The agreements just concluded with the United States and Japan will guard against a return to this situation. They will act as a form of insurance for the future by providing secure opportunities to sell at times when, without the discipline of such arrangements, importing countries might again be tempted to severely restrict access for Australian beef.
Now that these understandings have been reached with the U.S.A. and Japan, we are looking for similar settlements with our other major trading partners- especially the EEC and Canada.
With the security of all these new arrangements the Australian beef industry will be able to plan ahead with new confidence. The Australian industry, the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation, the Australian Trade Commissioner Service and others promoting beef exports will be able to seek new market outlets and consolidate gains made in other markets in the knowledge that exports to Australia’s traditional and major markets will not be restricted below the floor levels negotiated.
Considerable efforts have already been made in this area of new market development and are showing very positive results- particularly in areas such as South Korea and the Middle East. Australia’s exports to the Republic of Korea have increased from 500 tonnes in 1976 to around 59,000 tonnes in 1978, with the expectation that Korea will import up to 100,000 tonnes from Australia in 1979. Exports to the Middle East have also shown considerable growth in the last three years- from around 21,000 tonnes in 1975 to an estimated 68,000 tonnes in 1978.
The settlement concluded with the United States is particularly significant and I would like to give the Senate more details of it. Since 1964 the United States has had legislation to restrict imports of beef by means of quotas. We have never had any continuing formal understanding with the United States as to a minimum or floor level for those quotas. At a time when protectionist pressures were increasing in the United States this was a matter of particular concern to the Australian beef industry.
The new agreement gives a guarantee that in any circumstances global imports will not be restricted below 1.2 billion pounds per annum, or 544,000 tonnes. On the basis of GATT rules regarding performance in a previous representative period, Australia can expect to be allocated at least 279.000 tonnes of this global figure. This gives us a virtual guarantee of access at that level. When the base quota calculated in accordance with the present U.S. meat import law is at or above 1.2 billion pounds per annum and voluntary restraint agreements are in effect, a global access level of at least 1.3 billion pounds will be provided-that is 590,000 tonnes. In that case, Australia could expect, on its present performance, to be allocated at least 303,000 tonnes.
The agreement also provides for a useful duty reduction on beef from 3 U.S. cents per pound to 2 U.S. cents per pound, representing a possible increase in overall returns to the Australian industry of around $6-$7 million a year.
In addition, we have received renewed assurances that the attitude of the United States Administration towards any new countercyclical meat import legislation is unchanged from that announced in 1978. The Administration position is that if there is to be any such legislation it should contain an access level for meat imports of at least 1.3 billion pounds annually, and should maintain the authority which the President has in the current import law for him to increase meat imports if such action is necessary in the public interest.
In the case of Japan, the Japanese Government has indicated that it expects imports of beef to increase steadily until the end of the Japanese fiscal year 1982. At this time it is expected that the global import level will be at least 135,000 tonnes. Under this arrangement we can expect that imports will reach at least 142,000 tonnes in 1983 and that this growth will be part of a pattern of continuing expansion in the Japanese beef market.
Within these figures, Japan has agreed to co-operate with us in efforts to exploit the demand for high-quality beef with a view to lifting global imports by 14,000 tonnes by Japanese fiscal year 1983. Our two Governments will also assess, jointly, the possibilities for imports of high-quality beef ona full-sets basis. We will also co-operate in examining the nature of the Japanese manufacturing-beef market which is expected to increase substantially up to 1983.
These arrangements, and their development beyond 1 983. will be the subject of new inter-governmental consultative arrangements between Japan and Australia. This commitment to continuing policy consultations is something of a breakthrough in our relations with Japan on beef and should provide a sound basis for our industry to plan its future shipments to this important market.
The MTN arrangements reached with the United States have also achieved most useful concessions on a range of other products. After generations of effort on the part of successive Governments we have at last succeeded in negotiating a reduction in the United States duty on raw wool. It is proposed that it will be reduced by 60 percent over a period of three years. This was the maximum reduction which, under their legislation, the United States negotiators were authorised to make, and over the shortest period permitted. It is gratifying, at long last, to have achieved some movement by the U.S. on this long-standing impediment to one of our great export industries.
Australia ‘s quotas for cheese in the U.S. market will more than double from the pre-MTN quota level of 1,600 tonnes to 4,000 tonnes. In addition we now have an entirely new quota for a dairy-based product called chocolate crumb. Duty reductions have also been negotiated on a range of other Australian export items to both the U.S. and Japan.
The process of negotiation is naturally two-way and other countries have sought improvements in access for their goods into Australia’s market. In tabling a formula offer in July last year we issued a challenge to our trading partners to greatly improve their offers to Australia. This challenge was not met and accordingly our offer has been substantially scaled down. What we have now offered matches what we will receive.
As negotiations with some of our other trading partners are still in progress and there is a need for ratification by Japan and the U.S. through normal procedures of the overall settlements reached in the MTN, it is not appropriate to disclose at this stage the details of the concessions offered by Australia. This will be done as soon as practicable. However, I can assure Australian industries that the Government is satisfied that their interests have been adequately protected.
Australia has undertaken in respect of a relatively small list of items to bind tariff rates against future increase. With the exception of two items- one of which relates to the concessional duty on tobacco- all rates negotiated with the U.S. and Japan are at the currently applied rate. Hence there will be no reduction in the current level of protection afforded via the tariff. The Government is satisfied that the interests of the Australian tobacco industry have been adequately protected in the negotiations.
While we have not achieved all our objectives in the MTN, I am satisfied that the bilateral settlements reached with the United States and Japan are fair to both sides and will facilitate an expansion of trade on a mutuallyadvantageous basis.
However the broader trade policies of major importers of agricultural commodities remain restrictive and we will have to continue our efforts to moderate those policies. The MTN has opened up opportunities for this in the form of new international commodity agreements on meat and dairy products. lt is my intention that Australia use these new arrangements and all other means at its disposal to press our case for better trading conditions for agricultural commodities.
During my colleague’s visit to North America he also had useful discussions with the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, Mr Bergland, and the responsible Canadian Minister, Mr Otto Lang, on the outcome of the recent UN wheat negotiating conference. These talks confirmed the need for better cooperation between major wheat exporting nations in the absence of a fully-fledged International Wheat Agreement.
It is up to exporters to do what they can to help ensure stability in the world wheat market until a substantive international agreement involving both exporting and importing countries can be negotiated. The precise form of future cooperation between exporters will be worked out at a highlevel meeting later this month at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, at which Australia will be represented. However, no one should think that the world’s major exporters envisage increased co-operation developing into any form of price cartel. Competition between exporters is a fact of life and will remain so. But co-operating Governments and industries will exchange information on wheat policies and marketing in order to ensure that decisions affecting wheat trade are consistent with market realities and the need for stability and improved world food security.
While the Multilateral Trade Negotiations and wheat matters were the main matters discussed, my colleague was able to make use of his visit to explore a range of other matters of current interest to Australia, including energy and resource problems.
Discussions with Dr Schlesinger, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy, underlined the importance of developing policies aimed at the full utilisation of Australia’s energy-producing potential.
Australia has a particular interest in securing access to the U.S. market for natural gas. We were able to impress upon Dr Schlesinger and other senior U.S. officials Australia’s potential as a stable supplier of LNG and have suggested further detailed discussions at official level aimed at enhancing Australia’s opportunity to supply natural gas to the West Coast of the United States. It is clear that, even if the current world oil supply situation can be brought into balance in a relatively short time, the future economic growth of the United States- and therefore of the Western worlddepends upon developments aimed at producing energy as economically as possible. Australia has a major role to play in this area and I believe the future oil supply and price situation will strengthen Australia’s ability to win a share of the U.S. market for natural gas.
In Japan my colleague also discussed the important question of the upgrading of Australia’s raw material exports. This is an area in which there is great potential, over a wide range of mineral commodities, for future co-operation between Australia and Japan. It involves significant benefits for both countries in terms of additional employment and greater utilisation of resources for Australia and lower costs for Japan. Upgrading of minerals in Australia will involve high levels of new investment and we have told the Japanese that Australia would welcome a share of the investment funds generated through Japan’s balance-of-payments surplus. lt has always been the Government’s policy to move towards more processing of minerals before export, but as we move into the 1 980s progress in this area is likely to bc more rapid than in the past.
I have no doubts that the arrangements entered into and the discussions held as a result of this visit have helped advance Australia’s interests in the area of trade and resources.
Naturally I attach particular importance to the MTN settlements reached with the United States and Japan. 1 am sure they will be of lasting economic value to Australia and will help underpin the broader bonds of friendship which exist between the United States, Japan and Australia.
– by leave- I move:
The statement which is entitled ‘Visit to North America and Japan by Minister for Trade and Resources’ is mostly about alleged trade negotiations or trade deals concerning beef but also includes a number of other commodities. For the last six months a succession of Ministers has been bragging about the major breakthroughs that they have allegedly achieved in the area of trade negotiations, with particular reference to beef.
Last October Mr Sinclair, the Minister for Primary Industry, when under the hammer in the House of Representatives, suddenly took off to the United States of America, his excuse being the Bill that was then before the United States Congress. He returned to Australia and claimed the credit for President Carter having vetoed that Bill. However, it was well known, and President Carter had stated it in advance, that the conditions contained in that Bill were unacceptable to his Admininstration but that some different counter-cyclical legislation would be acceptable to the Administration. That remains the view of the Carter Administration.
In January the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) returned from the United States after one of his world tours. He started bragging that he had secured access to the American market for Australian beef under more favourable conditions than we had seen before. Mr Anthony went off to the United States last March and sent a message from Washington on 30 March which said:
The beef industry will leave behind it forever the spectre of 1974 when nearly all of the significant markets of the world were shut to Australian beef.
Those beef producers who heard that statement and remembered Mr Anthony’s assertion in August 1973 that ‘. . . the demand for meat will rise so fast we’ll be flat out trying to keep up with it’ should have been extremely apprehensive when they heard Mr Anthony so confidently asserting and bragging that the spectre of nearly all the significant markets of the world being closed to Australian beef had been left behind forever. Those beef producers who were aware of that prophesy he made during the 1977 election campaign about the sugar industry should have been doubly apprehensive. Now, of course, we have this statement which is, in fact, a rehash and an exaggeration of all the previous boasts and bragging by assortments of globetrotting Ministers about what they have allegedly achieved with access, particularly for beef to the United States and the American market. This statement, as with its predecessors, is long on bragging and short on hard fact and detail. It is redolent with glib assurances. For example, at the end of the tortuous and almost incomprehensible paragraph regarding trade-offs with respect to imports into Australia and, in particular, the tobacco industry, Mr Anthony said:
The Government is satisfied that the interests of the Australian tobacco industry have been adequately protected in negotiations.
– Hear, hear!
– If Senator Maunsell is particularly interested in this matter as he ought to be, being a Queenslander and living quite close to the Mareeba area, perhaps he can tell us what these safeguards are because Mr Anthony has made a number of statements in similar vein that the Government is satisfied the interests of the Australian tobacco industry have been adequately protected in the negotiations. We have not been given any details precisely what that alleged protection is. So, if Senator Maunsell is interested, perhaps he can tell us what the Minister for Trade and Resources either does not know or refuses to tell us. I suspect that when this Government comes out with a glib vague statement such as that the Government is satisfied that the interests of the Australian tobacco industry have been adequately protected in negotiations, we can safely assume that there has been no protection at all.
– You might.
- Senator Maunsell might care to tell us about that afterwards. So much for tobacco. If one reads between the lines of the statement and if one reads other statements that have come from the Government, it has been admitted that the threat of counter-cyclical legislation with respect to Australian beef exports to the United States still hangs over the industry. The Minister has somewhat dishonestly presented some figures relating to exports of Australian beef to the United States and Japan in past years and in this year. The Minister says:
This Government has taken energetic steps in these directions.
That is, to secure access to beef:
In our two major beef markets of the United States and Japan we have negotiated access commitments of at least 380,000 tonnes a year- or almost a third higher than our actual exports in 1 974-75.
Now, exports are not conventionally measured in fiscal years. They are normally measured in calendar years. The quotas are allocated on that basis but because that exercise made the Government’s alleged achievement look somewhat more significant than it is in fact Mr Anthony in this instance chose to present exports on a fiscal year basis.
If we look at the exports to the United States and Japan during 1974, we find that 268,000 tonnes were exported and that 380,000 tonnes does almost represent a 50 per cent increase on that figure. In 1 975 however, the total exports to the two countries were 331,000 tonnes, which is only 50,000 tonnes short of the amount which Mr Anthony claims to have negotiated. Morever- and most importantly- he goes on to say that this gives us a virtual guarantee of access at that level. A guarantee is either a guarantee or it is not. There is no such thing as a virtual guarantee. That is a contradiction in terms. If one cares to look at the Minister’s statement more closely, one finds that all of these conditions are subject to ratification by the United States Congress in accordance with its normal procedures. Of course, one could and ought to add that there is no absolute guarantee or even a virtual guarantee, to use the Minister’s selfcontradictory terminology, that at some future time the United States administration may not change its policy on these matters. Certainly, if Japan was economically crippled again to the extent that it was when the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries quadrupled oil prices towards the end of 1973, there is absolutely no guarantee that access to the Japanese market to the extent of 100,000 tonnes a year would be maintained. We know that the Japanese have a somewhat different view of contractual arrangements from that normally held in Western countries. They believe that, if the underlying conditions under which a contractual arrangement was negotiated are significantly changed, the contract ought to be re-negotiated. This, of course, is not the contract. So, there is certainly no guarantee of access at that level to the Japanese market.
I turn to the other matters covered in the agreement. There is a reference to sugar. That reference is ironical in view of Mr Anthony’s statements of almost two years ago that the real problems confronting the Australian sugar industry were then behind it. Contrary to the glib assurance which Mr Anthony gave towards the end of 1967, the United States has not ratified the International Sugar Agreement. Mr Anthony makes no comment whether the United States is going to ratify the International Sugar Agreement. He boasts that the duty on wool will be reduced by 60 per cent over three years. Superficially that sounds significant until we recognise that Australia has exported to the United States over recent years only about 100,000 bales of wool and that the total duty levelled on those quite small exports of wool amounts to approximately $5m. So a 60 per cent reduction of that $5m duty spread over a three year period amounts to $3m. That is the magnitude of the benefit which Australia will gain, not now, but at the end of a three year period.
Significantly, Mr Anthony says nothing about whether the natural gas which Sir Charles Court at least hopes to sell off to the United States will be accepted by the United States. Of course, sales of natural gas to the United States or the future development of the North West Shelf gasfields almost certainly depends on whether sales can be made to the United States. Mr Anthony has nothing to tell us about that. This is a piece of political grandstanding. It is the fourth piece of political grandstanding that we have seen from various Ministers of this Government over the last seven months. Incidentally, that phrase ‘political grandstanding’ is not mine. It comes from Mr Jack Ware who is the president of the West Australian Meat Exporters Association and a senior executive of Metro Meats, one of Australia’s major meat exporting firms. He said, among other things:
Although, superficially, it would appear tradition US suppliers would benefit from the establishment of a base import quota, there were three disturbing aspects which made it Tar less attractive than Mr Anthony had tried to present.
He listed them. The first is:
There is no guaranteed Australian share of the global quota despite a so-called assurance its traditional percentage would be maintained.
The second is:
The level of the guaranteed global quota was much larger than the present level of imports. Australia’s share, if based on tradition, would be only 75 per cent of present exports to the US ofabout 370,000 tonnes.
Mr Ware is saying there; and his comment is correct; that what we have been guaranteed is 75 per cent of the present level of exports to the United States. It is also worth noting that what we have virtually been guaranteed, to use the Minister’s phrase, is a level of imports of Australian beef significantly lower than the levels actually imported from Australia by the United States during the slump years of 1975, 1976 and 1977. Mr Ware continued in his third point to say:
The agreement would set the stage for the introduction of a counter-cyclical import system in the United States, with the United States pointing to Australia’s agreement on a base figure as justification. This undoubtedly would be the base figure in any counter-cyclical agreement.
One wonders why the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) is not ducking off to the United States again to do a bit of grandstanding, to save the Australian beef industry from the threat of counter-cyclical legislation, as he alleges he did last October. If the Opposition in the House of Representatives started talking about the Finnane report, again we would find him ducking off to the United States. Mr Ware continued:
Considering the Australian Government last year saw fit to lobby hard against the United States Congress’ passing of a counter-cyclical Bill this would seem inconsistent with previous policy . . .
He finalised his comments with this well-chosen phrase:
At any rate the Australian meat industry can do without political grandstanding.
That is what we have in this statement. He summed it up succinctly. It is a piece of political grandstanding, the fourth that we have had on this issue from an assortment of Ministers. We do not have now just a tourist Prime Minister, we have almost a tourist government. It is a wonder that the Government does not start holding Cabinet meetings overseas. There are four Ministers junketeering around the globe at this very moment, led of course by that leading junketeer and tourist, the Prime Minister. All we have to show as a result of four junketeering visits to the United States by senior Ministers of this Government is this document which has been placed before us and which is a piece of political grandstanding.
Debate (on motion by Senator Chaney) adjourned.
page 1817
– I seek leave to make a statement relating to the extension of the free issue of the national flag and to incorporate the statement in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The statement read as follows-
I wish to make a statement on three matters of interest to all honourable senators; these matters concern the free issue of the national flag, cassette recordings of the national anthem and national tune and the availability of colour photographs of the Queen. The national flag is our symbol of national unity. As such, the Government is concerned to encourage the flying of the national flag as widely as possible. The proper and dignified use of the national flag can only encourage national consciousness. Consistent with this, the Commonwealth Government’s practice is to fly the national flag from the main flagpoles of all Commonwealth Government buildings and establishments on all working days during normal working hours. For many years the Government has issued the national flag free to schools, orphanages, recognised youth organisations and State and national sporting organisations. This has helped to foster in young people respect for and familiarity with the national flag and also a knowledge of its correct use. In response to many representations made by honourable members and to requests from organisations within the community, the Government has decided to extend the free-issue of the national flag.
In addition to those categories I have already mentioned, the following groups will, from 1 July 1979, also be eligible to apply for the freeissue of the national flag:
Community service clubs, including exservice, Apex, Lions, Rotary, senior citizens and the Country Women’s Associations; benevolent and welfare organisations, including Red Cross and Legacy; homes for handicapped persons; church and religious bodies; ethnic organisations; and sporting clubs.
The Department of Administrative Services, which has the responsibility for policy matters regarding the flying and use of the national flag, will also assume the full responsibility for the free-issue of the flag from 1 July. This follows agreement with the Minister for Education and the Minister for Home Affairs whose separate departments presently distribute the free-issue of the flag to the groups currently eligible to receive it.
Because of the wide and personal interest honourable members have in the flag, it is proposed that all requests for a free-issue should be made through a member of the Commonwealth Parliament. As honourable senators will know the standing of organisations and groups in their electorates they will be able to recommend whether a flag should be issued free. The Department of Administrative Services is moving to order supplies of flags in different sizes. It is anticipated that some eligible groups may wish to use their flag only indoors at meetings and functions. A flag smaller in size to the kind flown outdoors would be more suitable in these instances. I should emphasise that one flag only will be provided to each eligible recipient. Requests will be handled in the order they are received and flags forwarded according to the availability of supplies. Following established practice, free issue flags will be provided and replaced on a seven year basis. However, should a flag be damaged because of unusual weather conditions or some other circumstances, a request for a replacement will be considered if it is supported by a member of the Commonwealth Parliament.
The second matter to which I wish to make reference concerns the special recordings the Department of Administrative Services has had made of the national anthem “God save the Queen” and the national tune “Advance Australia Fair” on cassettes. Honourable senators will appreciate that these cassettes are now available for free-issue to those groups currently eligible to receive the free-issue of the national flag. Eligibility for the free issue of cassettes will be expanded from 1 July to equate with that for the national flag. Similarly, all requests should be made through a member of the Commonwealth Parliament.
The other matter I wish to refer to concerns new colour photographs of Her Majesty the Queen. The Queen has given approval for the distribution of new colour photographs taken at Buckingham Palace which show Her Majesty wearing the Insignia of the Order of Australia. Prints of the new photograph will be made available to schools, groups and organisations which will display the photograph in a proper and dignified manner. Requests for a colour photograph should be addressed to the Department of Administrative Services. I have spoken about Government initiatives concerning three matters which identify the Australian people and our nation. These are subjects for which we all share a common respect.
-by leave -I move:
I do not intend to engage in a diatribe as was suggested in relation to Senator Walsh by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) in moving the adjournment of the previous debate. I rather resent that description of what Senator Walsh said previously. The statement which has been put down concerns the greater availability of the flag to various organisations. I believe that
Senator Button would like to say something about this later on. Looking briefly at the statement, I do not welcome the possibility of having added responsibilities in presenting the Australian flag. At the present time that duty is fairly onerous without including a variety of other organisations. I anticipate that many honourable senators will spend most of their time presenting flags to the organisations which are listed here.
I notice that McDonalds and other commercial firms have not been included, although they make free use of the Australian flag. Nevertheless, the list is impressive. I would suggest for the convenience of honourable senators and members of the other place that we should be given at least two dozen flags at a time so that we can present them as we go about our electorates, without our having to make individual applications for these flags. It would mean that we would be able to hand them out with ease wherever we went and take the fullest advantage of the publicity and credit that we would thus gain.
-I am sorry that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) did not see fit to read this important statement. It is possible that he might have found it embarrassing to read because it is a rather extraordinary statement. I would be interested to hear some comment from the Minister at some time about the purpose and the cost of these particular activities. For example, when he was Minister for Administrative Services he was kind enough to send me a cassette of whatever the national anthem is. I am not sure what it is.
– As a senator you ought to be ashamed of yourself.
-Thank you, Senator Walters. I am not sure what it was but he sent me a cassette recording of various songs. I gave it to my youngest child to play and he reported to me that it was totally incomprehensible in terms of quality. I do not know whether the Minister had many complaints about that at the time but the recordings were very bad.
– Maybe it was the recorder.
– Perhaps he can go back to watching television now.
-I appreciate Senator Puplick ‘s concern that he has a miserable life. Perhaps we could get him a free flag to brighten up his life. I really just wanted to make a brief comment about the series of statements of this kind which have emanated from the Government recently. They relate not only to the distribution of flags, cassettes and musical items of one kind or another, which I suppose are intended to encourage some national feeling in Australia, but also they are accompanied by Government sponsorships of a variety of programs which encourage people to work harder, be more diligent and things of that kind. I believe members of the Senate will be familiar with the latest jingle which does relate to that topic and intends that Australians, by virtue of these very cosmetic things, should be encouraged to strive towards a greater national spirit.
– ‘Life. Be in It’ won’t disturb you, of course.
-I think that the ‘Life. Be in It’ campaign has some very fine technical aspects. Norm is a great character by any standards, if that is what the honourable senator is saying. I think a lot of emphasis is being given to these activities and one wonders about the purpose of it all in ideological terms. I put it in terms of ideology. The other matter to which I wish to refer is that I noticed the other day- and I do plead ignorance about this matter- that when we had an official visit from the Prime Minister of Korea the band outside played ‘God Save the Queen’. I am confused about that and I hope the Minister can elucidate.
– It did not; it played the Korean national anthem.
-No, it did not.
– We know you are tone deaf.
– They did not play ‘God Save the Queen ‘ at all.
– I beg your pardon, Senator Davidson. I was there. They played God Save the Queen’ and they then played the Korean national anthem right at the front of this Parliament. As I recall it, it was before and not after lunch that I heard it.
– They would play it for the Governor-General.
- Senator Harradine is an independent senator and clearly has more wisdom on this subject than the rest of us. I certainly heard that, but he informs me that that was just a practice, that it was not the Prime Minister of Korea but was just a public servant. I think people are confused, including myself. I plead guilty. I think people are confused about the nature of various songs that we now have available to us, about the nature of various flags that we now have available to us. I really wonder what sort of money is being spent to encourage these various campaigns which are designed to encourage Australians to fly flags, to listen to these cassettes and to take note of the advertising jingles on television, which really are absurd except from a technical point of view as advertising. I think it is a very cosmetic, Mussolini-type of exercise to spend money as a national Government and as a national Parliament on these sorts of activities without any sort of understanding of the philosophical purpose behind them.
A good society is not created by urging people to work harder or by urging them to emulate the spirit of the pioneers and things of that kind, as the jingles now do. A fit and healthy society is not created by the sort of emphasis which we give to Life. Be In It’ programs. It is very good fun, I know, but there must be serious concern about the philosophical emphasis now being given to these programs. The present statement falls within that category very much. I am serious about this matter. I know that I have been illinformed in some of the things which I have said because I did not know this statement was coming down. I would have been better informed had I known in advance. I think it is a matter which we should discuss in this place at some time in a more serious way. It certainly concerns me. For example, it is a source of great regret to me to see Phillip Adams devoting his very considerable talents to this sort of activity in the context of Australian political and national life. I hope we can have a more informed and serious discussion about it at a later stage. For that reason, I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
-by leave- I was quite surprised at the remarks made by Senator Button. It seemed to me that the remarks reflected an anti-Australasian attitude. I compliment the Government on the action that has been taken in respect of the free issue of the national flag. I think it is about time that we took more interest in establishing some national spirit in Australia. That is something that I have been concerned about for a number of years now. This was brought forcibly to my attention last year when I went overseas to Japan. Throughout that country I saw a demonstration of tremendous nationalism, national spirit and enthusiasm amongst the people to work hard in the interests of their nation. 1 believe this action is a step towards encouraging people in Australia to take a pride in our nation. If we introduce this sort of program in other areas, it will contribute very largely to inspiring people to become prouder of our nation. That is the way I see it. I support the
Government in what it has done because I believe it will encourage pride in our nation.
-by leave- I had intended to speak to the motion that the Senate take note of the statement, but the opportunity did not present itself. That is why I sought leave to speak. I must say at the outset that when speaking about Australian flags, I do not intend this afternoon to raise the issue of the Kingaroy School. But I do raise a few parts of the statement which has been put down. First of all, I would like to find out, through the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney), whether the cassettes and the flags that are made available for distribution to schools are Australian made. I would hope that they would be.
– The Australian Air Force band is on it.
– I think it is a valid question for any honourable senator to ask whether our Australian flags and cassettes that are on distribution to various organisations are, in fact, manufactured in Australia. I am very pleased to see in this statement that the Department of Administrative Services is now to supply flags in different sizes. This matter was brought to my attention recently by a group that wanted to have its flag installed inside a scout hall. It could not fit the normal sized flag in and, therefore, it wanted a smaller flag.
I join my colleague from the other side, Senator Jessop, in deprecating these senseless remarks of some honourable senators who seem to be taking this as a jocular issue. The Australian flag is not a jocular issue. I support a comment that my colleague Senator Georges made a short time ago. Senator Georges said that it should be a practice for honourable members and honourable senators to be given an issue of flags so that when they are moving around they can present them without having to make a written application and then present them later on. I recently made a request along these lines. I visited a remote area of Queensland in which there were a number of small schools and youth organisations. I anticipated before I went that a number of these places could be presented with a flag, so I put in a request to the Department of Education, which at that time had the responsibility of issuing flags, to see whether 1 could take about 12 flags with me. I was told that this was outside the guidelines, and I was not able to do so. I did visit this area and, when I came back, I found I had to make an application for about 10 flags. It would seem to me that the suggestion which
Senator Georges has made, and which I will reiterate, is one that should be acknowledged by the Government. Perhaps in certain circumstances flags can be made available before an application is received from an organisation. I was about to say that as the debate had come back to a level which was not jocular, I should end my remarks. However, judging from the remarks of some honourable senators, the debate has come back to a jocular state, but I have finished my remarks anyway.
Senator CHANEY (Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Education)- by leave- I think that Senator Button has been adequately answered by the various speakers, including Senator Georges, Senator Colston and, from the Government side, Senator Jessop. I know that many honourable senators take the issue of flags and cassettes very seriously indeed. Senator Mcintosh, who is in the chamber now, is one honourable senator who takes the matter seriously. When I was Minister for Administrative Services and since, Senator Mcintosh has spoken to me about the question of flag issues and the issue of cassettes in very positive terms.
Senator Button’s comments reflect the sort of concern which was expressed in the 1940s about the influence of Boy’s Own paper and such things on the attitudes of children. There are some interesting points made which I think at some future time the Senate might be able to debate about the extent to which we should be encouraging nationalism and other such things. I think the statement which I put down on behalf of the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr McLeay) comes in response to the representations of many members of parliament, that they would like to have seen the old rules extended. I suspect that others such as Senator Douglas McClelland, who probably had the conduct of this area at one stage, would have received similar requests from senators and members. If honourable senators look at the list of organisations to which flags are to be issued, they will see that these organisations very properly might acknowledge some sense of nationality and use a flag in a way that all senators and members would think appropriate. The list includes service clubs, welfare organisations, the Red Cross Society, Legacy, homes for the handicapped, church and religious bodies, ethnic organisations and sporting clubs. I would have thought that it was in the national interest that these requests should receive proper attention from the Government and that this symbol of nationalism should be available to these organisations.
page 1821
– I seek leave to amend Business of the Senate, Notice of Motion No. 1 to read as follows:
That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations: The cost accountability of Australian hospital services funded wholly or in part by the Commonwealth.
Leave granted.
Motion (by Senator Rae) agreed to:
That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations: The cost accountability of Australian hospital services funded wholly or in part by the Commonwealth.
page 1821
Motion ( by Senator Chaney ) proposed:
That, unless otherwise ordered, Government Business take precedence of General Business after 8 p.m. this day.
– I do not raise any large objections to this motion because I presume that there has been some agreement between the Whips and the leaders on both sides of the chamber. I point out that General Business matters were due to be debated tonight. In fact, page 3293 of the Notice Paper states that General Business is to take precedence of Government Business after 8 p.m. I think it is important that we do not lose sight of the fact that Thursday nights are the usual time set aside for General Business. Back benchers in this chamber have set aside for them certain ways in which they can raise issues which they think are important. We can speak on the adjournment debate at night and we can speak on first readings of certain money Bills. But if we have something of substance that we wish to move, we have the option of either moving an item of General Business or moving a private member’s Bill. Items of General Business are an important avenue for back benchers to move issues which they think are important.
I suppose I have some direct involvement in the motion that has been moved by Senator Chaney because the first notice of motion on the Notice Paper at the moment is one that I moved on 28 February this year. I am hopeful that it will be discussed before we rise for the winter recess. This is the issue that I wish to pursue when speaking to the motion. I notice that in yesterday’s Hansard the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Carrick, said:
Tomorrow -
That is today-
I will move that Government Business take precedence of General Business after 8 p.m. We may have to consider similar action in the coming weeks also.
It worries me that between now and the winter recess there will not be any time set aside for the debating of General Business. I make the point that even though the Government might be trying to get legislation through this chamber between now and the winter recess, it should consider that the back benchers are interested in pursuing particular courses of action. They are not interested in doing this just to hold up legislation of the Government. They are interested in doing so because they have a genuine interest in the matters. I have a genuine interest in this motion. I have had a great amount of discussions with various organistions throughout Queensland about this motion. These people expect me to move it. As I mentioned to my Whip during the week, they expect me to get a vote on it in this chamber. I just want to make the comment that I do not object to General Business being set aside tonight. But if we set aside General Business between now and the recess and my motion of 28 February this year cannot come on until the Budget session, I will be very disappointed indeed. I ask the Government to give this matter every consideration that it can.
-I support what Senator Colston has said. Let there be no misunderstanding about the effect of this motion if it is passed by the Senate. There may well have been a cosy arrangement made between the Opposition and the Government about Government Business superseding General Business tonight. Senator Colston has mentioned the importance of General Business. On page 3293 of the Notice Paper I have a notice of motion, which is the third one appearing on that page. It reads:
That the Senate calls on the Government to introduce sixmonthly indexation of repatriation and social security benefits, in particular, pensions and family allowances.
If this motion is carried today, the opportunity of debating that motion will not be available to this Senate until the Budget session. That is unacceptable to me. Under the normal course of events on Thursdays, General Business takes precedence of Government Business under the Standing Orders. Under the normal course of events which have been laid down by the Government tonight there would have been General Business, notices of motion. Senator Colston’s motion would have been debated and presumably, Senator Rae’s motion would have been at least partly debated. On Thursday, 24 May, there would have been General Business Orders of the Day. On Thursday, 31 May there would have been General Business, notices of motion again.
This matter was placed on the Notice Paper at a particular stage. Honourable senators might say: ‘Well, why did not you place that particular notice of motion on the Notice Paper in February?’ I did not do so because I foresaw the reaction that that action would have received from Government senators. It would have received the same reaction as Dr Klugman ‘s motion received from the Government in the other place, where Government members said that the motion was premature because a miniBudget would be required to implement its provisions.
I wanted to ensure that this Senate had the opportunity of debating and voting on this very important matter relating to indexation of repatriation and social security benefits, including pensions and family allowances, before the Government formulated the Budget. If this vote is taken and no guarantee is given to me by the Government, the Senate will not have the opportunity of debating and voting on my motion of which I have given notice. Our colleague, Senator Chipp, has a guarantee that he will be able to proceed only to the second reading stage of his proposed Bill. The Government has not given a guarantee to Senator Chipp, as I am informed, that a vote will be taken on his Bill.
– You are correct, senator.
– The Whip confirms what I am saying. Senator Chipp mentioned this matter to me this morning. I do not want to embarrass the Government in any way. My notice of motion simply calls upon the Government, before it formulates the Budget, to take note of the fact that the Senate is of the opinion that it should introduce six-monthly indexation of repatriation and social security benefits and in particular pensions and family allowances. Senator Rae may accede to the request of the Government that Government Business take precedence over General Business tonight. That is his decision.
Senator Colston has made his position clear. He has sought a guarantee from the Government, and I support him in that. In seeking to have the Government withdraw its motion, I offer to limit my speech on my motion to five minutes or less. We all know the principles which surround the proposition that I am putting forward. We have all declared our attitudes on it. I certainly would be happy to see the proposition go to a vote. I am not happy about seeing the rights of individual senators trodden on by the Government, particularly when the Government has not consulted me- it may have consulted its own senators- about this attempt to ride roughshod over my rights and to take advantage of the Standing Orders not to have my motion debated when it is due to be debated.
– I want to say a few words on this matter. I will not unduly delay the Senate. Since I have been a member of this Parliament, I have always protested about and opposed any encroachment upon the rights of individuals and back bench members. Among their few rights is the arrangement one night a week to debate General Business. The Government seems to accept that the Parliament exists for the purposes of government. Of course, it does not. The Parliament exists for the elected representatives. Although an essential part of the operations of the Parliament is to approve or disapprove government legislation, nevertheless the rights of individuals have to be considered and nothing should encroach upon or reduce those rights. The motion that Government Business take precedence over General Business is usually moved at the end of a session. It should not be moved. When General Business is set down for debate, the most insignificant back bencher, if such a term can be used, has just as much right in this place as a Cabinet Minister. Raising matters of general business is part of a back bencher’s duty and he should not be restricted.
I make this plea because Senator Colston and Senator Harradine seemed to grieve because they had items on the Notice Paper which would come up for discussion if Government Business were not given precedence. I have no items listed on the Notice Paper; but that is not the basis upon which I speak on this matter. I am speaking because few opportunities exist for back benchers to be recognised in this Parliament. The opportunities we now have should not be restricted. The Government has the numbers and the motion will be passed. It will not be carried with my support, regardless of the arrangements that have been made. I at least ask the Government to consider whether it is fair that it should monopolise the time of the Parliament.
– Let me make it clear that no arrangements were made between the Whips. I refute what Senator Harradine said about a cosy arrangement.
– I said ‘maybe’. I accept your word.
– There is something a little different about the circumstances of this motion. It has to be connected to the debate on the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Bill which everyone here considers to be important and which has come under very close scrutiny.
– Is that why you are holding it up?
-No. If I may say so, Senator Missen yesterday participated in a careful and responsible way in the debate on the Bill in the Committee stage. It is as much for the honorable senator’s benefit as it is for anybody else that the Bill is to be debated in this way. We have to look at this motion in the light of the importance of the ASIO Bill. It is also important that the House of Representatives debates the Bill. It is possible that the Bill will come back to s in some amended form. The motion has been viewed by the Opposition in that light. I agree with Senator Cavanagh that in normal circumstances great resistance would be offered to the curtailment of discussion on items of general business. No arrangement has been made. It has just been felt that in view of the important debate that is proceeding on the ASIO Bill, we should devote as much time as is possible to it now rather than–
– Who decides that?
– The honourable senator can decide it if he wishes.
– I say no; a private member is more important.
– I can express only my own view on this matter. If we followed normal procedure, we would strenuously oppose the curtailment of the time allowed for General Business. Perhaps I have imposed my view on other honourable senators. I regret that. But I think that most of us would accept the need to return to the debate on the ASIO Bill as soon as possible.
-I rise, not unexpectedly I suppose, to support Senator Harradine ‘s point of view. It seems to me that the matter comes down to one involving the allocation of time to questions of importance. I cannot see that the Government is justified in moving this motion on those grounds. A considerable amount of time has been devoted to what has been referred to as a jocular debate about the national flag this afternoon. The Government obviously could have used its time more profitably.
– The statement was introduced and took one minute. That is all the time the Government took.
– I wonder whether Senator Rae or any other honourable senators who have been in the Senate chamber and in Kings Hall in the last few days, will disagree that Senator Harradine ‘s motion is not of importance to this community. If they do, they are blind and deaf. Of course, it is important. It is vital that the matter be brought up. I know that the Government does not want it debated. There is no doubt about that; the Government has made it abundantly plain. But other people- the citizens of this country- have certainly made it abundantly plain that they would like to see the matter discussed and would like to know what honourable senators will say about it before the Budget framework is decided. I suggest that this matter is of importance. The Government is not moving this motion to save time. I state, with respect to Senator Georges’ view, that I do not think the delaying of the debate on the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Bill for a couple of weeks would matter very much. Subversives will not be jumping down our throats during the next fortnight. We do have a situation–
– You are never here, anyway. You are not even interested in it, are you? You are never here; so what would you know about it?
– I resent that comment from the honourable senator.
– Well, answer it.
– I have spoken on this Bill. I have been present during debates at the Committee stage. Hansard will show that I have spoken. The honourable senator may not have been in the chamber at that time. The honourable senator probably was not because he says that he did not hear me. If he looks at Hansard, he will see my speech. I suggest that this matter is not relevant to what I am discussing.
Government senators interjecting-
- Mr President, if Government senators have quite finished their interjections, may I proceed? The point I was makingand I have yet to have an intelligent reply or response from the Government on this matter- is that the six-monthly indexation of pensions is vital to and of interest to over a million Australians. If I can get a reply to that matter, I will sit down gladly; but I have not yet received a reply. I will resume my seat now, Mr President, in the hope and expectation that I will get a reply from a member of the Government whether that matter is not of importance. If I do not get that reply, we will leave the pensioners and the public of this country to draw the conclusion that they obviously will draw.
– in reply- There have been some odd contributions to this debate and perhaps the last is the one which is the most excusable. I do not think that Senator Mason has sat through many sessions. He would not be aware, as most honourable senators who have spoken would be aware, that it is perfectly usual towards the end of a session for General Business in the Senate to be suspended in favour of Government Business to enable the program to be completed. If Senator Mason were to study the record of the Senate he would find that that has certainly been the case. It has certainly been the case since I have been a senator and I think it goes back to well before that. Indeed, Senator Cavanagh himself conceded that, although he disagrees with that practice, it has been something which has occurred regularly because of the exigencies of Government Business. lam not in a position to give any of the undertakings that were sought by Senator Colston or Senator Harradine. However, I can say to them that the Government is concerned that private members should have an adequate opportunity to bring business before the Senate. I think that all honourable senators would agree that that is not a problem of May 1979: It is a problem which is continually with the Senate in trying to order its business. I will draw the attention of the Government to the particular matters that have been raised in this debate. But honourable senators will be aware- and there is no point in my trying to smooth over the fact- that over the remaining weeks of sittings in this place it will be necessary for the Government to see its program completed and consistent with the operations of the Senate over many years it is likely that the Government will be seeking precedence for its program. I regret that I cannot give any more of an undertaking than to say that the matters which have been raised will be taken into account.
To some extent, of course, honourable senators have this matter in their hands. I think that it would be fair comment to say that we have spent a good deal of time in this Senate on matters of peripheral interest and importance. I say that with the greatest respect to all honourable senators who have spoken. They are entitled to speak on any matter that they wish. In a variety of circumstances, they can rise and get the call. But I do suggest that many of the matters which were raised were matters which were of less importance than the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Bill and less important than the items of General Business which honourable senators are complaining we will not have time to consider tonight.
I noted Senator Mason’s comment about the Government having time to waste. I think that was answered by way of interjection from Senator Rae. As a Minister putting down a statement, I would quite like to read it rather than simply to sit here and listen to Opposition senators speaking on the statement. The statement in question was a matter of interest to honourable senators. That interest was demonstrated by the subsequent debate. I sought leave to incorporate the statement and we used fully 30 seconds to 60 seconds of the Senate’s time to put down that statement. The subsequent speeches by Senator Button and Senator Colston, I think, warranted some government response. To have left the debate simply to those speakers would, I think, have offended a good number of Australian electors who take the situation of the flag and the distribution of it very seriously indeed.
– Are you suggesting that what I said was not serious?
– No, I am sorry, Senator Colston. You were certainly speaking in favourable terms about the issue of the flag. But I think that some of the views raised by Senator Button were views which, although as I said have antecedents which go back a long way, warranted challenge in this place just so that the citizens outside will know that the sorts of views that Senator Button was putting forward are not necessarily the views of the whole of this chamber.
Mr President, I genuinely regret and the Government regrets that in common with previous occasions it is necessary that we should seek to give Government Business precedence over General Business. If honourable senators are genuinely concerned about private member’s business getting a hearing during the balance of this session, I ask them to assist the Government to debate the issues of importance in a prompt and concise manner so that the issues are properly aired in this place as they should be, but time is not unduly wasted, thus preventing us from giving attention to other important matters.
– The question is: ‘That the motion be agreed to’. Those of that opinion say aye, to the contrary no; I think the ayes have it.
– Division!
– There was one voice only. I call the Minister.
– I am sorry, Mr President, but there were two voices.
– I did not hear a second voice.
- Mr President, there was more than–
– Pardon me, but if a division is required honourable senators should let it be known firmly and not say that they think there was a second voice. I call the Minister.
- Mr President, I take a point of order. In accordance with Standing Orders, there was more than one voice against the majority when you called for the ayes and the noes.
Sentor Chaney- You cannot call later, Senator Mason. Senator Mason is not aware that he cannot call after the event.
- Mr President, I am raising a point of order. When you called for the ayes and the noes, there was more than one no. I called for a division in accordance with the Standing Orders.
- Mr President, on the point of order, I submit to you that Senator Harradine did call for a division immediately. Senator Mason, I think, was a shade behind him. But I certainly did hear his voice.
– I did not hear the second voice.
- Mr President, may I, with respect, put it to you- there is some doubt in your mind, obviously- that where such a situation as this has occurred in the past the honourable senator has been given the benefit of the doubt.
– I do not wish to delay the Senate any longer. A division has been called for. The request will be granted. Ring the bells.
The Senate divided. (The President- Senator the Hon. Sir Condor Laucke)
AYES: 31
NOES: 24
Majority……. 7
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
page 1826
Motion (by Senator Chaney) agreed to:
That, unless otherwise ordered, the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till Tuesday. 22 May 1979. at half past two p.m., unless otherwise called together by the President, or, in the event of the President being unavailable owing to illness or other cause, by the Chairman of Committees.
page 1826
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay.
Bill (on motion by Senator Chaney) read a first time.
– I move:
That the Bill be now read a second time. 1 seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows-
The purpose of the Bill now before the Senate is to give effect to the Government’s decision to provide assistance to the manufacture in Australia of self-propelled pedestrian operated rotary cultivators, hoes and tillers. Following advice and recommendation from the Industries Assistance Commission in its interim report No. 190 of 6 December 1978 entitled ‘Certain engines not exceeding 7.46 kW; rotary cultivators; and tractors, having a power of less than 15 kW’, it has been decided to accord assistance by way of a scheme providing for the payment of bounty to eligible Australian manufacturers.
The scheme will operate from 5 February 1979 until implementation by the Government of its decision on the Industries Assistance Commission’s final report which is expected on 6 October 1979.
The rate of bounty recommended by the Industries Assistance Commission was $20 per kilowatt of engine power of the prime mover, which would have provided eligible manufacturers of bountiable machines with a bounty of $45 per unit. Acceptance of the Commission’s recommendations that there be no change in the existing duty on imported components used in the manufacture of rotary cultivators, hoes and tillers and the price disadvantages that are suffered by local manufacturers of these machines against imported machines caused the Government to give careful consideration to the level of bounty assistance recommended. It became apparent that, unless additional assistance was provided, the Australian manufacturer of these machines might be forced out of business, with a consequent reduction in employees in the industry. Accordingly, the Government has decided to increase the rate of bounty payable to $40 per kilowatt of power output of the engine incorporated in the prime mover of a rotary cultivator, hoe or tiller which has an Australian content of not less than 60 per cent and which, during the period to which the Act applies, is manufactured and sold for use in Australia. This will result in payment of bounty to eligible manufacturers at the rate of $90 per unit.
In accordance with the recommendation of the Industries Assistance Commission, the total annual amount of bounty payable is to be limited to $60,000. Such limitation has been imposed because the bounty scheme is a short term measure and present indications are that local production will not reach a level at which this limit will be exceeded. The Government is confident that the limitation on bounty will not inhibit the local manufacturer’s ability to maintain efficient production until a decision is made on the industry’s need for assistance in the long term. The assistance provided by the proposed scheme will have the effect of maintaining employment in the industry while at the same time enabling manufacturers of rotary cultivators, hoes and tillers to keep the prices of their products at levels competitive with those at which imported products are marketed. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.
Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.
page 1827
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay.
Bill (on motion by Senator Chaney) read a first time.
– I move:
That the Bill bc now read a second time. 1 seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows-
Briefly, the purpose of this Bill is to enable the Australian Atomic Energy Commission to borrow moneys from the Commonwealth or elsewhere and to give security and issue securities in respect of borrowings other than from the Commonwealth, to enable the Treasurer to guarantee repayment by the Commission of moneysborrowed other than from the Commonwealthand to provide that where securities are issued by the Commission, repayment is guaranteed by the Commonwealth. The opportunity is also being taken to make a number of technical amendments to some provisions in Part II of the Act which relate to the procedures, powers and operations of the Commission.
On 25 August 1977, the Government announced its policy that development of the Ranger uranium deposit would proceed on the basis of the Memorandum of Understanding between the Whitlam Government and Peko Mines Ltd and the Electrolytic Zinc Company of Australasia Ltd. In this regard, honourable senators will recall that in June last year, the Atomic Energy Act was amended to enable the Australian Atomic Energy Commission to participate on behalf of the Commonwealth in a joint venture with Peko-EZ. They will also recall that on 9 January 1979 the Minister for Trade and Resources (Mr Anthony) signed the agreements and issued an authority under section 41 of the Atomic Energy Act to give effect to the Memorandum of Understanding. These documents were tabled in the Parliament on 20 February this year. In his Budget Speech of 15 August 1978, the Treasurer (Mr Howard) noted that a certain proportion of the Commonwealth’s share of the costs of developing the Ranger uranium deposits would be raised by the Australian Atomic Energy Commission through borrowings.
The existing provisions in section 27 of the Atomic Energy Act are inadequate to enable the Australian Atomic Energy Commission to borrow moneys on the semi-government market. Specifically the provisions do not authorise the Treasurer to guarantee borrowings by the Commission, and without such a guarantee the Commission would be unable to borrow within the maximum rates agreed by Loan Council for semi-government borrowings. The provisions of the Bill are designed to provide power for the Commission to issue public securities and to provide guarantee powers thereto. Clause 6 of the Bill amends a number of financial provisions of the existing Act. In relation to borrowings by the Commission the amendments, which are in line with borrowing powers of other Commonwealth authorities, provide that the Commission may borrow moneys from the Commonwealth or elsewhere and may give security and issue securities in respect of borrowings. New section 30 sub-sections (5) and (6) enable the Treasurer to guarantee repayment of such borrowings and payment of interest. Provision is also included in new section 28 sub-section (2) for investment of moneys of the Commission not immediately required for the purposes of the Commission.
Division 3 of the Act concerning staff of the Commission is repealed by the Bill and replaced with staffing provisions to bring the Act into line with more recent provisions applying to the staff of statutory authorities. These provisions retain the co-ordinating role of the Public Service Board in relation to terms and conditions of staff employed by the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. In addition to amendments to the borrowing powers of the Commission which, as mentioned earlier, are contained in clause 6 of the Bill, that clause also makes technical amendments to a number of financial provisions of the existing Act concerning payment to the Commission of moneys appropriated by Parliament, use of bank accounts, application of moneys by the Commission, preparation of estimates, keeping of accounts and audit of accounts. Section 30B provides for an increase in the value of contracts, from $50,000 to $200,000 above which ministerial approval is required. Other technical amendments will be explained as necessary in the Committee stage. I commend the Bill to the Senate.
Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.
page 1828
– I present a report from the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs on reforming the law.
Ordered that the report be printed
– by leave- I move:
By resolution of the Senate on 2 1 April 1 977, the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee was, at its own request, given the task of inquiring into the matter of processing law reform. In doing this, the Committee was to have particular reference to:
Let me state at the outset that the Committee has been very much aware of the importance of this inquiry and of the need to provide a considered and constructive set of proposals in its report. There has been some delay in the tabling of the report. This has been the result of several factors, including changes in the Committee’s membership following the 1977 election, the pressure of other important references and a decision in October last year to seek further submissions on this reference in order to provide an opportunity for wider participation in our deliberations. Although the delay is regrettable, I believe the outcome is a report containing worthwhile proposals which, if adopted, will ensure a more coherent and systematic method of achieving necessary reforms in the law.
The first area of the Committee’s inquiry was concerned with ensuring the implementation of proposals for law reform put forward by the Australian Law Reform Commission. The Committee is firmly of the opinion that recommendations for law reform should be prepared with a view to their ultimate legislative enactment. Accordingly, we feel that it is a legitimate part of the Law Reform Commission’s function to inform itself in the manner and to the extent it thinks necessary or appropriate by consulting with government and opposition politicians and interested community groups as a means of assessing the likely acceptability of its proposals to government and Parliament. Government and opposition parties should fully co-operate with the Commission in any steps it may take to inform itself in this way.
Equally important is the need to ensure the bureaucratic acceptability of law reform proposals and to avoid wasteful duplication of effort by departments and the Commission. To this end we recommend full consultation between the Law Reform Commission and all departments with an interest in the subject area of the Commission reference before the completion of the Commission report, so as to minimise the likelihood of duplication of effort and adverse comment by departments reviewing the finished product. Furthermore, it is the Committee’s view that, except in circumstances of special urgency, law reform initiatives by departments which may duplicate matters referred to the Commission should be delayed until the considered recommendations of the Commission become available.
Another factor considered by the Committee with respect to implementation of law reform proposals was the continuation of the practice of appending draft legislation to reports of the Australian Law Reform Commission. It is our firm view that this practice is of great value as a means not only of concentrating the minds of the Law Reform Commissioners upon the need to solve specific problems and in evaluating whether the Commission’s proposals do in fact solve those problems, but also in enabling the Commissioners to meet objections which might arise because of the practical ramifications of the implementation of a specific proposal. In the light of this we have made certain recommendations which, in our view, are necessary to ensure continued provision of scarce drafting resources to the Commission.
Having made recommendations as to how we feel law reform proposals should be made capable of implementation, we then recommended what is, in our view, the most appropriate method of assisting in the process of implementation of these proposals into law. This would involve the immediate referral of all Australian Law Reform Commission reports, after tabling in the Parliament, to an appropriate parliamentary committee. That committee would consider and report promptly to the Parliament whether the legislation proposed by the Commission should be enacted unaltered, or subject to specified amendments. During its deliberations, the committee should liaise closely with the Commission to ensure full understanding of its proposals, an appreciation of why alternative proposals may have been rejected and that any proposed amendments can be accommodated within the framwork of the Commission’s Bill. Under this procedure, the responsible Minister should be obliged, as with other parliamentary committee reports, to respond within six months of the Committee’s reporting, informing the Parliament of the Government’s intention regarding the Commission proposals. The committee to whom a Commission report is referred should have the responsibility of maintaining a general watching brief over the progress of that report, taking such action as it considers desirable to prompt the introduction and passage of legislation to give it effect.
The Committee’s second area of investigation was the collection and assessment of law reform proposals. Our findings and recommendations on this aspect of the inquiry can be briefly stated. We recommend that the Government make sufficient funds available to the Australian Law Reform Commission to enable it to provide a clearing-house for the collection and dissemination throughout Australia of the many suggestions, both formal and informal, for law reform. In exercising this function, we recommend that the Commission compile a register of law reform suggestions based upon material appearing in the law reports, periodical literature, parliamentary reports and papers and communicated by interested organisations and individuals. Part of this dissemination process by the Commission should include, we recommend, an annual report to the Parliament of significant suggestions for reform which have come to the Commission’s notice.
Thirdly, the Committee concerned itself with the co-ordination of the work of law reform. This matter of co-ordination has two aspects: firstly, co-ordination in exchanging information and research; and secondly, the more difficult area of co-ordination of legislation- particularly legislation related to uniform law reform. The first aspect can be dealt with, in the Committee’s view, by ensuring the provision of sufficient funds to enable the continued publication of existing periodical literature of the Commission as a means of assisting in co-ordination and exchange of information and research, and by continued funding of the Australian Law Reform Agencies Conference. Our report makes recommendations to that effect. We also urge that various law reform agencies be encouraged, wherever practicable, to engage in joint projects, including the joint commissioning of independent research studies, in order to minimise the duplication of research and drafting effort. As part of this process of co-operation, we recommend the positive encouragement of mobility and exchange within and between law reform agencies.
The question of co-ordination of uniform legislation between the several jurisdictions within Australia is a vexed one. In our report we examine in some detail the options which could be followed in order to achieve satisfactory machinery for the implementation of uniform laws in those areas where the present lack of uniformity has created a significant practical problem. Among the most significant of these areas are: Commercial law generally; defamation law and other laws affecting the media; family lawoutside Commonwealth jurisdiction- and other laws affecting personal status; and road traffic, carrier’s and innkeeper’s liability and other laws affecting travel and tourism.
Our major recommendation here is that the Commonwealth Government seek to ensure the adoption by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General of the 1975 resolution of the Australian Law Reform Agencies Conference. That resolution recommended a procedure whereby the law reform agencies, acting in concert, could suggest to the Standing Committee subjects considered appropriate for uniform laws which could then be assigned to one or more of the agencies on a co-operative basis for investigation and the formulation of draft uniform legislation. In our view, adoption of this recommendation would confer upon the agencies a significant consultative role in the initiation and development of proposals for uniform law reform. Linked to this are our further recommendations that measures be taken to establish an efficient permanent secretariat for the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General and that the Standing Committee’s research requirements be met if possible, by employing the resources of the existing law reform agencies or, as a less satisfactory alternative, by the addition of expert researchers to the Committee’s permanent secretariat.
I wish to stress once more the importance which the Committee attaches to this report. There are limited resources available for law reform. They must be spent to achieve maximum effect. The various law reform agencies serve a valuable function in areas which, at first glance, may seem unexciting and, indeed, unimportant. Yet their role is vital in keeping our laws abreast of our changing social needs. If this role is not to be ineffective, steps must be taken to see that their reform proposals are properly considered, co-ordinated and, ultimately, implemented in legislative form. The Committee believes that its recommendations go a long way towards this goal.
In compiling its report, the Committee has been assisted by Mr John Goldring, college fellow in law at the Canberra College of Advanced Education. I wish also to mention the contribution made by Senator Evans, whose specialist knowledge in the area of law reform has been especially valuable to the Committee on this reference. Finally, I should mention the important contribution of the former Secretary to the Committee, Mr Malcolm Starr, who recently transferred to another area of duty.
– I am indebted to Senator Missen for his kind reference, which is particularly welcome in the light of the sniping and snarling which seems to have been going on between the two of us in other contexts in the last few days. This report entitled Reforming the Law ‘ is indeed an important one. I hope that the Parliament and the Government will give it close and careful attention. It concerns itself with the whole question of the machinery of law reform in Australia. It embodies 25 separate explicit recommendations directed, as Senator Missen said, to three distinct subject areas: Firstly, the implementation of the reports of the Australian Law Reform Commission; secondly, the collection and assessment of suggestions for law reform, wherever they may arise; and thirdly, the very difficult question of the coordination of the work of law reform as between the many different agencies around the country which are responsible for it.
Without by any means canvassing at any length the substance of the report as a whole, let me however indicate briefly what are the most important aspects of the report under each of those three heads. As to the implementation of the reports of the Australian Law Reform Commission, the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs has noted that the Commission has now produced six major reports since its establishment in early 1975, only two of which have so far in fact been implemented- and those two only in the Australian Capital Territory. The report on criminal investigation produced in 1975 is one of those which regrettably has still not seen the light of legislative day. The failure to implement reports of the Commission has not yet reached, it must be conceded, the alarming dimensions which have been experienced in this respect in a number of other jurisdictions in Australia; nonetheless the Committee believes it to be important that the Executive should be under some institutional pressure both to make up its mind promptly as to what it proposes to do about Commission reports and then actually to do it.
After considering a variety of suggested alternative forms of institutional machinery the Committee has come down on the side of establishing a formal system whereby all reports from the Commission when tabled are immediately referred for scrutiny and report to an appropriate parliamentary committee, which committee would then exercise not only the function of reporting to the Parliament on its attitudes and reactions to the report but also a general watching brief over the subsequent progress of the proposals. In particular what would be accomplished by this would be to lock in, as it were, the reports of the Commission into the procedure we presently have whereby the Executive is positively obliged to respond to committee proposals within six months of their being made.
The only other thing I wish to mention under this head about implementing Law Reform Commission proposals is that in the report we suggest in addition a variety of consultative arrangements which should take place involving both departmental officials and the political wing of government in order to ensure that both the departmental and political attitudes are fully taken into account in the generation of law reform proposals and that we avoid that endless second guessing, that dogged reinventing of the wheel as the report puts it, which has so often been a characteristic of the treatment of Law Reform agency reports after they have actually been put down, with the result that the expertise and time that have been spent by the law reform agency are not given their full weight and there is an endless process of reconsideration by various officials, Ministers and so on of the reports thus produced.
Secondly, there is the question of the collection and assessment of law reform proposals and suggestions that are produced, in particular by judges, lawyers, newspapers, statutory authorities, royal commissions and many other persons and bodies in the community other than those I have mentioned, but particularly those I have mentioned. These persons and bodies are constantly making various suggestions for the reform of the law both in State and in Federal jurisdictions. Regrettably, these suggestions tend to disappear completly from sight once made simply because there is no systematic machinery for bringing those suggestions to the attention of the appropriate authorities. The basic proposal in our report is that the Australian Law Reform Commission should assume an extended clearing house function in this respect, a function which it presently performs quite admirably in respect of official reports of all law reform agencies; it does collect, digest and disseminate them but, in addition, we are suggesting it should establish a national register of law reform suggestions.
It is to be noted in respect of this matter of the collection of the proposals for law reform that the report contains some quite explicit criticism of the attitude of legal academics- to which class it might be appreciated I once belonged- for their failure to co-operate in the preparation, in addition, of a register of current legal research. The criticism in the report is to the effect that legal academics are not paid out of the public purse either to be lazy or prima donnas in respect of their production of research and that they ought to be- I fully agree with the Committee’s recommendations in this respect- prepared to publish an account or allow the publication of an account of research currently under way in order to facilitate the process of law reform in this country.
Finally, the report addresses itself to the difficult question of the co-ordination of the work of law reform among the 1 1 different agencies which are presently established in the various States and Territories and at the Commonwealth level around the country. Regrettably it has been the case that with the proliferation of law reform activity in recent years, there has been, nonetheless, a quite considerable and unnecessary duplication of effort and wastage of resources as between those respective agencies very often doing the same sort of thing. The report documents a good degree of duplication and wastage. It makes a number of suggestions- which I will not record in detail as Senator Missen has already done so to some extent- which will go to the improvement of co-ordination in the sense of exchanging information and research.
However, in talking about co-ordination, the main focus of the report is directed to the question of uniform law reform. Uniformity in our laws is not an end in itself, but there are very many particular areas of the law identified in our report, and to some extent again summarised in what Senator Missen has just said, where it has long been appreciated and agreed by lawyers of all political colours that there is a very strong case for such uniformity. Regretably, in Australia we just had no machinery anything like as sophisticated as the uniformity machinery which has been established and has long existed in the United States and Canada- two similar federal systems. The report points out that there is very much to be learnt from those jurisdictions.
The main focus of the report in this respect- I hope the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) will take particular notice of this- is on the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. As it is presently constructed, and as it has operated, despite the initial promise which that Committee demonstrated in its activity in the early sixties, it has shown itself to be quite incapable in recent years- in the view of our Committee- of doing anything useful or constructive in the area of uniform law reform. In particular, the Committee report is highly critical- as Senator Missen indicated more politely- of the Standing Committee’s failure to adopt the proposals put to it by the Conference of Australian Law Reform Agencies in 1975. Had that proposal been adopted, it would have rationalised the procedures for formulating and developing uniform law reform proposals without in any way derogating from the political responsibility for implementing such proposals, which it is readily acknowledged must remain with the political arms of government.
On behalf of the Committee, I hope that the Government will give detailed consideration to the many carefully thought-out proposals in the report; further, that the Government will provide an early opportunity for a full scale parliamentary debate of the report and its recommendations. I seek leave to continue my remarks.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
page 1831
– I bring up the report of Estimates Committee A on the particulars of proposed additional expenditure for the year 1978-79, together with the Hansard record of the Committee ‘s proceedings.
Ordered that the report be printed.
page 1832
– I bring up the report of Estimates Committee B on the particulars of proposed additional expenditure for the year 1978-79, together with the Hansard record of the Committee’s proceedings.
Ordered that the report be printed.
page 1832
-I bring up the report of Estimates Committee C on the particulars of proposed additional expenditure for the year 1978-79, together with the Hansard record of the Committee’s proceedings.
Ordered that the report be printed.
page 1832
-I bring up the report of Estimates Committee D on the particulars of proposed additional expenditure for the year 1978-79, together with the Hansard record of the Committee’s proceedings.
Ordered that the report be printed.
page 1832
-I bring up the report of Estimates Committee E on the particulars of proposed additional expenditure for the year 1978-79, together with the Hansard record of the Committee’s proceedings.
Ordered that the report be printed.
page 1832
-I bring up the report of Estimates Committee F on the particulars of proposed additional expenditure for the year 1978-79, together with the Hansard record of the Committee ‘s proceedings.
Ordered that the report be printed.
page 1832
– I present the ninth report of the Publications Committee.
Report- by leave- adopted.
page 1832
page 1832
In Committee
Australian Security Intelligence Organization Bill 1979
Consideration resumed from 9 May.
Clause 37.
– The Committee is at present considering clause 37 and two amendments moved thereto by Senator Evans.
– I understand that the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) indicated his attitude in relation to the amendments which I moved. However he was intending to consider overnight some points raised by Senators Missen and Puplick and said that he would advise the Senate accordingly. We await his reply with interest.
– There are no other amendments before the Committee. Senators Puplick and Missen had raised a matter but had not moved any amendments. I indicated, it is true, that I would give consideration to their suggestion. I have done so, to some extent, but the suggestion made to me was that I consider an amendment to substitute the words ‘President of the Tribunal ‘ for the words ‘Attorney-General ‘ in relation to the exercise of the power under this clause. I am not in a position to agree to that suggestion. I will give it further consideration. If the Government believes that there is any merit in it, we could agree to an amendment being made during the passage of the legislation through another place. At this stage, the Government is of the view that the clause should stand as printed.
Amendments negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 38.
– I move:
The addition of these words will ensure that prescribed administrative action cannot be based on an adverse or qualified security assessment made before the commencement of the Act. Thus, where the commencement of the Act action is being taken or is proposed to be taken by the Department on the basis of a pre-Act, adverse assessment a further assessment will need to be sought from the Australian Security Intelligence Organization after the Act comes into operation. Of course, this new assessment will then carry with it the appeal rights. This amendment simply makes sure that that is the case. It is intended that it should be the case and this amendment makes sure of that.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Proposed new clause 38a.
Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral (4.0)- I move:
I moved consequential amendments to clause 34 last night. The objective of this clause has already been explained fairly well in the debate that ensued on clause 34. I do not intend to add anything further to that. I note that Senator Evans is proposing an amendment to this new clause. Perhaps the debate could be confined to that small additional point.
-I move:
The Opposition is indebted to the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Durack) to the extent that he has gone away and brought back a proposal which does something to give a right of appeal in respect of communications from the Australian Security Intelligence Organization in the form of character of security assessments which have the effect of prejudicing people in the State arena. The Opposition’s concern was that as the Bill was originally drafted it extended only to security assessments that operated, as it were, in the Commonwealth arena. The Opposition was strenuously insisting earlier in this debate that any form of communication of information to a State authority which could result in an individual being prejudiced should give rise to a right of appeal. The way in which we originally argued it and were defeated was on the basis of the amendment moved by Senator Cavanagh, that no such information should be communicated except on the condition that the State to which it was communicated had an effective appeal mechanism of its own. The Attorney has brought back a proposal which produces or endeavours to produce a similar result but employs a different mechanism. The mechanism it employs is a requirement that any communication of information by ASIO which operated in this way must be communicated in the first instance through a Commonwealth authority, which communication, in the first instance, to a Commonwealth authority will obviously bring into play the appeal mechanisms which are proposed at the Commonwealth level. To the extent that that does establish some form of appeal machinery that operates in this area, we do not oppose it. What we are worried about, however, and what this amendment is aimed at correcting, is what we regard as an excessive limitation of scope of this proposal as it now comes before us. The clause on which we focus to move an amendment is sub-clause 2 (a) of the proposed new section which states:
The organization shall not communicate directly to a State or an authority of a State, whether in the form of assessment or otherwise, any information, recommendation, opinion or advice concerning a person which the Organization knows is intended or likely to be used by the State or an authority of the State in considering prescribed administrative action in relation to that person;
So the Organization is only prohibited from communicating directly, as distinct from through Commonwealth authority channels, information which it knows will be used by a State authority in adopting prejudicial action or which it believes is likely to be so used. We say that that requirement of subjective knowledge about the actual certainty of it being used, or the likelihood of it being used narrows the scope of this clause too much. We argue the substitution for the word likely’ as it appears of the word ‘capable’. It would then provide that information which the Organization knows is intended to be used by the State or which is capable of being used by the State in producing prejudicial action should be communicated through a Commonwealth authority in such a way as to bring into play the existing mechanism at the Commonwealth level.
The force and effect of our amendment can be appreciated from what I have said. It is simply aimed at broadening the range or scope of information which must be communicated to State authorities in a particular way, namely, through a Commonwealth authority in order to bring into play the appeal mechanism. The point which the Opposition is making is consistent with the point which we have made continuously throughout this debate that if information is to be communicated- we acknowledge the fact that there are occasions on which it will be necessary to do so- and if that information is likely to be or is capable of being used in such a way as to prejudice any individual, the individual who is so prejudiced must have rights of appeal. It is only on those conditions, with the existence of a right to appeal, that we are even remotely happy about the existence of that power of communication. The Opposition is proposing a small amendment. We suggest that it is not one which in any way will create administrative or practical problems in the administration of the Bill. It just expands the scope of this clause in a way which brings it within a wider range of information than is presently encompassed and accordingly allows a wider number of people to have rights of appeal than those presently provided for.
– The Government cannot accept the amendment moved by Senator Evans. Although it is a small amendment we are concerned that it would have a major effect on the ability of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization to communicate information to a State or an authority of a State. It could well minimise the value of ASIO’s intelligence in many cases. The provisions in this amendment prohibit the Organization from communicating directly to a State authority or an authority of a State, whether in the form of an assessment or otherwise, any information, recommendation, opinion or advice concerning a person who, the organisation knows, is likely to be used by that State or authority in considering prescribed administrative action. We have already discussed the effect that this would have.
If the amendment, as moved by Senator Evans, was agreed to the Organization would be prohibited from communicating to a State, or an authority of a State- which would primarily be the police force of a State- any information which the Organization knows is capable of being used- by the authority of a State. This could, of course, apply to information passed to a police force of a State concerning a person who may be engaged, or is likely to be engaged, in subversive or terrorist activity, sabotage, espionage or anything else which comes within the powers of the Organization. Even though the Organization is passing the information for that purpose and not for any purpose of vetting the person for a prescribed administrative action, that type of information would be capable of being used for that purpose, if it were passed within the State organisation, for example, in relation to a person ‘s application for a position. I appreciate that that could happen under the clause as it stands. Nevertheless, I believe that on balance it would be a serious matter to restrict the Organization in its ability to pass information to the State for these other purposes. As that information is being passed for purposes quite unrelated to prescribed administrative action, it seems to me that the proposed amendment could have serious consequences on the Organization’s ability to deal with this type of information. We believe that the restriction on the Organization in its communications with the State should be limited to the type of information which it knows is likely to be used for prescribed administrative action.
Amendment to proposed new clause negatived.
Proposed new clause agreed to.
Clause 39 (Establishment of Tribunal).
– Although much has been said in the debate on earlier clauses of this Bill, I believe that the real litmus test will come when we see how effective this apparatus is in dealing with various cases. I suppose that all honourable senators have read about the history of Harry Bridges and the ordeal which he went through before he obtained citizenship of the United States of America. We know of the unsavoury incidents which occurred in the 1920s concerning Johnson and Walsh in Australia. It is on that basis that I have a suggestion to make to the Minister.
I quote from a 1974 Law Society Journal of Canada which outlines the apparatus for dealing with citizenship matters there. Canada has a nine-man board, of whom one-third is legal people. When dealing with such problems, the board splits up into three-man units, one operating at Toronto, one at Montreal and the other at Quebec. It will be admitted that in every State of the Commonwealth there are quite a number of people, whether they be Commonwealth employees, people on the fringe, as Senator Elstob described them or ethnic people whose applications for citizenship have been delayed or denied. As a first step, Canada’s concept ought to be adopted in Australia. I make it perfectly clear that it is true that the Canadian apparatus encompasses immigration matters outside actual citizenship determinations. The Canadian tribunal deals with all forms of deportations and matters which are dealt with in some instance by our Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Bearing in mind the needs of our continent, I believe that a tribunal made up of a president and the two nonpresidential members is too limited.
I take this argument a little further. I have harped on the point that there will be people from various ethnic communities seeking justice. Canada, like Australia, has a big ethnic community content. I have spoken to the Canadian Congress of Labour which favours its large panel structure. It has honest differences of opinion with militant people, on their own ethnic causes and trade union causes, who sometimes have to go through an experience similar to Gethsemane to gain citizenship. That is the point on which I base my argument. I make an appeal to the Minister. The appointment to the proposed security appeals tribunal of a non-presidential member from a major ethnic community would be welcomed if there were an appeal from a member of that ethnic group. That is very good if it is an appeal from that ethnic group. I would like to believe that in a nine-man committee there would be people with a fair amount of expertise in the cross currents that are present in all major ethnic communities. I believe that people such as longstanding trade unionists like Senator Cavanagh would agree with me that, to take an extreme case, we could appoint to the committee a person who purports to be competent to deal with a trade unionist who had been denied promotion, or perhaps a migrant trade unionist without Australian citizenship who had suffered an excessively severe ASIO evaluation, yet if Bob Hawke were asked whether the Australian Council of Trade Unions could find a suitable appointee, I doubt that he would get somebody competent to do the job. A person familiar with trade unionism in Melbourne and Sydney would not necessarily know whether a person in the Pilbara area had been a thorn in the side of the mining companies and be able to give a proper evaluation, hence the need for a large panel.
I emphasise this point again and again. Whilst we are setting up a centralised tribunal system, this present Government knows that it never tried to centralise trade union training schools; it followed the Clyde Cameron concept of regional organisation. I know that we are discussing security and not some of the other things which I have mentioned, but I do emphasise again and again that the Attorney-General was rather silent in his second reading speech on the mechanics of this particular tribunal. I think the tribunal will be the real crux of the operation. I can say from my files that as soon as the tribunal has been established there will be a Portuguese husband and wife, and also a Cypriot and a Palestinian who certainly will be applying to the tribunal. I sought information before Estimates Committee C on whether there had been any long range planning with the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs on how this tribunal would operate. I was informed by the Department that it did not know. That may be a good thing because I do not want an appeal from Caesar to Caesar. A person on the tribunal may have dealt with immigration and ethnic affairs people and could have been party to decisions that were made on criteria to be applied on questions of citizenship. A completely new review of such situations would be needed.
- Senator, who do you suggest should comprise the tribunal?
– I would like to see a broad nine-man tribunal, three people from the legal fraternity and the other six from other occupations. I know that in New South Wales when we were dealing with the housing commission applicants, in order to obtain a proper citizenship review we would have somebody from the Country Womens Association, somebody from a major trade union in that area, and that general type of representation. In a situation where a militant Italian has a problem regarding citizenship, a Greek member of the tribunal, who may be an excellent man in the Greek commmunity would not be familiar with the ebbs and flows of the Italian community. I just pick out those two major groups to give an example. Over the years, Australia and Canada have constantly exchanged immigration procedures and concepts. The numbers system which, with revisions, we have in operation at present is part of the system that Canada has tried.
I would simply say to the Minister that this is an area on which he did not say much in his second reading speech. I commend the examples to which I have pointed about the system operating in Montreal and Quebec because 1 would not like to feel that a person is unduly delayed by justice. As a matter of fact, Senator Elstob mentioned to me some time ago that he went up into the opal fields and a man said to him: ‘I applied for citizenship two or three years ago and I never heard anything’. This could have been due to the fact that the fellow concerned had had a turbulent career, either in the land of his birth or here in Australia and whose application was marked hold’. There are numerous people in that category.
Having looked at the whole situation, 1 believe that in this whole area the Government holds all the aces. If it chooses three legal people, one of whom would be the chairman, I think it could be a little more flexible in the other people who are put on the tribunal. There is also another danger which I think is important. If the Minister has the idea of appointing one of the top men of the ACTU presidium- again I have endorsement from Senator Cavanagh- I would remind him that they are busy men and cannot always specialise or give the time that is needed. I believe the more we broaden this tribunal with a composition of nine men or women the more we will have an effective tribunal. I suppose I could do no more than to say when we have this number on the Arbitration Commission bench we certainly have a good mix of conciliation commissioners and judges. They do not always give the decision that I want but, on the other hand, I suppose the employers feel that it does not always go their way. Having said that, I think 1 can give numerous precedents that justify the suggestion that the proposed base or limitation of three members of the tribunal should be expanded to nine.
– This tribunal is to deal simply with appeals against a security assessment which is relevant to action described as prescribed administrative action. I think, from the points that Senator Mulvihill has made, he is concerned that any action of that kind would be in the performance of any powers or functions under the Migration Act, the Citizenship Act or the Passport Act. From the examples he has given, I take it that that is what he is concerned with. The tribunal is not going to be concerned with a general review of the exercise of a power to grant citizenship or not grant a passport, but will be concerned simply with that element; that is, if there is a security assessment which is an element in that decision, the appeal will be in relation simply to that security assessment. I mention that because I do not know about this nine-man tribunal in Canada that Senator Mulvihill was talking about. I rather fancied from the documents that Senator Mulvihill handed to me that it was dealing with the whole question of whether a person ought to be deported or granted citizenship. That was really a larger issue than the one we are concerned with in the Security Appeals Tribunal.
As proposed, the tribunal is to be a three-man tribunal presided over by a judge. The qualifications are set out. The chairman may be a judge or, I think, a retired judge- a judge of a State or a Federal court. Of the two other members of the tribunal, known as the non-presidential members, one person would be in what is called the general category’ and would be appointed on the basis of his standing and reputation in the community. The second person would be appointed in the special category. His appointment would depend on the nature of the proceedings. If the tribunal were concerned with a person who was appointed to the Public Service, he would be a former member of the Australian Public Service. If the appeal concerned a migrant matter- I am reading from clause 43(5)- he would be a member of the community with knowledge of or experience in the needs and concerns of persons who have been immigrants. If the person concerned was an employee of a Commonwealth contractor, it would be a person with experience in employment under Commonwealth contractors.
I think one point that Senator Mulvihill was concerned about was that if it were a case of dealing with a member of a particular ethnic community, he would want to have somebody from that community who would understand the position better. That would be possible. The third member will not be confined to just one person. There will be a panel of people from whom would be selected a person who was appropriate to deal with the particular appellant before the tribunal.
– You would have six reserves to put in in an emergency?
– The number of reserves are not limited here. They could be any number. We could well have a panel of more than nine people. All we are saying is that the constitution of any one tribunal is limited to three people. Presumably it will have only one presidential member, but a large number of people could be on a panel from which people could be drawn for appointment as non-presidential members as required. To fill the special categories there would be a number of public servants, defence people, representatives of ethnic communities and Commonwealth contractors. We have not proceeded as yet to draw up lists of names, but that is the way in which we broadly intend to set up the Tribunal.
– I wish to take the matter a little further. I wish to warn the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) of some of the minefields that he might run into. I take a hypothetical case.The membership of the Australian Postal and Telecommunications Union at their mail exchange in Sydney would be very cosmopolitan. We know that permanent appointment to half of the positions in the Public Service is contingent on possession of Australian citizenship. A Palestinian, for example, may be denied permanency until he is granted Australian citizenship. This would not be an industrial matter for the union, but it would argue that the man would be entitled to permanency. Of the three people to be appointed to the Security Appeals Tribunal the logical person to make the decision in this case would be somebody from the Middle East communities, say, in Sydney. The difficulty could be compounded if the Palestinian has been militant on the floor of the mail exchange. A whole host of matters such as this will have to be considered. This is why I would like to see the maximum possible representation on the Tribunal, from representation of the trade union to representation of the ethnic communities.
The Minister will be aware that last year I took out some statistics on staff appointments to the Australian Wine Board, the Australian Wheat Board and various other Government instrumentalities. Appointment to the staff of well over half of these bodies is dependent on Australian citizenship. I am not saying it is wrong that people do not have Australian citizenship but I would like to feel that if a person without Australian citizenship runs into a barrier there is a speedy review of his case so he knows where he stands.
I give another example. I think of a Portuguese who is working at Garden Island dockyard as a gardener. I wonder what would happen if he wanted to go into a position in another area of the dockyard. Latin Americans in a similar situation have come to me in the past and obviously my assessment of them must have been accepted by the Australian Security Intelligence Organization, which shows how objective I was. Some of these people went on to more work in parts of the dockyard with a higher security grading. This Portuguese chap cannot get promotion until his citizenship is cleared up. I point out how complex this matter is. We are told that it will never happen again, but the problem will be resolved only when these cases are dealt with fairly.
The Attorney-General will be aware of the Dreyfus affair. I mention also the case of Ivan Kosovich, who came to Australia from Yugoslavia in the 1920s. As a young man he worked on the Kalgoorlie goldfields in the 1 930s. Mr Oliver would agree with me when I say that the Australian Workers Union had a policy under which very few migrants went underground. The Yugoslavs were chopping down the gum trees for pit props. Ivan Kosovich led a successful internal upheaval in the goldfields branch of the AWU. He won the day. I am well ahead of the officers alongside the Minister. At that time Ivan Kosovich joined the Communist Party. He left it at the time of the Tito-Stalin schism and although he had a magnificent record of assisting people in the Yugoslav community he was still held not to be a good potential Australian in 1966 when I came to this Parliament. Arthur Calwell and I saw the Minister for Immigration and Ivan Kosovich gained citizenship. I can assure honourable senators- a man with an alert brain like Senator Puplick would know- that people who adopted an anti-Stalin line, even though they were militant trade unionists, were called by the Communist Party lackeys of the Yanks. This was an extreme situation where this man got the worst of the two worlds. Ivan Kosovich waited a long while for citizenship. That is why I am being so penetrating now and finding out whether this machine that we are creating will avoid the situation in which people like Ivan Kosovich have to wait an unnecessarily long time for citizenship.
– I can only reiterate what I said before, which is that two different questions arise in granting citizenship to any person, whether he be Mr Kosovich or anybody else. If a security assessment is made there will be a right of appeal to the Security Appeals Tribunal. Of course, a Minister of the Crown decides whether he will grant citizenship. There could be other questions not relevant to the security aspect we are dealing with now. The honourable senator is quite right. The security aspect is probably one of the most important considerations. I do not imagine for one moment that we will not be moving into some minefields in this area, but if I feel I am getting into one not only will I rely on my officers but also I might call for the aid of Senator Mulvihill.
– I wish to add a final postscript to this dialogue. 1 take it that in matters relating to trade unions or the Public Service the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Durack) has in mind seeking the assistance of people who have had trade union or Public Service membership. Is that what the Minister has in mind?
– Former members, yes.
– Thank you.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 40 (Qualification of presidential members).
– I wish to move an amendment to take up amendment No. 16 foreshadowed by the Opposition. I am advised that purely for reasons of draftsmanship the proper place to insert an amendment is clause 40. Accordingly, I move:
– I wish to make two comments. I appreciate the way in which the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) has taken up the proposal that was originally circulated in the name of the Opposition because I think that it will provide an important strengthening of the Bill. As a person who makes no pretence to the necessary extensive legal training to be able to interpret statutes with the facility of Senators Missen and Evans, I wish to clear in my mind the meaning of proposed new clause 40 ( 1 ), which states:
A person shall not be appointed as a presidential member unless he is or has been a Judge of a court . . .
I also wish to raise a question in relation to proposed new clause 40 (2), which states:
A person who . . . has been the Director-General or an . . . employee . . . shall not be appointed as a member of the Tribunal.
I take it that, in fact, that also means that a judge who has been Director-General shall not be appointed as a presidential member and that the clause is to be read in that fashion. Therefore, 1 take it that there is no confusion that a person who has been a judge and also Director-General cannot become a presidential member.
I make my other point very deliberately in the capacity of a non-lawyer. The Government and Opposition parties have traditionally placed a great deal of faith in the simple fact that people are judges. They believe that judges will ensure that they bring to whatever task they undertake an extraordinary amount of wisdom, sensitivity and perspicacity, simply because at some stage some Government appointed them to be a judge. That may or may not be a belief that is absolutely justified in every single case. I am concerned that a person who has been a judge, who presumably has retired, perhaps as a result of a constitutional amendment relating to age, and who no longer holds the office of a judge shall now be eligible to be appointed to the position of a presidential member. It seems to me that just as there are views in the community that change with the nature of society and that there are individuals in the community who are more or less receptive to changing attitudes, so there are judges, eminent men and women as they may be, who, at the age of 65 years and over, are likely to be less sensitive to what the community regards, in a number of matters, as politically subversive or political undesirable and are therefore likely to attract an adverse security assessment- a view that might not be shared by a person appointed to the bench at a considerably younger age.
I am concerned that the person selected to fill the particularly important position of presidential member should have not only the necessary judicial and legal qualifications and the necessary experience in dealing with matters but also should be somebody who is acutely sensitive to the changing views of what constitutes civil liberties and to developing ideas of what constitutes proper behaviour. Members of the judiciary sit on cases and make comments about what they think is disgraceful social behaviour. The conduct may well have been considered disgraceful social behaviour when they were inculcated 40 or 50 years ago with views about what proper behaviour was. I think that the fact that we have now decided that the incumbent of this position should be a judge or a former judge is not sufficient of itself. When any appointment is being made- I hope this will be an appointment; I do not think there is any legislative requirement where there will be consultation between the Government and the Leader of the Opposition as to the person who is to be appointed to this sensitive position. It must be somebody in whom there is faith and who has not previously indicated or been felt to indicate certain views of a social or political nature which may have some bearing upon the way in which he reviews a security assessment. He will be a permanent member of whatever tribunal is likely to be sitting, the arbiter of what are matters of law and the person who, by his status, undoubtedly will have some considerable influence on the other members of any tribunal that sits. He will guide them as to the correct way to go about things, the correct factors to take into account when coming to a decision and what sort of weight they should accord to the different types of evidence that is given. I am concerned that the person who occupies this position should possess, in addition to his legal and professional qualifications, the confidence of both sides of the chamber and both sides of the Parliament generally when his appointment is made. He should also be a person who can be relied upon to be sensitive to changing attitudes and to reflect a view of the world, a view of politics and a view of the Australian community that is in tune with what the majority of people believe in contemporary circumstances and not merely a reflection of prejudices which have otherwise been overtaken by time.
– In my earlier speech concerning clause 39 I omitted to seek leave to incorporate an extract from volume two of the Canadian Law Journal of 1974. The extract has been viewed by the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) and other members of the Senate. I seek leave to incorporate the extract in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The extract read as follows-
The Board is, however, an anomaly in the normal hierarchy of courts, since it has a dual jurisdiction: purely appellate jurisdiction, and equitable jurisdiction pursuant to Section IS of its enabling Act. which is of first instance in the sense that the Board is the first tribunal which has jurisdiction to deal with it.
The Board consists of nine members, including the Chairman and two Vice-Chairmen: A quorum of the Board is three, and sittings are held in Toronto, for appeals from persons residing in Ontario, in Montreal for appeals from persons residing in the Province of Quebec, and in Ottawa, which covers the rest of Canada. Since its inception in 1967, the Board has been fully equipped to deal with all matters within its jurisdiction in either French or English.
When a person is ordered deported the Special Inquiry Officer must advise him of his right of appeal. He is provided with a “Notice of Appeal”- a printed form prepared by the Board-on which he can indicate his desire to appeal and the method by which he wishes to present it: written submissions, oral submissions, with counsel or without, and the name of his counsel if any. He signs this and serves it on the Special Inquiry Officer, who forwards it to the Board with certified copies of the Minutes of the Inquiry and any exhibits filed at the inquiry. The other party to the appeal is the Minister of Manpower and Immigration- the respondent- who files a reply, which is simply a bare indication that he is going to appear and contest the appeal. All these documents provide the record on appeal. It may be noted that there are no formal pleadings: the appellant is not required to set out his ground of appeal. With some reluctance the Board came to the conclusion that elaborate written pleadings would be unsuitable- given the nature of its work- and formal paper work is therefore kept to the barest minimum compatible with orderly procedure. The Board’s Rules set out the practice and procedure in considerable detail.
-The Opposition, having suggested an amendment to this clause, supports the amendment which has not been moved by the Attorney-General (Senator Durack). In the spirit, one might say, of the ecumenicalism we have reached in the last half hour, let me say that we probably think that this clause is the best place for the provision to be inserted in the Bill. That might be taking it too far. I would like to make some brief comments on two important points which Senator Puplick made. The position of a presidential member of this Security Appeals Tribunal is a sensitive and important one. It is a sad fact of the human condition that as people get older and retire perhaps they sometimes have a very charitable view of their own capacities and capacities to perform functions which they have performed in the past. It would be undesirable if the position were seen as being similar to the way in which a position in the Senate, the Victorian Legislative Council or some institution of that kind was regarded- a place where one goes when one is unfit for anything else. That should not be the position in regard to a presidential member. That could well happen in regard to this important tribunal. I think it is an omission on the part of both the Government and the Opposition that we have not been more alert to this possibility earlier. I totally agree with what Senator Puplick had to say about the matter. Perhaps the AttorneyGeneral can assure us, as he has on numerous occasions- on the assumption that he will be Attorney-General for a very long time- that what Senator Puplick mentioned will not occur and that an older or retired person will not be appointed.
The second point which Senator Puplick made is most important. As this is a sensitive area, the question of security appeals is important in terms of civil liberties. This is another matter on which specific provision should be made for consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. In a sense it is a sort of second half of a process of consultation. The first half concerns the DirectorGeneral and the activation of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization. The second half deals with the consequences of any work of the organisation in terms of the subject. I think the matter should be open for consultation with the
Leader of the Opposition. I hope the AttorneyGeneral can see his way clear to look at the matter and see whether an amendment can be initiated to cover the points made importantly, I think, by Senator Puplick.
– I can give both assurances that Senator Puplick sought from me. Senator Button seeks a further assurance; namely, that there be consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. Again, in the spirit of ecumenicalism, I would see no difficulty in consultation taking place with the Leader of the Opposition on the appointment. I suppose I had better be careful about giving an undertaking without giving the question further consideration.
– Be rash for once.
-No, I will not be rash.
– Bold.
-Or even bold. I think I will be able to obtain an unequivocal assurance before this legislation passes through the Parliament.
– You will have to wait until he comes back.
– We are not a one-man government. We are a government which takes collective decisions about major matters. It would not be difficult to provide for consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. It would be difficult to insert into a statute words to give effect to the assurance that Senator Puplick sought. I do not think that he was suggesting we consider doing so. I appreciate that the fact that a retired judge is qualified for the position gives rise to some concern. But I should mention that judges do not always remain in harness until they are 70. Some retire at an earlier age. In many ways, of course, these retired judges are very useful. Sir Sydney Frost, for example, conducted the whaling inquiry. I am sure he is one judge who would be accepted by -
– What about members of the Townley committee?
– I do not think that there were any judges or retired judges on that committee. I must qualify that statement. Of course, one previous member of that committee, in the person of Mr Justice McClelland, is now a judge. Under this clause, even a former member of the Townley committee would qualify for appointment. But certainly, as far as age is concerned, I think it can be said that the Government is very alive to the decision of the people by way of constitutional amendment. To appoint anybody over 70 years of age to a position of this kind would be contrary to the practice that we have been following. The only point in referring in the clause to the appointment of a retired judge or a judge who has retired early is to take account of any exceptional case. But I agree that the selection of a person for the position should not be made simply and solely on the basis of his legal qualifications or eminence. The position also requires a great many other qualities. Fortunately they are qualities that are readily found in the judiciary of this country, as we have found with the two judges who have been intimately concerned with this legislation and this Organisation- Mr Justice Hope and Mr Justice Woodward. I am quite confident that we will find for the role of Chairman of this Tribunal another judge of that calibre.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 41 and 42- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.
Clause 43 (Non-presidential members).
-I know that an amendment is to be moved to this clause, but once again I should like to raise with the Attorney-General (Senator Durack)- I did so in my speech on the second reading debate- the question of the status of the general member of the Tribunal as provided for under sub-clauses (3) and (4) of this clause. It is true that subclause (4) states in a general way that a nonpresidential member shall not be someone who is engaged in the service of the Australian Public Service. It contains disqualifications. But of course the presidential member is qualified as a judge. We assume that he has certain capacities because of that. The person who is in the special category certainly is representative of certain knowledge and ability. He is either a public servant or a member of the community with certain knowledge or ability. He is therefore a qualified person. But I suggest that the general member is the lame duck in this group because the only qualifications he needs are those set out in subclause (3) which states:
A person appointed as a non-presidential member shall be a person whose standing and reputation in the community are such as to ensure public confidence in his integrity and fairness.
– He might be the only one qualified.
– That is, in itself, quite a nice qualification. One expects integrity and fairness in most people. But the person appointed could be the local butcher. I see nothing wrong with the local butcher. I have implicit faith in my local butcher because of what he knows about butchery.
– He might be a member of the meat workers union whose citizenship is in doubt?
– He might be. But it seems to me that the position requires stronger qualifications than just integrity and fairness. It requires the person who sits quietly on this Tribunal and is not open to public gaze to have some knowledge of and standing in respect of civil liberties. He should also have an understanding of the effect of these types of assessments on individuals and on their jobs. In other words, I put it to the Attorney-General that the qualifications for the position ought to be upgraded. They ought to be stronger. Appointees should have some knowledge or standing in regard to civil liberties. I do not say that those words necessarily must be the words used in the legislation. But I do say that the position requires a little more than just integrity and fairness. Integrity and fairness are all right but if a person has no training, no skill or no knowledge in the particular area with which he is dealing, I am afraid that the qualifications of ‘integrity’ and fairness’ would be inadequate. It may well be that the persons who are appointed in this category are eminent people. Their appointment may be perfectly satisfactory. But I think that the Bill should ensure that it is going to be so, and that the qualifications for the position should be upgraded. I urge the Attorney-General to redraft this clause.
-I do not know whether we can redraft the clause, but I can inform the honourable senator that we have had another look at it and it seems that it gives a pretty clear pointer to the sort of person we are looking for to fill this position. As far as particular skills and knowledge of civil liberties are concerned, I certainly take the view that those matters would be taken into account in the selection of this person. On the other hand, I think it must also be taken into account that the Chairman, as a judge, would have skilled knowledge in that area.
– Some are fairly rough in that area.
– Yes, but we would not be looking for one like that. We would be looking for one who would meet those requirements. I think we have somebody already, in the person of the Chairman, who has these sorts of skills and certainly knowledge. I would certainly accept nominations from organisations which had particular interest in this area if they submitted some names for consideration for the appointment to the panel. I imagine that we probably will be appointing more than one person in this category, if not at the beginning at least in due course. But I will ask the draftsman if he can come up with any alternatives to this wording. Obviously, if we were to find that better wording could be used we could always make the change to the Bill in another place. But at this stage, I cannot really suggest any better words than those which appear here.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 44 to 56- by leave- taken together.
– Whilst I am not opposed to taking clauses 44 to 56 together, I want to make a few remarks on clauses 55 and 56. Clause 55 states:
That refers to a case in which an assessment has been made against a person about which he has not been informed-
The Director-General shall, within 30 days after receipt of notice of the application, lodge with the Tribunal a copy of the certificate, together with a copy of the whole of the assessment.
The Tribunal shall not, at any lime, inform the applicant of the existence of, or permit the applicant to have access to any copy or particulars of, a certificate of the Attorney-General referred to in sub-section ( I ) or any matter to which the certificate relates.
Do we then proceed in an appeal against an assessment to hear the prosecutor who is the person who made the assessment without hearing the defence of the individual and without his knowing, firstly, of the assessment and, secondly, that the Appeals Tribunal is hearing an appeal against that assessment? The Attorney-General may withdraw the certificate which he has given under sub-section ( 1 ). The person is informed of this but his appeal has already been heard before he has the right of appearance. I ask the Government to consider the justice of this clause. Clause 56 relates to the hearing of an appeal. It states:
Is justice done and seen to be done when the accuser states a case and the accused is not to know of the accusations made against him? He appears before the Tribunal and makes his statement not knowing what has been said against him. He does not face his accuser nor, apparently, has he the right to cross-examine him. I wonder whether our legal colleagues would accept that this is a just and fair right of appeal. Sub-section (11) states:
The Tribunal may, of its own motion and at any stage of the proceedings, invite a person to give evidence, or cause a person to be summoned to give evidence, and, where it does so, may determine whether either or both of the parties is or are entitled to be present or represented when the evidence is given.
The Tribunal may bring in outside evidence to substantiate the accusations against the accused. The accused has no right to be present to examine, cross-examine or ask questions of the person giving evidence against him. Surely this does not fit into our system of British justice? I cannot see that there would be any danger to security if the proceedings of a court of law were to apply to the Appeals Tribunal.
– I make some remarks on clause 56. 1 think that it requires from the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) a little further explanation in terms of the point which Senator Cavanagh raised. The Royal Commission at paragraph 160 and onwards in its second report in dealing with the position of individuals appearing before the Tribunal, accorded to the Tribunal a limited discretion to permit the parties to appear at the same time and to cross-examine the other party’s witnesses. In paragraph 160 the Royal Commission, among other things, said:
At times there have to be departures from the rules of natural justice.
It went on to propose a series of procedures. In those procedures it indicated a limited competence to permit the individuals concerned to confront each other and, if necessary, take part in cross-examination. As I understand it, it is now the Government’s view that the operation of a security system and the review of appeals are such that even that limited discretion is not to be permitted. The limited discretion was introduced in the Royal Commission report because of the
Commission’s concern that at times there have to be departures from the rules of natural justice. It was prepared to provide this limited confrontation. I think that a little further explanation is required about the way in which the Government has moved from the Royal Commission’s recommendation to an even more acutely restricted position.
– What about clause 56(11)? That provides that the Tribunal may determine whether either or both of the parties are entitled to be present. Does that not confer a discretion?
-I believe that that discretion is even more limited than the suggestions made in the sections of the Royal Commissioner’s report to which I have referred. I notice that in one of the appendices to that report the security review and appeals systems of a number of other countries are considered and outlined. In relation to the United Kingdom, page 1 84 of the report states:
The person charged and any witnesses he may call, are heard separately and alone by the Advisers, as is the representative of the security service, save that the person charged may be accompanied by a friend who will assist him in presenting his opening statement and will then withdraw.
Therefore, no right of confrontation is accorded. I understand that in New Zealand although there is some provision for this confrontation it appears to have been necessary in practice for the New Zealand Commissioner to insist that no confrontation should take place. Senator Evans rightly pointed out that some discretion is conferred on the Tribunal in sub-section (11) which states:
The Tribunal may, of its own motion and at any stage of the proceedings, invite a person to give evidence, or cause a person to be summoned to give evidence, and, where it does so, may determine whether either or both of the parties is or are entitled to be present or represented when the evidence is given.
What it does not do, which the Royal Commission suggestion did, is provide for the right of one of the parties to engage in crossexamination. The person would not sit there simply as a mute witness to the allegations that were being made or the evidence that was being tendered but would be an active participant in challenging the person making the allegations and calling on him to substantiate the matters which were being addressed to him. Although the provision exists in sub-section (11) for the person to be seated as a mute witness, the suggestion that the Royal Commission makes that he should be able to engage in some sort of crossexamination of the case which, in essence, is a case being presented against him, is one that seems to me to be insufficiently explained by what I have been able to read in the explanatory notes and the second reading speech of the Attorney.
– Do not the words ‘or represented when the evidence is given’ go rather further than that to suggest that the person can cross-examine?
-I would have thought that those words in fact may only mean that some other person on behalf of the person whose rights are being adjudicated upon may have been the mute witness.
– It is also true that sub-clause (11) applies only when evidence is being given on the Tribunal’s own motion, which is a quite limited class of evidence anyway.
-That is right. The point I am seeking to make is that it may well be that some explanation can be given which will be found absolutely convincing, or at least sufficiently convincing, to accept the way in which the procedures are set out in clause 56. But I am just not persuaded as yet by what I have seen of written material or what I have heard from the Attorney or any other spokesman on this, given the suggestions in the royal commission report and given the fact that the royal commissioner was sufficiently concerned to preface these remarks with the statement ‘at times there have to be departures from the rules of natural justice’. A better explanation is required so that we can more properly appreciate the sort of situation in which a person whose character is perhaps under attack, whose livelihood is perhaps under threat, whose civil liberties in any respect may be under threat, is in fact to be denied the opportunity of maximum participation in the process of challenging adverse assessments made against him. It is a departure in this sense. It is a departure from, I suppose, what has been understood as something so fundamental to the British style of justice, that is, the ability to know exactly what it is that one is accused of, exactly who it is that is making the accusations, and a complete ability to participate at a time that the accusations are made in a detailed refutation of those accusations. That is not a matter to be set aside lightly or capriciously. I do not believe it has been set aside lightly or capriciously. I believe it has been set aside for good and sufficient reasons. I am just concerned to be told what those good and sufficient reasons are.
- Senator Cavanagh and Senator Puplick are both concerned about the procedures under clause 56. I gather that
Senator Cavanagh is concerned also about further restrictions in clause 55. The restriction in clause 55 is of course limited only to a case in which the Attorney-General has under clause 37 (2) issued a certificate that the disclosure to a person of the statement of grounds contained in the security assessment would be prejudicial to the interests of security. We have already debated this clause. As I indicated, action would be taken only in an exceptional case. That is the only restriction under clause 55.
But clause 56 undoubtedly does restrict the appellant’s right to conduct his case in the way that is normally acceptable under the procedures in our courts. I think it must be remembered that this is basically an administrative procedure and that there are various views about the way in which tribunals which operate in the administrative review area should conduct their proceedings. However, I do concede to both Senator Cavanagh and Senator Puplick that they have raised a matter of serious concern and certainly not something that we would have lightly proposed in legislation. The whole reason for the procedure that is laid down in clause 56 is the necessity for security purposes not to reveal the identity of the agent or the source of information on which the organisation has relied in making the security assessment. Obviously if the agent can be confronted by the appellant and crossexamined, that agent’s identity is exposed and that could be of serious consequence to him and to the interests of security. That is the reason the ordinary confrontation process has been avoided, except in the circumstances set out in sub-clause (11)) in which the Security Appeals Tribunal may in fact call somebody, in which case of course the Tribunal may determine whether or not the confrontation takes place.
Clause 56 is a very long one. It contains 15 sub-clauses which are designed to assist the appellant to find out as much as he possibly can about the case that is put against him, given that restriction that is placed upon him, in our view, in the interests of protecting the agent’s identity or the source of information. I invite honourable senators to read the whole of clause 56. For instance, sub-clause (4) provides that the member who is presiding at the hearing may require either or both of the parties to attend or be represented before him, which means that the appellant will appear with the Director-General or his representative, for the purpose of identifying the issues. So the Tribunal is brought into the proceedings to try to identify the issues.
Sub-clause (9) states that after hearing evidence and submissions the Tribunal shall consider what further particulars, if any, can, consistent with security, be given to the applicant. Sub-clause (12) is another provision which will be of assistance to the applicant in finding out just what is the nature of the case against him so that, having given evidence once, he could give evidence again after the evidence against him had been heard by the Tribunal. Matters could arise out of that and the Tribunal could re-open the applicant’s case to give him the opportunity to answer any of those matters that had arisen in the evidence against him which he had not heard. 1 believe that the way in which clause 56 is set out, and I am sure the way in which hearing procedures will be developed by the Tribunalshort of the actual ability of the applicant personally to cross-examine ASIO witnesses, who as I said would primarily be agents, would result in revealing the names of agents or perhaps methods of operation of the organisation- does provide a code of fairness for the applicant. That is the only reason why what would be considered his normal rights are restricted.
The Government is aware of Mr Justice Hope’s recommendation which, if implemented, would have gone a little further and given the Tribunal the power to decide this question. At this stage we feel we are taking a major step in setting up this Tribunal to deal with these most sensitive matters and that it is better to err on the side of caution, as we may well be doing. Once the Tribunal is constituted and in operation, naturally we will be keeping its procedures under review. The Tribunal is not something the Government will set up and forget. Certainly, I will be most interested in how it is operating and whether there appear to be unfair results from these procedures. I am sure that the Tribunal itself will be only too alert to these matters and will advise the Government if it feels there is any element of unfairness to an appellant in the way in which the procedures are laid down. At this stage the Government believes there are major reasons for proceeding as we have. We will certainly keep the matter under very close observation, as we expect the Tribunal will too.
– The Attorney-General (Senator Durack) may be satisfied that there are major reasons for the Government proceeding as it has, but regret that he has not told us what they are. It seems he has some doubt about the Security Appeals Tribunal because he says: ‘We will see how it goes’. He is not too confident of his own legislation setting up the Tribunal. I acknowledge the necessity for clause 55 to apply some drastic restrictions where they are essential to the security of the nation.
I want to know who makes the application for a review of a security assessment in a case in which the Attorney-General has issued a certificate. I think it is important that we be satisfied that the appeal is being lodged at the correct time. The point I am making is that at some time it might be possible to inform a person that an assessment has been made on him. Then he would have access to the machinery for appeal. Would the Tribunal then be justified in saying: We have already dealt with this case’? It is a question of whether in a case in which the Attorney-General has issued a certificate someone should be able to appeal on behalf of a person against whom an assessment has been made but who may not be notified of the appeal or whether an appeal should not be heard until such time as the person has the right to make his own application for an appeal.
I think we must admit that if it is essential for security, some restrictions should be imposed by clause 56 and rights established under the British system of court hearings cannot apply. If it is essential perhaps there is justification for some restriction. Surely the presiding officer or the Tribunal should assess whether it is necessary to apply these restrictions. The Bill allows the Tribunal some discretion in its operations. For example, sub-clause ( 13) of clause 56 states:
Before giving to the applicant particulars of evidence adduced, or submissions made, by the Director-General, the Tribunal shall consult with the Director-General as to the requirements of security.
I take it that that implies that the Tribunal will give the appellant all possible information submitted by the Director-General, except that information which for security reasons it would be dangerous to give him. That is decided in conference between the Tribunal and the DirectorGeneral. The Tribunal is given this right in a case affecting security but where there is no danger to security it does not have the right to allow an applicant to be present and to cross-examine. The legislation forbids the Tribunal to give that right to the applicant, whatever justification there is for doing so. We give away our normal forms of legal justice where security is not at risk. The restrictions should apply only to those cases where security is at risk. Sub-clause (6) reads:
The applicant or a representative of the applicant shall not be present when the Tribunal is hearing submissions made by, or evidence adduced by, the Director-General . . .
There could be many cases where no harm would be done if the applicant had the right to be present when the evidence was being given. We do not give the Tribunal the right, perhaps after the discussion with the Director-General, to decide whether there is any danger to security. We make it mandatory for the Tribunal to act as if there is a danger to security. We do not trust the Tribunal. We write the rules. We do not permit the Tribunal a discretion in the interests of justice in cases in which there is no threat to security. Sub-clause ( 1 1 ) is of no value in assisting the Tribunal. It refers only to witnesses called by the Tribunal. The Tribunal decides on the justification for calling such witnesses and whether informing the parties might be a danger to security. I cannot see much relief under sub-clause ( 12). It reads as follows:
Where the Tribunal considers that, by reason of evidence or matter adduced by the other party after a party has presented his case to the Tribunal, that party should be further heard, the Tribunal shall give to that party an opportunity of adducing further evidence or matter and for that purpose shall give to that party such particulars of the evidence or matter adduced by the other party as the Tribunal considers can be so given consistently with the requirements of security.
In some instances the Tribunal is permitted to decide the format for the conduct of proceedings, and whether it is in the interests of security. One cannot complain about that but in essential areas we take away from the Tribunal the right to decide whether there is a danger to security in giving the applicant the justice that any other court would give him. Whether there is a danger to security or not, this Parliament says that he is not entitled to justice normally extended under our system of justice.
– I would like to make one brief comment. There is a very real risk to security in any of the proceedings that may be taking place before the Tribunal because these proceedings deal with security assessments that have been made by the Tribunal. The object of the assessments is to find out whether the organisation was right or not in making that assessment. Therefore, whatever the Tribunal is dealing with, it is dealing with matters that are very sensitive in relation to security.
– To test this matter, and this may be a solution to the problem, I would seek to move an amendment to clause 56. 1 move:
Sub-clause (6) states that the applicant or a representative of the applicant shall not be present at the Tribunal. Sub-clause (7) states:
The Director-General or a representative of the DirectorGeneral or of a Commonwealth agency shall not be present when the Tribunal is hearing submissions made by, or evidence given or adduced by, the applicant.
I cannot see any need for security at all in subclause 7, especially. I suppose a prosecutor has rights as well as a defendant. If the amendment is agreed to, sub-clause 5 would then contain the necessary provision for all security requirements. It would read: ‘The proceedings shall be in private and the Tribunal shall determine what persons may be present at any time. If that clause is agreed to we throw onto the Tribunal the responsibility to decide who shall appear before the Tribunal and who shall not. The Tribunal will decide how to operate and whether that will be in the interests of security.
– Is it the wish of the Committee that we take those two amendments together? There being no objection that course will be followed.
– For the reasons I have already given, the Government is opposed to the amendments.
– I have some sympathy with the Attorney’s explanation of the difficulties which the organisation would encounter in these sorts of proceedings. But I think there is a very important point in Senator Cavanagh ‘s amendments. Perhaps if we all had more time to look at the point Senator Cavanagh is making, the amendments may have been applied to a wider number of sub-clauses in this clause. It does seem to me that the tribunal is very hemmed in by the procedures which it can, in fact, take. There is very little room for imagination in terms of procedural matters. The limitations which are imposed by sub-clauses (6) and (7), which Senator Cavanagh has sought to have deleted, are very severe indeed. It may be that a more thoughtful appreciation of the essential point which Senator Cavanagh is making may have led to a better series of provisions in clause 56 as a whole. I support the amendments because I think they raise important points. I support them with the qualification that, perhaps, the whole thing ought to be looked at a little more closely than it has been. We might then get a better clause 56 altogether. Apart from those points, I support the amendments.
– Perhaps I could ask the Attorney to explain to me the substantial difference between
Senator Cavanagh ‘s amendments, if agreed to, and the position that applies under sub-clause ( 1 1 ). I find it very hard to make judgment, on the run, on Senator Cavanagh ‘s suggestion. If subclause (5) were simply to read that “the proceedings shall be in private” and “the tribunal shall determine what persons may be present at any time” and if sub-clauses (6) and (7) were not there- sub-clause (6) states essentially that the applicant or his representative shall not be there when the Director-General is providing information and sub-clause (7) states the DirectorGeneral shall not be there when the applicant is providing the information- what is the essential difference between sub-clause (5) as Senator Cavanagh would have it read and sub-clause (11)? Sub-clause (11), with the operation of subclauses (6) and (7) states that the tribunal may: . , of its own motion and at any stage of the proceedings, invite a person to give evidence, or cause a person to be summoned to give evidence, and, where it does so, may determine whether either or both of the parties is . . . entitled to bc present or represented when the evidence is given.
– That would cover the whole proceedings, but we want to put restrictions on the parties.
– It goes further than that if the senator looks at, say, sub-clause (12). I follow the points Senator Puplick is making, but there are a number of sub-clauses to which this point relates.
– I agree entirely. As I said, my difficulty is making a judgment on what Senator Cavanagh has brought up. I have had an opportunity, with the previously circulated amendments, to sit down and try to read them within the framework the whole clause to which they refer. I do not know whether the Attorney is amenable to postponing consideration of clause 56. It would, after all be a delay only until a later hour this evening, as we appear to be in a situation of being likely to deal with the remainder of this Bill this evening. I am interested in what information the Attorney could give me on that matter. Otherwise I cannot see what, essentially, constitutes the difference between the power that the tribunal is vested with currently under subclause (11) and sub-clause (12), and the power that the tribunal would still retain if Senator Cavanagh ‘s amendments were accepted.
– I am in no doubt whatever about the amendments which Senator Cavanagh has moved. The elimination of subclause 6 is a basic issue in relation to this whole clause. I have already dealt with this matter at some length. It provides that the applicant shall not be present when the tribunal is nearing submissions made by or evidence adduced by the Director-General of securities. That is when, very likely, he calls his agent.
– Why shouldn’t he if there is no danger to security?
– There is a danger to security. I have said it over and over again and I am not going to repeat myself any further. The whole point is that it would be a danger to security to reveal the identity of an agent or the identity of sources. That is something that I have not been able to get through to Senator Cavanagh, although I have explained it, obviously, inadequately. Sub-clause (6) is absolutely vital to the argument of the Government. Whether Senator Cavanagh agrees or not is another matter. The Government feels that sub-clause (6) is quite vital to the procedure and the policy of the Government in relation to this procedure. When the tribunal is hearing evidence adduced by the Director-General- that means when the Director-General is giving evidence himself or calling witnesses- some of the witnesses may be agents. That is why sub-clause (6) is there. Subclause (7) is there complementary to sub-clause
– Not a party?
– Not a party or witnesses of the party. Sub-clause (12) deals with quite a different situation. It is simply giving people the opportunity of answering evidence which has been adduced. It gives them particulars of what has been said. A person gives evidence, for instance, about the applicant, and the Tribunal may then want to ask the applicant further questions. It may given him the opportunity of calling further evidence in relation to an allegation which he may not have already heard. Subclause (12) really relates to matters different from those found in sub-clauses (6), (7) and (11). That is the reason for sub-clause (11) being placed in the Bill. I hope that the difference between sub-clauses (6) and (1!) is now clear to honourable senators. I, as the responsible
Government Minister, am not prepared to consider any change to the procedures laid down in sub-clause (6). The Government regards subclause (6) as the key clause, and is not prepared to consider any changes to it.
-In subclause 11, is it not the case that the Tribunal could call an agent from the Australian Security Intelligence Organization to give evidence on its own motion if it was unsatisfied, on the evidence that had already been presented, that there was sufficient material before it to enable it to reach a decision? Are not the parties to the proceedings, the Director-General on the one hand and the applicant on the other hand? As I read subclause (II), the Tribunal would not be excluded from calling an ASIO agent to give evidence which raises exactly the same point as was raised by Senator Puplick. In that sense, if the Tribunal is given a discretion under sub-clause (11), why should it not be given a discretion under the earlier provisions as well?
– Before the Attorney-General replies, I would like to say that I can appreciate the reason for his emotional outburst. It seems to me that he might accept a solution if he could find one. He cannot find a solution and this brings us back to the point raised by Senator Puplick and Senator Button. They both said that they would like time to consider the matter. Senator Button was of the opinion that different clauses may have been introduced if we were not rushing through this Bill.
– Ha, ha!
-Yes, perhaps I have used the wrong words but different clauses may have been introduced if we had more time to consider the Bill. The Minister justifies the clauses entirely on the ground of security. I will deal with sub-clause (6) by itself. It would be a breach of security to disclose the identity of an agent from the Australian Security Intelligence Organization. If we accept that that would be a breach of security, obviously we want a new clause which gives the Tribunal the right to suppress or prohibit a question that might disclose the identity of an ASIO agent. Sub-clause (6) reads in part:
It would seem that the applicant is not entitled to be present before the Tribunal only when the Director-General is present. If the applicant asked any question for the purpose of disclosing anything that was contrary to security considerations, the Tribunal would have the same power that it has under sub-clause 1 3 which states:
Before giving to the applicant particulars of evidence . . the Tribunal shall consult with the Director-General as to the requirements of security.
The Director-General has that power. A judge in a court has a power to disallow a question. If the answer is incriminating or if someone claims privilege or prejudice the judge can insist that an answer is not given. That is the procedure we would like followed in this case. There could be an occasion when someone is questioning the validity of the evidence. This could be better tested under cross-examination rather than by a statement made not in the presence of the witness giving the evidence. If we had a provision in the clause which gave the Tribunal the right to prohibit those questions which are dangerous to security, at least some of the normal methods available in court trials could be extended to the Tribunal. The Parliament would not have to place a total prohibition upon the Tribunal to prevent all the injustices that can be done to someone who possibly has been wronged. To give such a person all the justice possible, we should place such a restriction on the power of the Tribunal. Whilst there may be a need for an additional clause to give this right to people, in the absence of any other suggestions I insist upon the amendment.
– Is the Attorney-General going to give an answer to my question on sub-clause (11)?
– I do not think that I am required to give answers. I have protested about this situation previously in the Committee. Senator Evans specifically asked if, in my opinion, sub-clauses (6) and (11) deal with different situations. There is a very specific provision in sub-clause (6) that the applicant is not entitled to hear evidence adduced by the Director-General. I think that sub-clause (11) must be subject to that same provision.
Amendments negatived.
Clauses agreed to.
Clause 57 (Certain documents and information not to be disclosed).
-I move:
In order to appreciate the effect of this amendment, which is quite similar in substance to that which we have been debating in respect of clause 56, it is necessary to appreciate the effect of clause 57, assuming for a moment that the words we want to take out were, in fact, absent. What clause 57 does at the moment is set some limitations on certain classes of sensitive material being disclosed to the applicant in Tribunal proceedings. In that respect, it is a companion piece to the evidentiary provisions in clause 56.
The particular classes of sensitive material dealt with by clause 57 are spelt out in sub-clause (l)(a), (b) and (c). In sub-clause (l)(a) the first such category is material which would be contrary to the public interest by reason of the fact that it would prejudice security or the defence or international relations of Australia. Subclause (l)(b) relates to material which is contrary to the public interest by reason that it would involve the disclosure of deliberations or decisions of the Cabinet, a committee of the Cabinet, or the Executive Council. Sub-clause ( 1 ) (c), the third class of material described, relates to material which, to paraphrase the situation, might otherwise form the basis of a claim of Crown privilege. That sensitive material is subject to a scheme set out in clause 57, the substance of which is as follows: In respect of any such class of material there can be a certificate issued by the Attorney-General that the disclosure of it would be against the public interest. That material is required, however, to be supplied to the Tribunal, for the Tribunal to make up its own mind, to make its own determination as to what it will do with it.
The third element in the scheme is that the presidential member of the Tribunal can, if he is satisfied that the interests of justice outweigh the particular reasons specified by the AttorneyGeneral to justify his certificate, authorise the disclosure of the information or the contents of the document in question by the Tribunal to an applicant. That is the basic scheme of clause 57, it identifies sensitive classes of material and enables the Attorney-General to certify that the information should not be disclosed. Nonetheless, it leaves to the Tribunal itself the final decision whether the details are to be disclosed to the applicant. As the clause is now written, that scheme is subject to an exception. This is the substance of the Opposition amendment. The particular exception or proviso is contained in sub-clause (4). That relates to instances where the AttorneyGeneral ‘s certificate specifies a reason referred to in paragraphs 1 (a) or 1 (b). In other words, if the Attorney-General certifies that the material is sensitive for the first two of the reasons that I mentioned- namely, that it would prejudice security or the defence or international relations of
Australia, or that it would involve disclosure of Cabinet deliberations- that certification is absolutely conclusive. The Tribunal then is given no independent role to determine for itself whether the interests of justice outweigh that particular reason and, accordingly, allow the disclosure of the material to the applicant. The Opposition is of the view that the Tribunal should retain a discretion, retain its own independent judgment, with respect to all these classes of material. The Opposition is also of the view that there should not be that exception for material prejudicial to security, namely, paragraph 1 (a) material, or material which discloses Cabinet deliberations, being paragraph 1 (b) material.
– Does not your objection depend on the Attorney’s making a false certification on paragraphs 1 (a) and 1(b)?
– No. It would still be appropriate for the Attorney-General to certify that it would be against the public interest to disclose material for either of these reasons. That certification has significance to the extent that that material once so certified by the AttorneyGeneral cannot be disclosed to the world at large. It cannot be disclosed to anyone else but the applicant, if the presidential member of the Tribunal so certifies. There is a whole number of reasons why that certification procedure is provided for. Our amendment relates only to the particular aspect of the scheme that is dealt with in the first four sub-clauses. It is not a matter of saying that the Attorney-General’s certification is mistaken. It is only a matter of saying that that certification should not be conclusive as to the question whether the material in issue should be disclosed to the particular applicant. The reason why one wishes to disclose this material to the applicant is exactly the reason that we have been discussing for the last half hour; it is in order that the applicant can be well armed, that he can know the nature of the case against him and that he can present rebutting evidence accordingly. These are fundamental basic natural justice considerations.
The Opposition appreciates that there may be good reasons why in a particular case the Tribunal should not allow such material to be disclosed to the applicant. But we say that it ought to be a matter for the Tribunal ‘s decision; it is the presidential member’s decision. It is not a matter for the Government of the day. This becomes particularly clear, in our submission, when we look at what the subject matter of paragraphs 1 (a) and 1 (b) actually is. In paragraph 1 (a) we deal with material which is certified by the Attorney-General to be against the public interest by reason that it would prejudice security or the defence or international relations of Australia. We are not dealing here with material which, to use a similar expression to the one used in clause 37: ‘. . . the withholding of which is essential to security’. We are not dealing with that very, very sensitive class of material. We are simply dealing with the routine class of material which is the subject matter of this whole Bill, that is, material prejudicial to security.
The suggestion that the Opposition puts with considerable vigour on this point is that if this clause stays as it is, so that the Attorney-General can certify material of this kind to be inappropriate for disclosure to the applicant, and if that certification by the Attorney-General is conclusive, we can drive a coach and horses through the whole appeal system and make it a complete farce. The applicant can be put in a position of not being given any information at all with which to sustain and put his appeal together. The drafting of that clause is just too far reaching to justify conclusive certification by the Tribunal. It ought to be a matter for the tribunal’s determination. The Tribunal ought to be able to make its own decision on the basis of taking into account the security value on the one hand against the interests of justice and the applicant having access to it on the other hand. Similarly, we make exactly the same point with respect to the class of material which is also made conclusive by virtue of the Attorney-General’s certificate. That is the class of material in paragraph 1 (b)- material that would involve the disclosure of deliberations of the Cabi net or the Executive Council.
We say that this is the very issue that was involved in the Sankey case where the High Court took the view that it was appropriate for a judicial tribunal to make its own mind up whether the interests of justice in a particular case were such as to outweigh the interests in maintaining the freedom from disclosure of Cabinet deliberations. That is exactly the same issue as was put up in the Sankey case. Admittedly it was in the judicial context and this is a quasi-judicial context. I acknowledge that distinction. The High Court made the point that it had to be in a position to make up its own mind. This is an identical situation. It is not some other public interest consideration. It is the interests of justice which are the very statutory criteria laid down.
I draw the attention of the Attorney-General to the fact that he said in this Parliament on 2 May that neither he nor to his knowledge the Government had any intention of legislating to override the effect of the Sankey case. Might I suggest that this legislation was drafted before the Sankey case was decided by the High Court. Might I also suggest to the Attorney-General that he has a very considerable task ahead of him if he is to justify this particular paragraph 1 (b) in the light of the Sankey case and in the light of the Government’s stated attitude to that case.
– Is not your case even stronger? The Sankey Case was also quasijudicial. At those committal proceedings, the production was sought of certain documents and the matter concerned that aspect.
– I suppose technically that is true to the extent that committal proceedings are not by any means fully judicial in the way that the hearing of the trial on indictment is. There is an analogy in that respect between the nature of the proceedings there and the nature of the quasi-judicial proceedings that are in issue here. I am indebted to Senator Missen for making that point. That is in short the Opposition case in support of its amendment to Clause 57. For all those reasons, we would urge most strenuously the Attorney to accept this amendment which is quite short in its physical compass. Though perhaps quite obscure in terms of its implications when one looks at the words we want to take out, it is of very great significance indeed in terms of its practical implications.
– The form of certificate under clause 57 is in line with a number of similar provisions in other Acts. The one that particularly comes to my mind is the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act. This clause has been drawn in accordance with that Act and in accordance with a policy in relation to specific tribunals. In answer to a question about the Sankey case, I said that that question undoubtedly related to the matter of changing the Sankey decision as it applied to courts generally and not as it applied to tribunals which have their own specific legislation. Of course, this legislation was drafted before the Sankey decision, anyway. The question raised by the Opposition’s amendment is, I think, one at which the Government will look generally in the light of the freedom of information legislation wash-up. I think I made reference to this in my reply to the second reading debate.
– Yes, you did.
- Senator Missen raised it in the second reading debate. Government policy, as indicated in the freedom of information legislation and in this and similar legislation, has been to protect absolutely documents of the character of those set out in clause 57 ( 1 ) (a) and (b)- in particular, of course, defence secrets, Cabinet documents and that type of document. As I have said, we have included a similar provision in the freedom of information legislation and we are awaiting the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs on that legislation. It seems to me that the way in which these matters would be dealt raises similar problems. I would prefer that this clause be passed as it stands. It is on all fours with provisions in other legislation, particularly the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act. I think there is a similar provision in the Ombudsman Act. Therefore, I would prefer that the clause be passed now, subject to my undertaking that it and similar clauses will be reviewed in the light of the final outcome of the freedom of information legislation.
– I am indebted to the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) for that undertaking which, however, deals only with the subject matter of clause 57 ( 1 ) (b). He has not addressed himself, in his reply, to my remarks in relation to the effect of the conclusive certification of material that is sensitive by virtue of satisfying the description in sub-clause ( 1 ) (a). Could he possibly extend his reply and say something equally persuasive about that paragraph?
– I thought that my comments on the freedom of information legislation covered the issues raised in clause 57 ( 1 ) (a) and (b). The general comment I made was intended to cover both paragraphs.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 58 to 62- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.
Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.
Clause 63 (Reference of certain matters to Tribunal by Minister).
-The Opposition proposes to move two amendments to clause 63. I will deal with them together; in a sense they are complementary. The first amendment to clause 63 seeks to omit sub-clause 1 (a). Sub-clause 1 (a) relates to the Australian Security Intelligence Organization’s having furnished, or alleged to have furnished, to a Commonwealth agency a security assessment or a communication of a similar nature concerning a person. The Opposition wants to delete that sub-clause for reasons which I will explain as I deal with the second amendment. The second amendment, in essence, provides that if a person has been subject in the past to an adverse security report he will have the right to go to the Commonwealth Ombudsman- I am paraphrasing the effect of this amendment- and the Ombudsman, on the person’s behalf, will make an investigation to determine whether there had been an adverse security report. Certain procedures, which are set out in the course of the proposed amendment, will then be followed.
The purpose of deleting sub-clause 1 (a) of clause 63 and substituting, in effect, the long and detailed provision which is contained in proposed new clause 63A in simple terms is to cover this situation: Under the provisions of the Bill now before the Senate it is open to the Attorney-General, if he is satisfied that it is desirable to do so by reason of special circumstances, to require the Security Appeals Tribunal to inquire and report to him upon any question concerning an action or alleged action of the Organization. He may require the Tribunal to review any such assessment, which would include an assessment described in sub-clause 1 (a) of clause 63 which we are seeking to omit; that is, an assessment made before the passing of this proposed Act. The Minister may ask the Tribunal to review any such assessment or communication and any information or matter upon which any such assessment of communication was based. The Tribunal shall comply with the requirement and report its findings to the Minister.
Let met put it in very simple terms. The difference between the Bill as it stands and the Bill as it would be amended by the two proposed amendments is as follows: If before the passing of this Bill someone has had an adverse security assessment made about him by ASIO the Minister may, under the Bill and out of the goodness of his heart or for some other reason which is not specified in the legislation -
– Is that specified?
– No, it is not. The issue is very confusing as it is. I am indebted to Senator Robertson for his help. Under the Bill as it stands the Minister may, out of the goodness of his heart or for any other reason which is not apparent from the Bill, ask the Tribunal to inquire and to report to him on an adverse security assessment made before the passing of this Bill. Under the proposed amendments any citizen or public servant who is aggrieved by what he believes to be an adverse security assessment can go to the Ombudsman to set in train an examination and investigation of his grievance. They are the alternatives provided by the Bill as it stands and the amendments.
The problem with the Bill as it stands is that it gives no guidance about what might motivate a Minister to ask the Tribunal to inquire into, for example, an adverse security assessment made before the passing of this Bill. Sub-clause 1 states that the Minister may take this action if he thinks it is desirable, but there is no definition of what desirable means. I offer an illustration in simple terms. I know a trade union official of Greek origin in Melbourne who had been a member of the communist party for many years. He is still a member. For 20 years he was refused naturalisation.
– I think he was in my union.
-Yes, I think that is right, For 20 years he was refused naturalisation.
– An impartial occupant of the chair.
-To persuade the Chair is a great achievement in this chamber. For 20 years this person was refused naturalisation by a series of Liberal Ministers for Immigration- or whatever they were called at that time- because he was a communist. He was naturalised in 1973. The simple point is that he is no more trouble now than he was in the previous 20 years. He was refused naturalisation on purely ideological grounds. It was unfashionable and considered unpolitical to naturalise Greek communists in the 20 years before 1 972. The future of a citizen like that who was aggrieved for many years, or of a civil servant aggrieved by an adverse security assessment in the past in relation to having his rights determined by the Tribunal, is totally dependent on the goodwill of the Minister. That is the situation under the Bill- a citizen is totally dependent on the goodwill of the Minister. Senator Durack says that Mr Justice Woodward is a very nice decent chap. We all think that about Senator Durack too, but he might not be here for ever.
- Senator Evans does not give that impression on some occasions.
– We have the feeling he will be here for ever.
– I get very irritated when I am subjected to these interjections. On the one occasion that 1 defy the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) he will not even listen. I see that I have now attracted his attention. I was drawing an analogy between him and Mr Justice Woodward whom he described as an impeccable chap. I was saying that the Attorney-General might be exactly the same sort of impeccable chap who would naturalise certain people or refer matters to a tribunal. But he might be followed by somebody such as -
– Careful.
-I am trying to think whether I have any animus today. Perhaps somebody such as Senator Jessop might become Attorney-General. I ask you, Mr Temporary Chairman: With an Attorney-General like that, what future would any citizen have? I think that is a very important question on which we should all ponder for a minute or two. What future would any citizen have with an AttorneyGeneral like that?
The simple point is that under the Opposition amendment, any aggrieved citizen, public servant or any person in the sort of situation I have described, can go to somebody, namely the Ombudsman, who in a sense is seen- and it is all credit to this Government for introducing the legislation- as the citizen’s friend. The AttorneyGeneral, I am sorry to say, is seen as the citizen’s enemy. But in a sense, if one casts these things in terms of functions and perception of functions, the Attorney-General, as principal law officer of the country, is seen, in the sorts of situations I have described, as the person who is most unlikely in the whole of Australia to give sympathetic consideration, and to be the person who should be concerned with the determination of an individual subject’s rights. If any official with government status or origin is seen as the person who determines a citizen’s right, who has the power to stand up to the government, so it is perceived, on a civil liberties issue it is the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman is the man who is most suitable to inquire into an adverse security assessment made about somebody before the commencement of this legislation and to set in train the process which is set out in the amendments. It is for those reasons that I shall move amendments Nos 18 and 19 at the conclusion of my speech. They seek to get rid of the procedure whereby adverse security assessments arrived at before the commencement of this legislation can only be dealt with at the instigation of and with the goodwill of the Attorney-General- the citizen’s in these circumstances. They seek to replace that procedure with the situation where a citizen aggrieved has the opportunity to go to a person in the community who is seen as a protector of the rights of the individual to ask him to take action on his behalf to set the process in train, to determine whether an adverse security assessment has been made, whether it adversely affects the citizen and so on and to follow the procedures which are set out in detail in amendment No. 19.
That procedure which is set out in detail in amendment No. 19 involves an inquiry by the Ombudsman. It involves the Director-General in making certain information available to the Ombudsman. It ultimately, of course, involves the right of the individual aggrieved citizen to an appeal to the Tribunal, the process having been set in train by the action of the Ombudsman. It is for those reasons that I move:
- Senator Button, it is your wish that the Committee take both your amendments together?
– Yes, Mr Temporary Chairman, I think that is sensible because in a sense they are quite complementary. It would be silly if the first amendment were rejected and the second were passed. It would look a bit funny. They go together.
– Is it the wish of the Committee that we take the two amendments together? There being no objection, it is so ordered.
– I wish to make some remarks regarding what is really the substance of amendment No. 19 moved by the Opposition. From a purely theoretical point of view I must say that I find myself very much attracted to a provision that allows for maximum scope of retrospective reconsideration, I suppose one could say, of adverse security assessments. I want to put into the record what Mr Justice Hope had to say on this matter in his second report. Paragraph 142 of His Honour’s report reads as follows:
A great number of adverse and qualified assessments have been passed to employer authorities by ASIO since it was established in 1949. Many of them have been acted upon. For persons who remain in Australian Government employment, these security assessments, if incorrect, may remain a potential source of injustice in their careers. Even if the subject of such an assessment did not enter Australian Government employment, or if he has now ceased to be in Australian Government employment, his reputation has been affected, not merely within the internal records of ASIO, but also to the knowledge of senior Australian Government officials. The adverse effects, actual or potential, of these assessments will vary from case to case and often will be diminished by the passage of time. Overseas experience suggests that there may not be many of these cases where the person involved will want to take any action about it, but justice requires that a person whose reputation has been unjustly affected in this way should be entitled to apply to have his name cleared and should be entitled to seek to have the record put right. When ASIO looks again at some of these cases, it may decide that it should not oppose the appeal. However, any person who has been the subject of an adverse or qualified assessment provided by ASIO to an employer authority at any time in the past, should, if he so desires, be entitled to appeal against that assessment and to have his appeal adjudicated upon, even if ASIO does not oppose it. I call these the ‘retrospective cases’.
In paragraph 215, His Honour, in dealing with the Security Appeals Tribunal recommends:
That the function of the tribunal be to review adverse or qualified security assessments and any supporting information provided by ASIO at any time since it was established.
The Attorney-General has, I think, rightly presented us with the problem that time may have sufficiently passed past that the individual officer concerned, the person possessing the knowledge, the witness in the case, may no longer be available for examination or cross-examination. The person who rendered the assessment may no longer be alive or may no longer be in the country. He may no longer be sufficiently familiar with the facts of the case. His memory may be defective or the record may be defective. There may be any number of qualifications which, in a practical sense, make it impossible to have this degree of retrospective review. I think that the Attorney-General, recognising this, has proposed, and the Committee has carried, an amendment to clause 38 ( 1 ) so that clause 38 ( 1 ) now reads:
Subject to sub-section (2), a Commonwealth agency shall not take, refuse to take or refrain from taking prescribed administrative action on the basis of any communication in relation to a person made by the Organization not amounting to a security assessment or on the basis of an adverse or qualified security assessment made by the Organization before the commencement of this Act.
So the Attorney-General has recognised that to a certain extent it is necessary that those past security assessments should not be regarded in the same light as a security assessment now made in a situation in which it is subject to some further verification or to some further appeal. As Senator Button has pointed out, clause 63 provides: the Minister may, if he is satisfied that it is desirable to do so by reason of special circumstance, require the Tribunal to inquire and report to him upon any question concerning that action or alleged action of the Organization . . .
That relates to assessments which have come into existence before the commencement of the Act. In the first instance there is a requirement that limits the use to which adverse security assessments may be put in terms of making determinations under clause 38. The second point relates to the Minister’s power to give directions to the tribunal. Apart from being able to withhold from individuals the fact that they have an adverse security assessment, this provision puts in the hands of the Minister a fairly considerable power in relation to the civil rights and liberties of individual citizens. Those provisions have recognised at least part of the problem that is involved in the existence of security assessments made by ASIO prior to the commencement of this Bill where no review by the tribunal is otherwise available.
I think the mechanism which the Opposition has sought to establish in its amendment No. 19 is not a workable series of proposals. It is not workable for the reasons to which I alluded earlier, namely the problems that will always be confronted in attempting to make some retrospective judgment in what frequently will be the absence of the key personnel whose assessment, testimony and evidence need to be examined before any meaningful review is able to be commenced by the tribunal. As a result, I do not support the way in which the Opposition has sought to approach the question of retrospective judgment of adverse security assessments. I am therefore thrown back very largely on the sort of situation to which Senator Button referred- I think with some degree of disquiet- that is, that to a large extent the rights, reputation, liberty and perhaps even the future career prospects of individual Australian citizens will be in large part determined by the personal attitude of whoever happens to be the Attorney-General. That Attorney-General will have under the existing legislation the power to require the Tribunal to undertake the review in what the Act calls special circumstances’.
I do not know what ‘special circumstances’ are. Presumably they will vary from Attorney to Attorney. They will probably vary with the passage of time. Judgments will be made as to whether special circumstances in relation to an assessment made in 1 950 are inherently different from special circumstances in relation to an assessment made in 1977. I think the degree to which the Minister’s personal responsibility is involved is greater than I would have been prepared to countenance if I believed that a situation of a practical nature existed in which this review could be undertaken. I am concerned that in all the departures that this Bill contains from the recommendations of Mr Justice Hope this is probably one of the most, if not the most, significant. His Honour was moved to report that situations of this nature could arise in which a person’s reputation, unbeknown to him, had been prejudiced in the judgment of people who might still be significant figures in Australian Government administration.
We all know that there have been significant figures in government administration. They have been around in positions of some substance for a considerable time. One has only to look at a prominent official such as Sir Arthur Tange. He has been a permanent head for almost a quarter of a century, if not longer. He is probably one of those officials who at some stage has had drawn to his attention the security assessment of a particular individual who might still be around and who might still be looking either for promotion or appointment to a particular position. Sir Arthur Tange might have in his mind a vague recollection that in the early 1950s he was told that this person was a security risk, that there was something suspicious about him or that some adverse knowledge about him was held in the records of ASIO.
– Which may or may not be correct.
– Precisely. It may or may not be correct. Whether this will constitute in every case what the Minister of the day will perceive as a special circumstance is a very fine judgment. If there were a mechanism whereby the review of these assessments could be undertaken thoroughly, not on a selective basis but on a more comprehensive and wide-ranging basis than is proposed either in the legislation or in the Opposition amendment, I would be very attracted to it if it were a practical method of solving this problem. One does not need to go very far to understand the value of a name and a reputation. The prophets wrote in the Old Testament about it. A good name, says the Bible, is more precious than fine ointment. I hope that that attitude is one that the Minister would carry in his mind. The review may not even demand an immediate practicality. It may not be that the aggrieved individual is seeking a particular government job or promotion. It may be simply that somewhere on the public records of the Australian Government there is an adverse comment about him which is untrue and which by its very nature he ought to have recourse to have expunged.
I do not presume to prejudge or even trespass upon the possible breach of privilege by commenting on what the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs recommend regarding access to personal files and documents when it comes to dealing with the question of freedom of information. But I do not think it amounts to any breach of privilege to say that that is one of the issues which has concerned the Committee in some detail. Although the Minister is in a position to give an assurance about the sensitivity with which he will approach the question of what constitutes special circumstances, he is obviously in no position to give that assurance in a fashion that is binding upon any successor. I think it ought to be drawn to his attention, to the attention of the Government and to the attention of anybody concerned with security assessments that almost whenever there is a request for the review of an adverse determination made before this Bill becomes law that should be considered prima facie a special circumstance and any person so aggrieved should have the right to appeal to the Minister, not as Senator Button would say as his adversary but as his friend, to ensure that the tribunal is given the opportunity to review that case and, if necessary, make correction.
– I want to support my colleague, Senator Puplick, in what he has said tonight and express my concern at this clause. I spoke on the subject in the second reading debate. I expressed my concern that there was no adequate provision for retrospectivity. I then expressed my concern that this proposal had moved so far away from the recommendations of Mr Justice Hope. I do not propose to repeat the matters which Senator Puplick raised. We are in a difficult situation. Like him, I think that the solution suggested by the Opposition is not a practical one. It would be very difficult in many circumstances to have the Ombudsman consider a case years later and then have a complete review. Witnesses will have disappeared and evidence will not be available. I believe there are many people in the community today who are still suffering because adverse findings were made against them and because this problem cannot be solved. What I want to do, while adopting what has been said by Senator Button, is to draw attention to what I think is an inadequacy in proposed new clause 63A. It has already been pointed out that this is a matter for the Minister to decide based on past assessments and documents. He will decide whether there are special circumstances in which he will require the Tribunal to act. Only he has the discretion to do that. People may well not know the situation and therefore they may not be able to initiate the consideration that will propel the Minister into taking some action. Therefore, much is left in the Minister’s hands.
But the matter goes further than that. The limitations of this proposed new clause which will enable the Tribunal to inquire and report is even more evident when we look at clause 63A (3). In the case of ordinary security assessments- ones that happen now in futurothere is a situation under clause 58 and clause 59 where the Tribunal looks at the facts, makes a decision and that decision substitutes for the previous decision. It has that effect. But when we look at the provisions of this retrospective clause, we find that the provisions of clauses 58 and 59 do not apply in relation to a review. Clause 63(3) states that when the tribunal has made findings the Minister shall, subject to the requirements of security, take or cause to be taken such action in relation to these findings, by way of communication or publication of the findings or alteration of records, as he considers appropriate in the interests of justice.
Once again, it is entirely the Minister’s decision as to what is just and what should be done. The clause does not have the effect, therefore, of the ordinary appeal provisions in relation to security assessments. It is a poor, miserable recompense, I think, for somebody who has suffered perhaps for years from security findings which are perhaps based on malice or just plain ignorance or stupidity.
– He has no right to get to court.
-He has no right to get to court and no guarantee that even if he gets to the Tribunal and it makes a finding, that the Minister will act upon it. From this point of view I think it is a relatively poor remedy. I realise, as Senator Puplick does, that we do not have a solution to this. It is obvious that we cannot go through all the records of ASIO and repair them. No one can expect that there should be a complete recasting and a rehearing of records obtained over many years. But I do not think that this provision is good enough. I still hope that the Government will look at this situation.
– What is the matter with our solution?
-I think that the Ombudsman could well have a place in this.
– Why do you not support our amendment?
– I do not think that the Opposition ‘s solution can deal with every case. I do not think we can proceed on the basis that it will be possible to review every decision. There is something in-between.
– That is why the Ombudsman is there as a filter mechanism- for just that reason.
– The Ombudsman, I agree, should come into it. I am not sure how far he should come into it. What I am saying is that your solution obviously is not acceptable to the Government.
– You are just not sure whether you should vote against the Government; that is your problem.
-No, that is not the situation. People like Senator Puplick and me have been considering this Bill for a long time. We have endeavoured to obtain certain alterations. We have perhaps succeeded in obtaining some alterations. We are not in a position now suddenly to vote for this amendment or that amendment and to ditch our colleagues after they have given consideration to the legislation. The honourable senator belongs to a party which has most rigid discipline. We do not have that in our party. We make our own decisions. But at the same time we will not–
– But-
-No, I will not let the honourable senator keep on interrupting me because I want to make this point: We will not act unilaterally as individuals and decide on one night to support this or that amendment. We have tried and we will continue to try, perhaps to the exasperation of some of our colleagues, to obtain alterations to this legislation. I will continue to speak to the end of this debate and I will move an amendment before the night is over which I hope in general will have the effect of ensuring that there will be some review of these very -
– As long as you remember what happened to Charlie Francis and Doug Jennings in that undisciplined party of yours.
– I am delighted about what has happened to those two gentlemen. After all, the honourable senator must remember that I voted for the expulsion of one of them.
– Can you offer us a compromise on this clause?
– I am very happy to compromise. But I am not the government of this country. The Government makes the ultimate decisions and this legislation is the Government’s legislation. As members of the Labor Party, honourable senators opposite are bound by a cause and are bound to take decisions. But in our Party, we have a choice and we make a choice. The choice is that I will not impose my universal view for an alteration of legislation which is not acceptable. But I will continue to persuade and endeavour to persuade this Government that this clause is not good enough and that it needs to be improved. Strangely enough, another House will sit in review of this legislation. I hope that the members in that House will wake from their slumbers and do something about improving this Bill so that it will come back to us finally in some better form. That may be a fanciful idea but I believe that following this debate there will be time to enable this legislation to be considered and improved. Certainly this clause needs improvement and I am not afraid to say so.
– I have a good deal of sympathy for the concerns that have been expressed by Senator Puplick and Senator Missen. I think that they have described in eloquent terms the intellectual processes by which one comes to the conclusion that the Opposition’s amendment or, indeed, Mr Justice Hope’s proposal for some right of review of retrospective assessments should be accorded in the legislation. The Government would have liked and would still like to be able to agree to that if it were a practical proposition but like Senator Puplick and Senator Missen who quite independently consider this, the Government in its considerations has come to the same conclusions. That is why the Bill is drawn as it is and why the Government is opposed to the Opposition’s amendment. For instance, the Opposition’s amendment provides that if the Ombudsman finds a security assessment, he has to notify the Director-General and the Minister. Upon receipt of that notification, the Director-General shall furnish the grounds upon which the assessment has been made. There is nothing in this amendment which in any sense is a filtering process, which I think was a suggestion made by the Opposition, It is not a situation which might be described as a half-way house. It seems to me to be a proposal that whenever such security assessments are found, the grounds for the assessment have to be given and they have to be defended before the Security Appeals Tribunal. The position is that in many cases it would be very difficult for the Organisation even to find the material upon which the assessment was based and to sustain it because the agents involved could be dead. Potential witnesses may be dead or may have disappeared. Certainly, the criteria would be very different in many cases. We are talking about going back perhaps 25 or even 30 years. I think it is important to remember that this problem may not be a really great one, as people may fear.
Senator Puplick has referred to clause 38. 1 believe that I should refer to clause 38 which the Senate has agreed to as expanded by the amendment that I moved to the clause. I imagine that prejudice to employment is the major matter of concern. This area was covered by the amendment to the clause which, as amended, now reads: . . a Commonwealth agency shall not take, refuse to take or refrain from taking precribed administrative action on the basis of any communication in relation to a person made by the Organization not amounting to a security assessment or on the basis of an adverse or qualified security assessment made by the Organization before the commencement of this Act.
Let us take a situation in which, as envisaged by Senator Puplick, there may be some longstanding and powerful figure in the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation who, for some years, has had certain information in the back of his mind. If he were concerned about the promotion of that person or that person’s access to specific information, after the commencement of this Act, he could make that judgment only on the basis of a security assessment under this Act which would carry with it a right of appeal. The ASIO employee would be acting quite wrongly and contrary to the provisions of this Act if he were to base his judgment on any earlier assessments.
I turn to cases involving the Migration Act, the Passports Act or the Citizenship Act. People refused applications on the basis of previous assessments can apply again. A previous assessment cannot be considered or have effect. These new rights are available under this legislation. Such an assessment can be challenged. If the same assessment is repeated, it can be challenged. Then it will be expunged and those who appeal will have the right to have their applications for citizenship, passports or whatever under those Acts considered in the light of current assessments.
However, I recognise the fact that in many cases what is done is done. We cannot rectify the fact that because of an assessment a person was not employed in or promoted to a certain position. Such a decision cannot be rectified as can a denial of citizenship or action in other cases. Although, because of the provisions of section 38, as I have said, a person in such a position cannot be prejudiced any further, nevertheless, there may be some specific reasons why that person should have his assessment reviewed. If that is the reason for this provision- I agree with the claim that it does seem to be promoting a very wide discretion in the Minister- all I can say is that the Government feels that this is one of the cases where it is difficult to do other than provide a very wide discretion. Whoever is given the discretion, it will need to be in very wide terms. Because of the sensitivity of this sort of information, the Government believes that the discretion should be confined to the Minister who is concerned with these matters. It should be a responsibility which he exercises. Those are the practical reasons why the Government has included this provision in the legislation and why it opposes the Opposition’s amendment. I am glad to hear that Senator Missen will keep looking for a solution.
– We wish we could hear the same from you, Senator.
– I would still be prepared to engage in that odyssey. I would be pleased to hear if anybody can come up with a better solution.
Amendments negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 64 to 89- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.
Clause 90 (Publication of identity of officer of Organisation).
– There are several amendments to clause 90. There is one by the Opposition and there is a counter proposal to it from the Government. Both amendments deal with the same question. Technically, the Opposition’s amendment comes first because it deals with sub-clause (2), whereas my amendment proposes the addition of an additional sub-clause (3). It would be preferable if the Opposition moved its amendment and then I could explain why I am not prepared to agree to its amendment.
– Not before you hear the argument!
-I have had the amendment here for a long time.
-I move:
The essential point of clause 90, as it now stands, is that it becomes an offence to pass on the knowledge that somebody is an agent of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. Let met give an example. If you have a fellow living down the street from you whom you know to be an ASIO agent and, to put it in its crudest terms, you tell the fellows in the pub that he is an ASIO agent, that becomes an offence under this section- or at least it is arguable that it becomes an offence. The Opposition amendment is directed towards deleting sub-clause (2) of clause 90.
The essential point of this amendment is to provide that there can be no proceedings for an offence under this clause unless the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Durack) grants his consent to such proceedings. Before he grants his consent to such proceedings, he has to be satisfied that the passing on of the information about the name and identity of an ASIO agent would endanger the safety of that agent or member of the Organisation or would seriously prejudice security. So, there are two steps sought to be put in the clause by the Opposition amendment. It is not just an offence to disclose the name and identity of an ASIO agent any longer. Before that can become the subject of proceedings for an offence, the Attorney-General has to give his consent. Before he gives his consent, he has to go through the process that we have been encouraging him to engage in for the last 25 hours of this debate, in that he has to apply his mind to the problem. Then he has to decide whether he gives his consent.
There are clearly circumstances in which somebody could disclose the identity of an ASIO agent that are prejudicial to that agent and in circumstances which are clearly prejudicial to security. The great variety of circumstances which the present clause 90 in the Bill covers would neither be prejudicial to the safety of the officer concerned nor prejudicial to security. There have been instances of this. If an ASIO agent asks a particular academic to act for ASIO as a spy in a particular situation and the academic declines and in so declining says, ‘I was approached by Smith and he asked me to do some work for ASIO. He is an ASIO agent’, that person would now be subject to prosecution under this clause. The situation which I have described really seems to indicate the bumble footed approach on behalf of the ASIO agent, of which there have been plenty of examples, many of which are recorded in Mr Justice Hope’s report. Similarly, there are situations that occur in a trade union or student organisation. I remember that there were ASIO organisation agents in student organisations when I was a university student.
– How much did they pay you?
– That is not your finest interjection, Senator Cavanagh, or your funniest. Some of those people are now very prominent academics. Some of them are vice-chancellors of universities, for example, and were ASIO agents when I was a student. It used to be a matter of common knowledge and common discussion as to their identity. This situation is of course true in trade union circles. It has often happened that that has been so. Disclosing to members of a trade union that another officer or official of the trade union was an ASIO agent would attract the provisions of this clause as it now stands. In any voluntary association we like to mention, that would be the position under the present clause.
The safeguards which are provided in the Opposition ‘s amendment are quite clear. The Attorney-General would have to decide whether there would be a prosecution and he would have to decide in the particular circumstances whether it was appropriate or not for him to launch a prosecution. We have provided two sets of circumstances in which he could grant his consent to such a prosecution. Throughout this debate we have spoken about the importance of safeguards. I know that the Attorney-General resents the suggestion, but we really think it is a most important function of the Attorney-General in a system of checks and balances, such as ought to be provided in legislation of this kind, for him to be required to supervise this sort of provision and to do so in the light of certain guidelines. That is why the amendment is moved in its present form. I know that Senator Durack has indicated already that the Government intends to oppose this amendment. I guess that he is locked in, as usual, because the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) is overseas and he cannot change his mind on the basis of anything I have said. But perhaps it is a matter which he could give consideration to in the near future. It is a very important matter in the light of the sorts of circumstances in which I have suggested this provision would be quite onerous indeed.
– It has to be appreciated just how potentially draconic in its operation this section is. It provides for penalties of $ 1,000 by way of fine or imprisonment for up to one year for publishing or otherwise making public ‘any matter stating, or from which it could reasonably be inferred, that a person having a particular name or otherwise identified, or a person residing at a particular address, is an officer (not including the DirectorGeneral)’ we all know about him- ‘employee or agent of the Organization or is in any way connected with such an officer, employee or agent. ‘
It is to be noted that that fine is not the only thing that can operate by way of a penal sanction here. It is not only the conveyor or giver of such information who is caught by these penalties. Under the ordinary principles of the general law anyone who receives such information would be caught within the net of the criminal law by way of aiding and abetting such a communication. That, I would imagine, is, or at least ought to be, a matter for some considerable concern for members of the Press who are often in receipt of such communication. Not only is it the range of people who can be caught up by the operation of this clause, it is particular kinds of situations which come within the ambit of this clause which also are too wide ranging. It has to be noted that the way the clause is drawn, a person does not even have to be accurate in his statement that someone is an Australian Security Intelligence Organisation agent in order to attract the operation of this clause. He might be quite wrong in his assertion that Senator Durack or his departmental officer sitting beside him is, in fact, an ASIO agent. He could be quite wrong. But if he communicates the identity of a person in such a way that it might be inferred that a person is an ASIO agent, he comes under the umbrella occupation of this particular clause.
– The Hon. Ms Coxsedge would upset all that, wouldn’t ‘t she?
– Let us come to the Coxsedge situation. This has become known familiarly as the Coxsedge amendment or the Coxsedge clause because, quite obviously, it is aimed at, more than anyone else, the activities of the organisation known, for better or for worse, as the Campaign Against Political Police. The main spokesperson for that organisation is, of course, Ms Joan Coxsedge, M.L.C., as we are now obliged to describe her. Although the activities of Ms Coxsedge and her organisation have undoubtedly embarrassed ASIO over the course now of a number of years, and although the activities of that organisation in publishing the names and addresses of ASIO agents or putative ASIO agents would now undoubtedly be penalised by this clause, it is arguable that it is to the advantage of ASIO. This point has been put quite seriously in correspondence to the public media that I have seen. It is arguable that it is to the advantage of ASIO that organisations like Ms Coxsedge ‘s have, in the past, felt free to be able to communicate publicly such information as has come to their possession as to the identity of ASIO agents. In the future they will not, obviously, feel equally free to communicate that knowledge publicly. They will keep it to themselves and communicate it in much less obvious ways and much less public ways in order not to attract the operation of this clause. As a result, the existence of that degree of knowledge about ASIO agents that is held by organisations such as Ms Coxsedge ‘s will not, in the future, most probably, come to the attention of ASIO in the way that it has obviously come to the attention of the organisation in the past.
– Her name will be left off for the next publication.
– Well, be that as it may, the publications have been made without any opportunity for ASIO or anyone else to attribute the source of the information. But more particularly, one can imagine that information of this sort will not, in the future, be communicated publicly, certainly because of the sanctions that it will attract. That is not to assume that it will not be communicated surreptitiously and ultimately do more damage to the organisation than is the case at the moment. That is one way one could approach the operation of this clause. The Opposition has not gone so far as to say that in no circumstances should it attract criminal penalties to communicate information of that kind. We have not moved for the deletion of the clause entirely because, of course, we appreciate that there are circumstances in which the disclosure of the identity of agents or people acting on behalf of ASIO could cause serious damage to the operation of the organisation as a whole and the security that it is pledged to protect. More particularly even, it might cause a situation of personal physical danger to particular ASIO agents. All the Opposition is saying in moving the amendment is not that it be struck entirely from the statute book but simply that it be surrounded by safeguards of the kind that Senator Button has outlined.
The other point to notice about the clause as presently drafted is that it is not confined in its operation to disclosures of the identity of actual or putative ASIO employees or officers on the full time payroll of the organisation. The way the clause is drafted its operation extends to people who can be described as ‘agents’ of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation which, of course, legally speaking is a term capable of implying a much looser connection with the Organisation than that of the employer-employee relationship. It also refers in terms to anyone who is in any way connected with such an officer, employee or agent. The reality of that situation is that because of the fear of this criminal sanction a number of instances of blatant misbehaviour by ASIO such as occurred in the past, now will not be able to attract exposure in the way that they would have properly attracted exposure in the past.
One particular instance of the kind of thing I am talking about is, of course, the famous case in 1971 of Peter Coleman, journalist, politicianand whatever other careers he might have engaged in over the years- seeking to encourage another journalist, Robert Mayne, to generate publicity, or establish a journal, from information supplied by ASIO. As is known and was well documented, Coleman approached Mayne to produce a journal which would be supplied with information direct from ASIO sources. Mr Justice Hope investigated the allegations that were made publicly in that respect, and subjected that episode to some stinging criticism in his report. He made the point that it was quite improper for ASIO to seek to engage in that kind of surreptitious enterprise. The only thing that brought to light this misbehaviour of ASIO was the willingness of the journalist in question, Robert Mayne, to disclose publicly the approach made to him by Peter Coleman, who if not then acting as an employee or as an officer of ASIO, was certainly acting as an agent of ASIO or at least as someone connected with a person acting in that capacity.
It is crucially important that the abuse or misuse of ASIO power ought to be able to be made public. The language of this clause ought not to be drawn in such a way that it operates in this catch-all fashion, including within its potential ambit a whole variety of forms of disclosure; including the well motivated, the innocent and the positively beneficial in the interests of the community as a whole, as well as those of a more sinister motivation. If the clause is to operate or exist at all it is important that it be drafted in such a way that it is capable of being applied selectively in order to distinguish between the good and the bad cases. That is why the Opposition has moved its amendment in this form. We appreciate that there are obvious difficulties in trying to build into the definition of the offence the kind of criteria about damage to security or damage to the ASIO agent in question that we want to see applied. If such criteria were built into the text of the definition one would be faced with the situation of the Organisation having to prove all sorts of evidentiary matters before a court, which might cause acute embarrassment and difficulty.
We have adopted the approach that it is proper in these sorts of difficult and sensitive areas not to try to rewrite the text of the offence to include these necessary additional criteria, but rather to put it in terms of a threshold requirement of consent to prosecution. The AttorneyGeneral (Senator Durack) has circulated an amendment which indicates that he is at least willing to incorporate a requirement within clause 90 that his consent be obtained before any prosecution is mounted for a breach of this clause. We appreciate the Attorney going to those lengths. It is important that there be some sort of threshold requirement, some sort of consent provision, incorporated in the text of this Bill. We are grateful for and will certainly accept the substance of that amendment. However, we argue that it just does not go far enough. It is important here, as elsewhere, that the AttorneyGeneral’s mind be focused specifically on the considerations which are of importance in distinguishing between the legitimate and illegitimate subjects for prosecution.
I raise a point which has been raised many times in this debate, that we just cannot assume that an Attorney-General, without explicit statutory guidance, will act in a way that is motivated by and consistent with the kind of principles which the Opposition has been endeavouring to expound throughout the course of this debate. This Attorney-General or some other individual might be so motivated but it is not to be assumed that generations of Attorneys-General in future years will be similarly properly motivated. It is not even to be assumed that this Attorney will devote his attention to the particular matters which we regard as appropriate, unless he is given specific statutory reminders of the considerations which he ought to bear in mind. There ought to be no controversy about the language of the additional criteria that we want to assert. The particular considerations that we are saying he should be able to look at are whether security will be seriously prejudiced and the individual danger to which a particular agent or employee might be subjected. There ought not to be any difficulty in the Government’s acceptance of this amendment for the various reasons that have been outlined by the Opposition.
– By the time that this legislation has been passed and is operative the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) will probably be able to lay claim to the most focused mind of any individual in the Australian Commonwealth. The Opposition amendment, however, is one that I find curious in a number of respects, not the least of which, as I read what is printed on the circulated list of Opposition amendments, is amendment No. 20, which reads:
Page 33, clause 90, sub-clause 2, lines 5 and 6, leave out the sub-clause.
The sub-clause now reads:
Nothing in this section applies to the broadcasting or reporting of proceedings in the Parliament.
I must say that I find it most extraordinary for a parliamentary Opposition to seek to move as an amendment to a piece of legislation that some limitation upon the free speech of an individual shall, nevertheless, not apply to the proceedings or the broadcastings of a parliament. Some refuge might be taken in argument about parliamentary privilege. If one considers what various Opposition spokesmen have said over a period about the doctrine of parliamentary privilege, it is fair to comment that this approach is extraordinary. Neither Senator Button or Senator Evans addressed any remarks to removal of that sub-clause. If, in fact, the real substance of the Opposition amendment is simply to make amendments to sub-clause 1 to limit its operations, that would be fair enough. (Quorum formed.) Before Senator Walsh decided to make his first contribution in the 25 hours of this debate- a constructive contribution as it may be- I was drawing the attention of honourable senators to the fact that the Australian Labor Party has proposed an amendment to delete the protection of Parliament and parliamentarians from the operations of this legislation by seeking to delete sub-clause (2) of clause 90 which would give a protection, in terms of the matter of dealing with the names of ASIO agents, with regard to the broadcasting or reporting of proceedings in the Parliament.
The second point I wish to raise is that the Opposition has rightly drawn attention to the fact that a prosecution for the offence of revealing the name of an employee or agent of the Organisation or a person who is in any way connected with such an officer, employee or agent needed to have some limitation placed upon it. The Attorney-General has foreshadowed in proposed new sub-clause (3) that such a prosecution should occur only where the consent of the Attorney-General has been given. So I believe that any prosecution which takes place under that clause will be known to be a prosecution to which the Attorney-General has personally paid attention and which the AttorneyGeneral has decided should be launched. I do not think it really tells us very much about the future operations of ASIO to deal at length with the incident that occurred at the University of
Papua New Guinea or with the incident involving Mr Peter Coleman. I am convinced that, since both the publication of Mr Justice Hope’s report and the introduction of this piece of legislation, the operations of the Organisation are in far more rational hands. I do not think that particular incidents from the past lend very much weight to the argument.
The publication by the Committee for the Abolition of Political Police of the names of some persons alleged to be staff members of ASIO has been referred to. This publication is to be found in an article in the Age of 22 March. A later publication on 24 March lists 31 people in Melbourne and seven or eight people in Sydney who are alleged to be staff members of ASIO. This matter was raised with the AttorneyGeneral by way of a question in this place on 3 April, to which he replied:
Publication of this sort of material, whether it is true or false, is a serious matter Tor a security organisation.
It is also, I might add, a serious matter for the civil liberties and rights of the individuals whose names have been published and whose addresses have been published- and published in a way that I think is damaging both to their personal reputation and to their personal privacy and security. When asked what redress was available to these individuals, the AttorneyGeneral stated:
The individuals, of course, can consider their own positions and obtain their own legal advice.
I presume that means that in this instance the protection which prior to the introduction of this Bill one would have thought ought to have been extended to employees of the Commonwealth in their capacity as employees of the Security Organisation was not to be extended to them; that no assistance was to be extended to them by their employer, the Commonwealth Government. To that extent I welcome the way in which this clause has been placed in the Bill and the amendment that has been circulated in the name of the Attorney-General. It is most surprising that, given the attempt to delete sub-clause (2), Mrs Coxsedge might well find that the publication of this document by its simply being put out on the streets would land her in some trouble; whereas, under the Government’s proposal, if she simply read the list into the Hansard of the Victorian Legislative Council she would be protected. Presumably, under the Opposition amendment she would not be protected even in that circumstance if sub-clause (2) were to be removed.
Dealing with the way in which the AttorneyGeneral is going to have to focus his mind upon a series of conditions which have to be met, such as those proposed by sub-clause 2 (a) and (b) of the Opposition amendment, I notice that, whilst it refers to an action that allegedly endangers the physical safety of the officer, employee or agent, it does not say anything about the right of privacy of the officer, employee or agent and it does not say anything about the physical safety of the members of his family, which I would have thought would have been a reasonable thing to include if one were concerned to afford real protection not only to the individuals concerned but also to the people who are dependent upon them, such as members of their family and other people who may live at the published address of the alleged ASIO agent.
I find the Opposition amendment, therefore, defective in at least these two aspects: Firstly, the attempt to abolish the qualification which gives protection to members of the Parliament in the statements that they might make in the Parliament; and, secondly, the extent of sub-clause (a) of the Opposition’s proposal as to what must be prejudiced in terms of the personal physical safety of the officer. I find it to be both limiting and restrictive in a way that I would not be prepared to support. By contrast, the AttorneyGeneral is proposing to move an amendment whereby, as I said previously, it will be quite clear when a prosecution is launched under this clause that it has been launched only because the Attorney-General has considered it and decided to launch it. That undoubtedly raises it as a matter in respect of which the Attorney-General must be prepared to answer in this Parliament or in any other appropriate forum for his actions. One would have thought that the possibility of the Attorney-General ‘s being questioned here or in another place day by day or perhaps being pressed by the media to demonstrate how and why he has come to a decision to prosecute X, but perhaps not to prosecute Y who is known to have undertaken the same activity, would have been a very substantial limitation upon the way in which clause 90 would become operative, and a far more substantial limitation than that proposed by the Opposition.
It is for those reasons that I consider that the Opposition amendment is unsatisfactory and that the proposed amendment of the AttorneyGeneral would take care of most of the problems. I should add that I would not have been prepared to make such remarks unless the Attorney-General had introduced the qualification that he proposes to introduce by the insertion of the new sub-clause (3) in clause 90. Given that he intends to do that, I find that there is nothing in the Opposition amendment that attracts my support.
– I am encouraged by the fact that we have reached clause 90 of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Bill to enter into this debate for the first time. I find this clause to be a stupid and dangerous one. In my view it ought to be deleted altogether. What we are doing here is creating a precedent which I do not doubt various State governments will follow in legislation which controls their special police. I would not be surprised if Mr Bjelke-Petersen promptly follows the lead given by this Parliament and introduces such a measure to protect the bully boys whom he employs from time to time. In particular, I attract the attention of honourable senators to certain correspondence which was published in the Brisbane newspapers. It indicated that 30 or 40 special policemen took part in a special rally of people in Brisbane who were opposed to the Bjelke-Petersen Government in order to intimidate those who were participating in the rally. They took all sorts of photographs of those who participated in the rally and they objected strongly when certain protesters that day began to take photographs of them. Under this sort of legislation, if it is introduced in that State Parliament, those who took photographs of the special police in order to identify them in any proceedings that were likely to take in the courts, would be guilty of an offence.
I take it that this provision would apply to anyone who wanted to take any action. Would not that be so? If that is not the case, I may be drawing too long a bow. Nevertheless, I believe that if a member of ASIO, by his activities as an agent of ASIO, is revealed in any way, then he has blown his cover. If he blows his cover, as soon as that is known the better. The security service would naturally take the course that is necessary, that is, transfer him or place him somewhere else. But the organisation ought not to try to protect itself in this way. It seems to be a stupid and dangerous clause to be inserting in order to protect those who may be careless enough to disclose their operations.
Let us suppose that I am attending a meeting of people who may be opposed to the Government of the day. It has been my experience over the years that ASIO generally operates in support of the Government of the day, especially when it is a conservative government. If at that meeting I happened to notice a person whom I knew to be a member of ASIO and I happened to mention it at the meeting in protection of the people who happened to be there, I would find myself caught by this clause. If I happened to say anything like: ‘Let us be careful of what we say at this meeting because I believe that person to be a member of ASIO’, I would be caught by this clause. If I were to say that at that meeting, I would probably be convicted of an offence which attracts a $1,000 fine or imprisonment for one year. That offence would disqualify me under the Constitution. Even if I were merely convicted of that offence and the fine were only $5 and the gaol penalty only 14 days, under the Constitution I would forfeit my place in this Parliament. I find this clause to be a draconian one, to use the term that my colleague used.
– No. He said ‘draconic’.
-He used the word draconic’. As a Greek, I would say that it would be more correct to use the word ‘draconian’. This clause seems quite unnecessary. I would suggest that it could be dropped completely and ASIO would not be disadvantaged in any way.
Let me give another example where an ASIO agent will disclose his identity, especially when he is required to carry out an assessment of a person who is employed by a Minister. Honourable senators know as well as I do that when a security check is made of a person employed, for example, by the Minister for Defence, the person concerned is checked through the referees which that person has given. We have had example after example where ASIO agents have gone to referees to check the personal history of the person who is employed. He discloses his identity. Immediately he carries out that check he discloses his identity as an ASIO agent. The referee, having been approached by an ASIO agent, is placed in the position where he cannot disclose the fact that he has been approached. It seems to me highly undesirable to have a clause of this sort in the Bill. Although I may be going against the proposition that my own side is putting the best way to deal with this clause seems to be to drop it altogether, including that provision which talks about parliamentary privilege. Even if that clause were dropped, along with the amendment, the privilege of this Parliament would cover any disclosure which is made within this Parliament.
So I think that what Senator Puplick said was irrelevant. Even if the introduction of such amendment were accepted, the privilege of this Parliament would not be affected in any way. However, I return to my original proposition which is that it is dangerous to introduce such a clause. It would set an example to the States to introduce such clauses to cover their special branches of the police. It seems to be highly unnecessary to protect ASIO in such a childish way.
-I am indebted to Senator Puplick for reminding the Opposition that neither Senator Button nor I had actually explained why we wanted to delete subclause (2) as well as insert the provision to which we directed our remarks. Sub-clause (2 ) states:
Nothing in this section applies to the broadcasting or reporting of proceedings in the Parliament.
The reason we want to delete this sub-clause is not because we want to expose parliamentarians in any way to the penalties set out in this clause, as Senator Puplick intimated, but rather because we want to make absolutely sure that parliamentarians are not exposed. Let me explain the reasoning which justifies our seeking to have this clause removed. As it reads at the moment it does not in its terms give protection to members of Parliament. The way this clause is drafted, it gives protection to those who report or broadcast proceedings of Parliament. It gives protection to the Press Gallery, to Hansard and to the Australian Broadcasting Commission. Sub-clause (2) operates to protect those people who work within the Parliament.
– Is not this the normal operation of the rules of privilege?
– Let me come to that matter, Senator Mason. One presumes that the intention of the Government is to maintain the protection of parliamentarians which exists by virtue of the ordinary rules of privilege and which would, as Senator Mason and Senator Georges before him have pointed out, in the absence of any statutory provision to the contrary, continue to apply. The difficulty arises in the way that this clause is drafted at the moment which rather suggests that that privilege does not apply in this situation, when offences under this clause are at issue. If the privilege did apply and was enjoyed by parliamentarians, that privilege would be shared in the normal way by those who report and broadcast proceedings. The qualified privilege, as it is described, that is enjoyed by broadcasters and reporters of parliamentary proceedings is built upon the privilege enjoyed by parliamentarians themselves. If parliamentarians do not have the privilege and the Government wants to protect broadcasters and reporters, it would have to create an explicit statutory provision in order to do so.
The existence of this statutory provision in sub-clause (2), although it might have been inserted for the best abundance of caution motives in order to be aimed at making absolutely sure that reporters and broadcasters were covered, may indeed have precisely the opposite effect by the application of an expressio unius kind of legal reasoning: the mere fact that the Government included it rather presumes that it was necessary to be included, and that the ordinary rules of privilege would not apply. There may be something wrong with that reasoning, but if there is I would like to hear it from the mouth of the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) because, as sub-clause (2) stands at the moment, it seems to be at best unnecessary and redundant and, at worst, quite dangerous, by virtue of giving rise to a legal implication that parliamentarians themselves do not enjoy the privilege. It is for that reason that the Opposition sought to remove that sub-clause, although that is not the main thrust of our amendment to clause 90. The main thrust of the amendment has been the subject of previous contributions by Senator Button and me.
– It is some considerable time since I first intervened to speak to this clause. I have now had the opportunity of listening to a very full discussion of these amendments. Nothing that I have heard has changed the view that I formed at the beginning of the debate- that my amendment is to be preferred to the Opposition’s amendment. Accordingly, the Government will oppose the Opposition’s amendment. I trust that the Committee will support the amendment that I have moved largely for the reasons which have been expressed by Senator Puplick. An Attorney-General would obviously take into account the matters that are contained in the Opposition’s amendment, but he may also properly take into account other matters. Senator Puplick has given some examples. In the event that there were a careless or unthoughtful Attorney-General, I am sure that advice would always be given to him to draw his attention to the sort of considerations he should have in mind in the first place. If his Department failed him, which I think is very unlikely, there is always the Parliament- as Senator Puplick has said- to ensure that he is accountable. He would pay the penalty if he did not take his responsibilities in a serious way and take into account matters such as those which have been mentioned. I think it is most undesirable to limit in a specific way the matters which an AttorneyGeneral should take into account. I have not been able to find any precedents to indicate that that has been done in other situations where this provision applies. For those reasons, I oppose the
Opposition’s amendment and urge the Committee to support the amendment I have moved.
– I regret once again to have to draw to the attention of the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) the fact that he has not addressed his mind to one of the major elements in the Opposition’s amendment. The particular element I am talking about is the proposal to delete existing sub-clause (2). I do not know whether this is because the Attorney does not understand or cannot understand, whether he disagrees or just was not listening. This is the umpteenth time that he has not answered propositions of this kind.
– I seem to share that failing with Senator Evans who did not understand the reasons for the Government’s amendment in the first place, either. I did not think that the reasons given for the Opposition’s amendment were very serious. The fact is that nothing in the provisions of clause 90 would affect section 49 of the Constitution which concerns the privileges of Parliament. As the Committee would know, the privileges of members of Parliament are a different matter from the right to broadcast or to report what members say. Those matters are the subject of other legislation such as the Parliamentary Proceedings Broadcasting Act and the Parliamentary Papers Act. Sub-clause (2) is simply a precaution which indicates that nothing affects the existing legislation.
-I am encouraged by Senator Evans’s observations. I thought Senator Puplick said that he did not understand the consequences of the deletion from sub-clause (2). Clearly the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Durack) does not understand them either. The amendment moved by the Opposition simply provides that no proceedings for an offence shall be taken except with the consent of the Attorney-General who has to be satisfied about two things. If they are the only circumstances in which a prosecution can be taken, the provisions of sub-clause (2) as they now stand in the Bill become quite superfluous. No Attorney in his wildest imaginings would consent to a prosecution in the sort of circumstances that are envisaged by sub-clause (2). We have heard so much about the virtues of Attorneys-General. We have heard that they are men of wisdom and discretion in these matters. Suddenly it seems to be no longer so. That is the reason why we seek to delete the provision. We say that the situation is adequately covered by the amendment which the Opposition has moved.
– That is another reason. It is not the reason I advanced.
– I am not suggesting that it is the reason Senator Evans advanced. I meant that I was encouraged by Senator Evans’s suggestion that the Attorney had not understood this or any other point. It was in relation to the ‘any other part’ that I made that suggestion.
– I would like to refer to one point which the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) seems to have missed. I am talking from the point of view of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. I consider that it is rather stupid to keep this provision in the Bill. If an ASIO agent is identified in an organisation, his name cannot be revealed. But his work would become ineffective. Word would go around an organisation that an ASIO agent was present, but such information could not be publicised or broadcast. Nothing could be done about it. But he would be a marked man. People would know who the agent was. He would become ineffective. To me the sub-clause is absolutely stupid.
Amendment negatived.
Amendment (by Senator Durack) agreed to:
Page 33, clause 90, at end of clause, add the following new sub-clause:
A prosecution for an offence against sub-section ( 1 ) shall be instituted only by or with the consent of the Attorney-General. ‘.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 1 agreed to.
Clause 92 (Annual report)
Amendment (by Senator Durack) agreed to:
Page 33, clause 92, line 23, leave out ‘3 1 December’, substitute ‘30 June’.
– I move:
We have had some debate about the principles of this amendment already. The Opposition moved an early amendment to provide for annual reports of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to be given to the Leader of the Opposition. I indicated that I would move an amendment to achieve this purpose at an appropriate time in our consideration of the Bill. There is no dispute about the actual principle of a copy of the annual report being furnished to the Leader of the Opposition. The reason the phrase but it is the duty of the Leader of the Opposition to treat it as secret’ is added is that the ASIO annual report is a highly classified and secret document.
– And it would be so regarded. That language is offensive, Attorney.
– No. An Executive Councillor takes an oath of secrecy. When a person becomes a Minister, he is expected to have regard to matters of secrecy. It is just not left to chance, to honour or whatever. It is a solemn thing that is done. The recommendation of Mr Justice Hope in relation to this matter is that the report should be given on Executive Council conditions. That is the explanation of the phraseology used here. I am sorry if Senator Evans is offended by it. But it is to ensure that in relation to this report the Leader of the Opposition is in no different position from the Minister to whom the report is given.
-When we were considering earlier provisions of this legislation regarding the Director-General consulting with the Leader of the Opposition on a regular basis and other provisions of that kind, there was no such requirement that the Leader of the Opposition should treat anything revealed to him in those consultations as secret. I understand that ASIO annual reports are really pretty slender volumes. Not much is revealed in them. They can be read very quickly. I would have thought that the words which the Minister has just argued as being necessary in explanation of the amendment that he has just moved were somewhat offensive. After all, the Leader of the Opposition is an office holder of this Parliament. In other parts of this legislation he has been entrusted, in accordance with the suggestions of Mr Justice Hope and in accordance with the arguments that we have put, with information which might be important and which might be highly secret, with no such provision. It is only in regard to this absurd and formal annual report that such a provision is included. To that extent, the legislation is inconsistent. Insofar as the Leader of the Opposition, in the spirit of bipartisanship about which Mr Justice Hope wrote and which largely seems to have eluded the Government -
– It was his suggestion, senator.
– I know. I understand that. It is just that the Government took up this suggestion of his and not half a dozen others about consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. That is why we say that this is an offensive provision. Accordingly, I move:
– I rise very briefly to reinforce the comments made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in this place, Senator Button. The effect of the words which the Attorney wishes to insert in addition to the general accountability provision, which is how the other phrases of the clause to be inserted can be regarded, are applauded by the Opposition. But these particular words, requiring the Leader of the Opposition to exercise secrecy in regard to the report, in our view, in statutory terms, in black and white and as an expression of opinion by the Parliament, imply some lack of confidence in the integrity of the Leader of the Opposition. It is that to which the Opposition very vigorously objects. Whilst this clause makes the pretence of being bipartisan and attempts to give the impression that the Attorney is being as open as he possibly can in permitting the loyal Opposition as it is generally regarded, to have an overview of the activities of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation in any one year, this particular inference is made against the Leader of the Opposition.
I submit that any Leader of the Opposition who was given access to the sort of sensitive material that would be found in an ASIO report would regard himself as being bound by the ordinary conventions as to secrecy. But of course I can give no undertaking that a Leader of the Opposition would always remain silent on some matter which came to his attention solely by way of reading the report of the Director-General of ASIO. Nor indeed can any Minister give an assurance that he will never break the oath of Executive Council secrecy that he might take.
– Why shouldn’t he give an assurance that he won’t break the oath?
– Well, he can give an assurance. My point is that one can never predict what might happen in the future. It may be that he will see something which he feels compelled in conscience to bring to the attention of the Australian people.
– Or his own party.
– No, to the Australian people. I believe that as Leader of the Opposition he might find, when reading some aspect of an ASIO report, that the report reveals that ASIO has been persistently wilful in failing to follow up some particular terrorist organisation. It may be revealed that the Minister has refused to act on evidence brought forward by ASIO that some subversive group has infiltrated one of the major political parties. I am just speculating. But it may be that the Leader of the Opposition would feel compelled in conscience to abandon the usual convention as to secrecy which he would otherwise of course willingly undertake and come into the Parliament and reveal to the Australian people what had come to his knowledge. I am simply saying that one can give an undertaking, but no assurance that that undertaking will not be broken in some extreme circumstances can be given.
My point is that, by putting into statutory form the convention as to secrecy, one will in no way prevent that from happening should the event which triggered this need that the Leader of the Opposition saw to bring the matter to the attention of the Australian people occur. That being the case, I think that this particular amendment is unable to achieve its purpose and is highly offensive. We simply ask that this particular phrase be deleted from the intended amendment.
– I support the remarks of Senator Button and Senator Tate on this clause, although I must confess that Senator Tate’s speculations about human fallibility and the demands of conscience upon Ministers may well have hindered somewhat rather than helped the clause of this argument. I rise only to ask the Attorney one short question. The Attorney said that this provision in this clause ensures that the Leader of the Opposition will not be treated any differently from the Minister. I ask the Attorney: Does this mean that the consultation provisions that were earlier written into the Bill by way of new clause 20A are now not to be taken seriously? Insofar as the legislation lacked any such provision which is now to be contained in this clause does this mean that the Leader of the Opposition is not to be treated, for the purpose of those consultations, in the same way as the Minister of the day in that he will not be given by the Director-General any security sensitive information?
-I wish to say a few words on this matter. The main element that concerns me is the value of the words in this amendment that some people find offensive. To what extent are the words enforceable upon the Leader of the Opposition? What if the Leader of the Opposition does not comply with them and breaks an oath of secrecy? What is the penalty? If he achieves something by not complying with them, there may be some reward. Those words have no effect, so why should they be inserted in the clause? They do not bind the Leader. I think it makes a laughing stock of the Parliament when we set out in legislation the duty of the Leader of the Opposition. It is a fallacy to think that we can lay down what is the duty of the Leader of the Opposition. We simply cannot do it. We have no right to do it. The Leader of the Opposition could tell us where to go with his duty.
There may be a time when he has to exercise his responsibility and not disclose something which he has found. I think it is generally accepted that when he accepts the important position of Leader of the Opposition in the Parliament he accepts the responsibility not to disclose anything that would add to the dangers of Australian security. Now we are trying to put in a clause, not one which was originally written by the draftsman but one that some Liberal Party back benchers wanted to put in for the purpose of humiliating the Leader of the Opposition. It is a clause which humiliates us more than it humiliates the Leader of the Opposition. It will have no value whether it is agreed to or not. As honourable senators have heard tonight, some Opposition senators find it offensive. They think it is a reflection upon the present Leader of the Opposition. The present leader or any future leader of the Opposition would be under no compulsion to observe it. It has no value at all. Yet the Government is insisting on its insertion, apparently to appease a group of back benchers within the Liberal Party who should know better.
– I have found myself in agreement with most of the Opposition amendments to the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Bill but I totally support the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) and the Government on this clause. I disagree with Senator Evans, Senator Button, Senator Cavanagh and Senator Tate. I studied a little law in my education but not as much as the learned gentlemen who have spoken. Therefore, I find that I sometimes absorb points made in this debate a few minutes after everybody else. I say without patronage that the Attorney has made generous concessions since this Bill was first introduced into the Parliament in relation to giving information to the Leader of the Opposition. When the Bill was first introduced it provided for very little information to be given to him. The kind of information has been extended generously by the amendments moved by the Attorney. Is the Opposition saying- I will be pleased to hear an answer by way of interjection- that the Leader of the Opposition should be placed in a more advantageous position than a Minister of the Crown in not divulging information?
– No.
-That is as I understand it. Every Executive Councillor and every Minister is obliged by oath not to disclose information on anything. Let us get the ASIO legislation out of our minds. Every Minister is obliged not to disclose anything that is marked secret, confidential or classified. A Minister takes an oath not to divulge such information or have it divulged in any way.
– That is not quite true. It is only Cabinet and Executive Council material.
– What Minister is not an Executive Councillor? I have the advantage over Senator Evans in that I have been appointed a Minister nine times. That is not a smart Alec comment. Senator Evans can have the luxury of saying that it is nasty to leak secret information but the fact is that leaks come out of Minister’s offices every day.
– The oath of secrecy does not apply to everything. It applies, as Senator Evans says, only to Cabinet and Executive Council documents.
– I agree. Senator Cavanagh has taken the oath on three occasions. It is in fairly general terms. The point I am making is that we are talking about Tweedledum and Tweedledee. After a certain person was exposed for leaking information to a journalist a few years ago he said in the Parliament that he was not leaking information but backgrounding a journalist. I need not name the politician. He is now notorious. Since then leaking has become respectable provided people say that they are not divulging secret information but backgrounding a journalist. An honourable senator last week said that he had backgrounded a journalist. The Government and the Opposition are like Tweedledum and Tweedledee. With great respect to the Opposition whose views I respect on this matter, I think it is fair that the Leader of the Opposition, because of the generous concessions the Government has made to him, should not be on equal grounds with a Minister or Attorney in the responsibility placed on him when he is given information.
– The way in which the Royal Commissioner approached this matter ought to be introduced at least in part into the debate. As the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) has indicated, the phrase which Opposition senators find so objectionable is basically an attempt to give legislative form to an expression which the Royal Commissioner used. In discussing the whole question of the accountability to Parliament in volume one of the fourth report the royal commissioner indicated firstly:
The problem of the accountability of the Director-General and of the organisation generally to the Parliament has given me very great trouble but I have come to the conclusion, as did the Canadian Royal Commission on Security, that I should not recommend that there should be a parliamentary committee to scrutinize or supervise ASIO ‘s activities.
He went on to make some remarks about the Parliament and then addressed himself to the question of the position of the Leader of the Opposition after a discussion about what he believed to be the elements of bipartisanship that this legislation needed. In paragraph 463 of the report he said:
I have come to the conclusion that no useful purpose would be served by presentation of an annual report to Parliament. I shall not recommend the institution of such a system. I have already proposed the presentation by ASIO of an annual, classified report to the Government. It should bc shown, under ‘Executive Councillor’ conditions, to the Leader of the Opposition, as part of the Prime Minister’s arrangements for consultation with him on matters of intelligence and security.
To give statutory effect to the phrase ‘Executive Councillor conditions’ will obviously be a difficult task for the Government. I do not know that any piece of statute law other than perhaps the Constitution itself recognises a particular position for people who are members of the Executive Council. Therefore, the Government’s proposed amendment which says that it is the duty of the Leader of the Opposition to treat the report as secret is the formula which picks up the royal commissioners’ comment about Executive Councillor conditions.
It was interesting in listening to the speeches of several Opposition senators to see the different way in which they approached what that meant. Senator Tate has already been rebuked by Senator Evans. Senator Tate is often rebuked by Senator Evans in another context. He was rebuked for making comments about conscience and duty to the people. Senator Evans found those comments did not somehow sufficiently advance the proposition he supported. An exchange took place between Senator Tate and Senator Cavanagh by way of interjection as to whether the Leader of the Opposition revealed the details of the annual report in line with what Senate Tate saw as his duty to the people of Australia and what Senator Cavanagh saw as his responsibility to the members of his Party. I think the prohibition upon the Attorney-General or any Minister of the Crown who has access to the document referred to in this legislation discussing it with members of his Party should equally apply to the Leader of the Opposition in terms of the limitation that is placed on him when discussing it with members of his party or anyone else. In paragraph 462 of the Royal Commissioner’s report he described the annual report of ASIO as follows:
But it must be recognised that, with so much of ASIO’s work secret, very little of real value to the Parliament, which is a public forum, could be provided.
But if an annual report were provided to the Leader of the Opposition and if it were a report that went further than that because it was understood that Parliament is not a public forum- in other words, it revealed details to the Attorney and to the Leader of the Opposition that it would not be able to reveal in the public forum because both of them have a duty to protect the secrecy of it- the Leader of the Opposition clearly would have recourse to pursue the matter with the Minister or with the Government at that level and not simply to pursue it in any organised or disorganised fashion in the forum of Parliament, the media or anywhere else. I think that to some extent the secrecy provisions or the executive counsellor provisions are a protection for the Leader of the Opposition to prevent his own political party- be it the current Opposition party or the present coalition Government parties in opposition- putting pressure on the Leader of the Opposition to reveal to his party under some threat from it the details of the security report to which he has access.
The exchange that took place in part between Senator Evans and Senator Chipp was also revealing. Senator Chipp was making a point about documents required to be regarded as confidential by executive counsellors. Senator Evans interjected to ask what would happen if some low ranking clerk in the Department of Defence with a twitchy wrist stamped the words ‘secret’ or ‘confidential ‘ on any piece of paper that came across his desk. The situation with which we are dealing is not one -
– His ministerial oath would not cover that situation, Whatever else covers that situation, the ministerial oath doesn’t; so don ‘t misrepresent me.
-No. What I am saying is that the interjection that suggested that somehow simply because somebody else along the line tried to elevate a document into the status of being confidential that it would bind an executive counsellor, a Minister, or a Leader of the Opposition simply draws a red herring across the whole debate. Quite clearly the report that Mr Justice Hope envisages as constituting the annual report of ASIO will be something that contains material which of its very nature is critical to the operations of the security service. The report that goes to the Minister obviously will be of sufficient status or detail to allow the Minister to make some sort of evaluation of the extent of the work. It would give perhaps the number of warrants, the number of telephone taps that have occurred, the amount of surveillance, the number of agents or anything else like this that would allow the Attorney properly to carry out his ministerial function of oversight of the Organisation. Clearly, any Director-General who in a secret annual report to the Minister did not reveal these details would be quite derelict in his duty. The Attorney and perhaps the Prime Minister or whoever else in on the ministerial security committee or whatever is bound by the oath regarding the confidentiality of a document which is obviously and indisputably a document of high security classification. lt cannot be presumed that another combative political figure whose interest- indeed whose responsibility- is to bring down the Government, should be given that document with free access and free rein. It may well be that Senator Tate and his colleagues believe that only a matter of high conscience or absolute principle would cause the Leader of the Opposition to reveal the information. That question of high conscience and high principle may equally apply to the Attorney or to a Minister of the Government who finds something disturbing in that document. Yet as executive counsellors they are not provided with the sanction free situation of being allowed to run the document around the Press Gallery to conduct a campaign that may come to their minds.
– With great respect, you have detracted from your argument slightly by bringing in the politically combative nature of the Leader of the Opposition. Would you not agree that your argument would apply with equal force to the Government Whip if he had access to the document?
– I said it would equally apply perhaps to another Minister of the same government who might find dispute with–
– But even the Government Whip should take the oath. He should be bound by it?
– Yes, the Government Whip should equally be bound by the oath. It would undoubtedly stop me and others from pressing the Government Whip to reveal to us for any purpose what is in a document. That is why I said earlier that I believe that this provision provides some sort of security and protection of the position of the Leader of the Opposition because everybody else knows that his legal responsibility is not to reveal the contents of the document. In that sense I see it in fact as a protection of the Leader of the Opposition from pressures that may be applied to him to make known the contents of the document.
The final point that I wish to make is about what sanctions, if any, exist. I presume that by and large in a parliamentary democracy the real sanctions that exist against the misbehaviour of Prime Ministers, Ministers, Leaders of the Opposition or members are basically not particularly legal sanctions. They are sanctions which the Parliament imposes upon people whom it regards as being in breach of their duty and responsibility or sanctions which the electorate imposes on them. It may well be that the only sanction that the Government has is to bring in a piece of legislation the following year to repeal this part of the legislation to ensure that the report is not made available to the Leader of the Opposition in the future. I believe that this clause in fact gives protection to the Leader of the Opposition. It lies very squarely within the recommendation of Mr Justice Hope. It ensures that the position of the Leader of the Opposition in possession of this report is no different from the position of a Minister of the Crown in possession of this report. The amendment moved by the Attorney-General should be supported in the form in which it comes before the chamber.
Amendment to amendment negatived.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Proposed new clauses 92a and 92B.
– I seek leave to move together proposed new clauses 92a and 92B, both of which have been circulated.
– Is it the wish of the Committee that these two proposed new clauses be taken together? There being no objection, it is so ordered.
– I move:
Page 33, after clause 92, insert the following new clauses: 92a. The Organization shall cause to be kept proper accounts and records of the transactions and affairs of the Organization and shall do all things necessary to ensure that all payments out of its moneys are correctly made and properly authorised and that proper control is maintained over the assets of or in the custody of the Organization and over the incurring of liabilities by the Organization. 92b. ( I ) The Auditor-General shall inspect and audit the accounts and records of financial transactions of the Organisation and records relating to assets of, or in the custody of the Organisation and shall forthwith draw the attention of the Minister to any irregularity disclosed by the inspection and audit that is, in the opinion of the Auditor-General, of sufficient importance to justify his doing so.
The Auditor-General may, in his discretion, dispense with all or any part of the detailed inspection and audit of any accounts or records referred to in sub-section ( I ).
The Auditor-General shall, at least once in each year, report to the Minister the results of the inspection and audit carried out under sub-section ( 1 ).
The Auditor-General is entitled at times agreed between the Director-General and the Auditor-General, but at least once a year, to full and free access to all accounts, records, documents and papers of the Organization relating directly or indirectly to the receipt or payment of moneys by the Organization or to the acquisition, receipt, custody or disposal of assets by the Organization.
The Auditor-General may inspect any such accounts, records, documents or papers.
The Auditor-General may require any person to enable him to have access to such information in the possession of the person or to which the person has access, as the Auditor-General considers necessary for the purposes of the functions of the Auditor-General under this Act and the person shall comply with the requirement.
A person who contravenes sub-section (6) is guilty of an offence punishable, upon conviction, by a fine not exceeding $200.’.
These proposed new clauses relate to the financial accountability of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. This is a matter on which the legislation stands completely silent. Indeed, there is a long tradition of silence so far as the funding of ASIO is concerned. The most that this Parliament is ever told about the money that it raised for ASIO and spent by ASIO is the one-line appropriation that appears in the Appropriation Bills each year and occasionally in the supplementary appropriations which follow thereafter. It has been the practice not to answer any questions in Estimates Committees or on the floor of this chamber in relation to the detailed breakup of that expenditure or to answer any questions relating to the propriety with which that money has been spent within the categories for which it is allocated.
Accordingly, the Opposition has moved these two amendments which together provide for a proper system of financial accountability, a condition which one would have thought would have been beyond argument, given the experience in particular in recent years in the United States of America in relation to the activities and operations of both the Central Intelligence Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, whose extravagant misbehaviour very often has been attributed in the past to the quite uncontrolled way in which particular budgets or sections of budgets were able to be voted and spent by those organisations without any effective kind of congressional or other oversight.
The kind of oversight that the Opposition is seeking to provide in these amendments is not a congressional or parliamentary oversight in the way that operates in the United States or in our own system in respect of other departments. We acknowledge that here, as elsewhere, there is something especially sensitive about security matters which justifies by and large much of the detail being kept from the public domain. It is not to say all financial details should be kept from the public domain. We hope that in the annual reports and other forms of public accountability that we are seeking to provide for, some provision will be made for a more detailed account of the way in which the Organisation is spending its money to be given. We are talking here specifically about the detailed analysis of the Organisation’s accounts, methods of accounting, cost control and expenditure control adopted by the Organisation, and methods of ensuring that the Organisation observes propriety and constraint in the way it operates its finances. The elements of the amendments moved by the Opposition, accordingly, are as follows: In the proposed new clause 92A, we simply urge the insertion of a clause of the kind which is quite familiar in statutory authorities generally, providing simply that the Organisation shall cause to be kept proper accounts and records. Clause 92B is a more elaborate provision dealing with the auditing of those accounts and records by the Auditor-General. What is provided here is that the Auditor-General shall inspect and audit all the accounts of ASIO; that he shall report upon his inspection and audit to the Minister; that in exercising those powers and inspection and report, he shall have whatever necessary powers of access and inspection as are appropriate to enable him to exercise his function.
It will be noted that in this provision there is not any specific requirement that there be direct reporting to Parliament either by the Organisation itself or by the Auditor-General. To that extent we are conceding the legitimacy, as I foreshadowed a moment ago, of some variation from the normal practice of parliamentary control of the details of expenditure. However, what the Opposition does insist upon, and what is entirely lacking from the present arrangement, is a role for the independent, expert AuditorGeneral, a man whose honesty and integrity ought to be throroughly beyond dispute in this
Parliament, the notion being that the AuditorGeneral is an independent statutory officer of the Crown, and the existence of his role as an auditor of these accounts will ensure that there is no misappropriation, no malfunctioning, no misexpenditure of ASIO moneys in the way that might well have happened in the past because we simply did not know what was going on.
It will be appreciated that this financial accountability is just another one of those different kinds of heads of accountability which we have been at pains to urge all though this debate. It is that five-part accountability system that involves accountability to the Minister; accountability in a sense to the Leader of the Opposition; accountability to Parliament in the form of an annual report; and accountability in the form of a regular judicial audit. Each one of those elements in this accountability system is something we have been pressing as a necessary part of an integrated approach to the whole question of ensuring that ASIO does not go beyond its charter.
It becomes the more necessary that there be some provision of the kind that the Opposition is proposing to insert by these amendments when we consider that earlier this session this Parliament debated the Audit Amendment Bill 1979, a piece of legislation which incorporated a new section 70D into the Audit Act. This is a section which, quite extraordinarily on its face, had the effect of making provision for exempt accounts either of the whole of the department or organisation or of part of such a department’s or organisation’s operations. In brief, what is provided for in the new section 70D of the Audit Act is that the appropriate Minister can certify as exempt, as being contrary to the national interest, either the whole or a particular part of the accounts of any organisation. Of course ‘organisation’ is defined in such a way as to include, among other statutory authorities and departments, ASIO itself. There is now a situation where there is express statutory authority for Ministers- in this case no doubt the Attorney-General- certifying as exempt from the Auditor-General’s scrutiny, at his pleasure, either the whole of ASIO’s accounts or some particular part of them.
In the course of the debate in which Senator Webster led on behalf of the Government- this is a matter which occasioned some publicity when this emerged on 1 March this year- it emerged, indeed it was expressly acknowledged by Senator Webster, that this particular amendment incorporating section 70D of the Audit Act was designed and had the effect of correcting what had been a long standing illegality in the operation of ASIO’s accounts. It was openly acknowledged by the Government Minister on that occasion that the way in which ASIO ‘s accounts had been audited for the last 30 years- ever since 1949- had been illegal in the sense that the auditing system had not complied with any specific exemption in the provisions in the Audit Act as it stood for the whole of that period and that there was no statutory basis or authority for the way in which those accounts had been dealt with.
The way the ASIO accounts had been dealt with over the whole of that 30-year period also emerged in the course of that debate when reference was made to an explanation which had been given to the Parliament back in 1 97 1 in the course of an Estimates Committee controversy over ASIO accounts. Regrettably it was not a matter that seems to have been taken any further in the Parliament as a whole. Certainly the point was not taken in 1971 that the procedure then explained was illegal in the sense that there was no compliance with the Audit Act. The situation described in 1971 in the Estimates Committee proceedings of that time was reported at page 2551 of Senate Hansard of 8 December 1971. The explanation for the auditing of ASIO’s accounts was in the following terms:
The accounts of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation arc audited by the Auditor-General under arrangements agreed in 1949 between the then Prime Minister and Treasurer and the then Auditor-General. These arrangements provide for a normal audit of transactions and include as part of that audit the provision of a certificate by the Director-General of Security in respect of a minor portion of the expenditure and by the responsible Minister certifying that that portion of the expenditure was properly made in the interests ofthe Public Service.
The Auditor-General accepts these certificates in completion of his audits. This arrangement is patterned on the British practice, dating back to the late 1 9th Century. lt might have been patterned on British practice, but it was not patterned on Australian law. In 1979 the Australian Government got around to correcting the legal situation. In correcting the situation, the Government has created a situation which has made the situation even more obscure than it was before. The statutory authority which the Minister now has under the Audit Act goes not only to certifying and keeping immune from the Auditor-General ‘s scrutiny a ‘minor portion ‘ of ASIO’s accounts, which appears to have been the practice as described at least up to 1971, but also to exempting, if he regards it as in the national interest to do so, the whole of ASIO’s accounts from the Auditor-General ‘s scrutiny.
I do not know whether the Attorney is going to tell us tonight- I would be interested to know the answer- whether he is now certifying or does propose to certify under this legislation the whole of ASIO’s accounts, only some minor proportion of them or none at all. We just do not know. All we know is that the Minister, by statutory authority, now, with the stroke of his pen, can exempt the whole of ASIO’s accounts from any scrutiny by the independent Auditor-General. The situation then is that in principle it surely must be accepted that ASIO’s accounts ought to be the subject of some proper scrutiny by an independent public officer namely, the Auditor-General himself. The United States experience and everything else have shown us the importance of that principle being observed.
The only possible ground on which the Opposition can see some justification for ASIO’s accounts not being thrown open for the AuditorGeneral ‘s scrutiny is some belief that the Auditor-General is an untrustworthy individual and that he, presumably like the Leader of the Opposition whom we discussed in the last amendment, cannot be trusted to preserve security and confidentiality in respect to what they learn from his scrutiny of those accounts. I would have thought that just as the last amendment was offensive to the Leader of the Opposition so the Government’s attitude here is to be regarded as offensive to the position of the AuditorGeneral. That position ought to be unconscionable not only to the Opposition and the Australian people but also to Senator Missen.
– I support this point. I would be very surprised if, indeed, the Government rejected these amendments completely out of hand. It might wish to modify them, but surely we have got to the basic crunch situation. With all due respect to Senator Missen and others who would like to get this all out of the way in the next 10 minutes, I suggest we are discussing something of rather more importance than that to the Australian people. I do not believe this is something that we can just throw away because it might suit our convenience to go to bed at half past ten.
– You mind your own business.
– I might. With respect to you, Senator Missen, you were minding mine earlier in the day and publicly in the Senate.
– That might be so.
– And rightly so, I will not make that response to you. You say to me to mind my own business. I will accept that. I will mind my own business, but 1 will thank you to mind yours. To return to the point, as Senator
Evans said we have had abundant lessons. History has always treated badly those who will not learn from experience. We have learnt from Savak, from the Central Intelligence Agency, from the Bay of Pigs and from the establishment of brothels by the CIA at enormous expense for the gratification of its members. It has been proven that if people are given unlimited use of money they can be expected to abuse it. Everybody is human. I have said before, speaking in Committee on this Bill, that the Government is making an intolerable error in that it is somehow thinking that its people in its security organisation are gods, that they are superhuman, that in some way they are better than everybody else in the world, including, as Senator Evans said, the Attorney-General or the Leader of the Opposition. That is not so. There is no reason whatsoever to suppose that a recruit to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation staff is a more credible, more reasonable or more honourable person than the Leader of the Opposition. I would suggest that that is an intolerable situation.
I would make another point that has not been made yet, and it is this: I can see no reason why proposed new clause 92B should not be adopted. There is no reason to suppose that the revelation of the money has been spent by a security organisation is going to breach any particular matter of security. I would have thought that was obvious, that it was reasonable that the society should know how much we are spending on security and that it was unreasonable to assert knowledge of that to the community was in some way going to breach a particular point of security. I would be obliged if the Attorney answered that point in detail a little later on.
I applaud proposed new clause 92C. I think it is very good that there should be a situation that would give concern to the community. There might be a situation in which, perhaps, the number of warrants that are being issued might be a revelation There is no reason to suppose that revelation of the number of warrant is going to prejudice any particular security cause, but in a dangerous situation it might reveal to society an intolerable situation in which there was overuse of warrants by the organisation. I would, I think, approve basically of proposed new clause 92D. I believe the same logic applies. I would ask the Attorney to tell me how any particular security cause is going to be prejudiced by a general audit.
– I take a point of order. I do not think proposed new clause 92C and proposed new clause 92D have yet been moved. Are we discussing them all together?
– Order! We are discussing proposed new clauses 92 A and 92 B.
– The honourable senator is speaking to proposed new clauses 92C and 92D.
– I would ask Senator Mason to speak only to those proposed new clauses.
-Thank you, Senator Hamer, for reminding me of that point.
– A great contribution to the debate.
– No, it is fair enough. We must run things properly in this place and keep our personal views out of it, I would hope. I think I have made my point. I have asked the Attorney a number of questions. I request his reply as to why he assures us that a general accountability on the number of warrants is going to prejudice any individual aspect of security. If he can answer that I will go home satisfied. I do hope he will.
– I speak for the first time in this debate to support the two amendments moved by Senator Evans. I think they are of grave importance to this legislation. It is not the first time that I have spoken on the audit of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. I have raised this matter repeatedly on the Estimates since I have been a member of this place. Now that the appropriation for ASIO has escalated to an enormous cost it is all the more important that we should have a proper audit and Parliament should be advised how the money is spent. Looking at the Budget documents of 1976-77, in the last Labor Budget there was an amount of $6,390,000 provided for ASIO. We notice in the first Budget brought down by this Government that amount had escalated by an amount of $1,410,000. The next year it had escalated by an amount of $1,150,000. In the last Budget brought down by this Government- the Budget of last year- it had escalated again by $2,602,000. When we look at the Budget for ASIO in the 1975-76 Budget, there in an amount of $6,390,000. When we look at the last Budget of this Government we see it is now $ 1 2,552,000, almost double the previous amount in the short time that this Government has been in office. There is no accountability to the Parliament as to how that money has been spent. I am very concerned that an ex-Premier of South Australia, a one time senator, Senator Hall, made a statement during the inquiry into the Salisbury affair in South Australia that ASIO was funding the Special Branch of the South Australian Police Force. We cannot be told if that is, in fact, a truth. Senator Hall made the statement- and I take it as gospel because he was the Premier of the State- that when he was Premier ASIO was funding the Special Branch in South Australia. We all know the ramifications of that. Every Labor candidate and every South Australian Labor member of parliament, whether in the State Parliament or this Parliament, had a dossier kept on him. As the former Senator Steele Hall said, that was funded by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. On every occasion that we ask questions on this matter in our consideration of the Estimates, we are told that there is no information available.
Consideration interrupted.
– Order! It being 10.30 p.m., in accordance with the Sessional Order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question:
That the Temporary Chairman do now leave the Chair and report to the Senate.
Question resolved in the negative.
Consideration resumed.
– I will resume where I left off. I again lodge a complaint that we cannot get any information as to how this massive amount of taxpayers’ money is expended. I have repeatedly commented on this when we have been considering the Estimates. Not a penny less or a penny more is spent than the amount appropriated each year for ASIO. We do not know whether there is a trust fund which ASIO can draw upon if it overspends the appropriation in the Budget. The Organisation receives an appropriation from the supplementary Estimates with which we are presently dealing in this Parliament. I have asked whether there is a special trust fund. We cannot be told that. I hope that the Attorney can put my mind at rest tonight and answer the question that I now pose: Does ASIO in fact fund, or has it funded the Special Branch in South Australia? Does it fund special branches of the State police forces in other States? That is a simple question. Surely we can get a simple answer. I am concerned as to whether Mr Steele Hall was actually telling the truth at the time, or whether he was trying to torpedo the then Premier of South Australia, Mr Dunstan, by making that statement. When he was subpoenaed to appear before the South Australian Royal Commission, he never made the statement under oath but he made a Press statement which appeared in an Adelaide newspaper. I raised this matter during the consideration of Senate Estimates Committee Aon 15 September 1977.I said:
A situation has applied Tor a number of years in which a certain amount of money is appropriated and exactly that amount of money is expended, not a cent over or a cent less. Now, there is an increase of $2,150,000 this year over last year. Is the Organisation taking on extra work? Can we have some explanation as to the reason for that increase?
Senator Withers, who was the then Minister for Administrative Services- we do not hear much of him now- said:
It is traditional not to answer any questions on this matter. I intend to take this stance.
I asked him further on:
Could I ask the Minister whether ASIO is accountable to anybody in the Parliament or in the Government for its expenditure? Does it just ask for a set figure each year? Does the Government have any way of finding out what that money is spent on?
Senator Withers replied:
I cannot answer that out of my own knowledge. I would have to take that question on notice.
We then come to the hearing of Estimates Committee A in May of last year. I said to the Chairman of the Committee:
Mr Chairman, I notice that officers of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet have left the chamber. However, I want to know whether an answer has been prepared for a question I raised last year.
The question was whether I could have some information as to whether ASIO was taking on extra staff.
Senator Withers replied:
Which one?
I stated:
It was a question relating to the funding of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation.
Senator Withers ‘s reply was:
Representatives from ASIO are not here.
I replied:
I know. I do not think I have been provided with an answer. I also wanted to ask a question about ASIO funding the Special Branch in South Australia as ex-senator Hall alleged.
Of course, I cannot get an answer to that question. We find again that when the AuditorGeneral’s Department was before the Committee I asked Mr Taylor the following question:
Does your department audit the accounts of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation?
Mr Taylor replied:
I believe not.
I further asked:
Would you know who is responsible Tor auditing its expenditure?
Mr Taylor’s reply was: 1 am not aware of that at all.
However, the next day Senator Sim, who was the Chairman of the Estimates Committee A, received a letter from Mr D. R. Steele Craik, who was then the Auditor-General. The letter reads as follows:
Dear Senator Sim,
At the Committee Hearing yesterday Senator McLaren asked my representative, Mr Taylor, whether or not my office audited the Australian Intelligence Security Organisation and was answered in the negative. As my Office does in Tact, audit the accounts of ASIO 1 take this opportunity to correct the record.
The accounts for the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation are audited by my Office under arrangements agreed in 1949 between the then Prime Minister and Treasurer and the then Auditor-General. These arrangements provide for a normal audit of transactions and include as part of that audit the provision of a certificate by the Director-General of Security in respect of a minor portion of the expenditure and by the responsible Minister certifying that that portion of the expenditure was properly made in the interests of the Public Service. I accept these certificates in completion of the audit. This arrangement is patterned on the British practice dating back to the late 19th century.
Would you please accept my apologies for the incorrect answer. This correction might be included in the record and the information passed to Senator McLaren.
Yours sincerely, D. R. STEELE CRAIK
Senator Evans has referred to that very same text which Mr Craik wrote to Senator Sim. I think that Senator Evans referred also to an extract from Hansard in 1971. He has pointed out that things are even worse now under the audit and that the Minister, by the stroke of a pen, can cancel out the need for any audit of ASIO. The taxpayers of Australia have contributed an amount of $12,500,000 in this last Budget for the operations of ASIO, and yet there is not accountability as to how it is spent. We do not know whether the money is still being used by special branches in State police forces to compile dossiers on every member of the Australian Labor Party who has been a candidate for election to or a member of parliament. We know for a fact, the records having been perused in South Australia, that only three Liberal members had dossiers kept on them. ASIO, through this funding of the Special Branch, had compiled dossiers on every member of the Australian Labor Party who had been a candidate for election to the parliament, who is now a member of parliament or who had been a member of parliament. We can draw our own conclusions as to why this was done. We can also ask the question: Are the same dossiers compiled on trade union leaders and trade union members in this country who may be a bit militant? The taxpayers of Australia are funding ASIO to the tune of $12,500,000 in the last Budget. We, the representatives of the people who are elected to this Parliament, cannot even be told whether the size of the ASIO workforce or staff has been increased or how the money is being spent. The Opposition has moved an amendment so that there will be some accountability. If the Attorney adopts the same attitude that he has adopted right through the debate on this Bill, he will not accept any amendments moved by the Labor Party. We will have to wait until the end of next year when there is a change of government before we will be able to do something about it. I am not advocating that we ought to publicise the real and necessary activities of ASIO. Of course, we must have a security force but we want to know how the money is being spent and I want to know in one specific instance whether the former Senator Steele Hall was right when he claimed that ASIO was funding the Special Branch in South Australia to compile dossiers on members of the Australian Labor Party and members of the trade union movement. I hope that the Attorney can give me an answer to that question.
– I shall deal firstly with the amendment that has been moved by the Opposition and has been spoken to by Senator Evans and Senator Mason. I think that there is some misunderstanding as to the nature of the auditing process and the keeping of accounts by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. The position is that ASIO keeps accounts and under the general provisions of the Audit Act the vast majority of those accounts are and have always been audited.
– By whom?
– By the Auditor-General. Section 45 ( b ) of the Audit Act states:
The Auditor-General may, at his discretion, dispense with all or any part of the detailed audit of any accounts.
Only a relatively small proportion of ASIO’s accounts are not the subject of an audit. Senator Evans said that this was a matter which was first revealed in 1971 and was the subject of further debate when an amendment was moved to the Audit Act earlier in this session. As I say, the position is that, except for a small proportion, ASIO’s accounts have been audited in the ordinary way. The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act does not need a requirement that the accounts will be audited because that is a general application of the Audit Act. The doubts that have existed as to legality only related to the fact that some portion of the accounts had not been audited by the Auditor-General on the provision of a certificate. Those portions of accounts were ones which did have some particularly sensitive security material on them. That was the main reason for the amendment of the Audit Act earlier this year. A new clause 70D provided specifically for certain exempted accounts of certain declared departments or organisations–
– That enables the whole of the accounts of a department or an organisation to be made exempt as well?
-Section 70D of the Audit Act provides that there is a declaration in respect of a department or organisation, but that the Minister may issue a certificate in respect of the accounts or a particular part of the accounts. This new power is intended to be exercised only in regard to those accounts that have always been the subject of a certificate. The position, as I have said, is that, under the Audit Act, the accounts of ASIO are and will continue to be the subject of audit. The area that would be exempt would be subject also to some process of audit but not by the Auditor-General in the ordinary way. For those reasons, in the view of the Government, there is no need for the amendments which have been moved by Senator Evans on behalf of the Opposition. Therefore, we are not prepared to agree to those amendments.
– The Attorney-General did not answer the question that I posed to him. I asked him whether ASIO funds special branches of police forces in any State?
– The questions which Senator McLaren has raised are questions relating to the methods of operation and organisation and they would not be answered by me.
Proposed new clauses negatived.
Proposed new clause 92C.
-I move:
Page 33, alter clause 92, insert the following new clause: 92c. The Minister shall as soon as practicable after 30 June each year cause to be laid before each House of Parliament a report on the activities of the Organization during the preceding year ending on 3 1 December. Such report shall include details of the number of warrants issued under each of sections 24, 26 and 28 of this Act, and under sections 8, 10 and 12 of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979. lt is quite clear from the attitude of the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Durack) on a number of matters, including his attitude to the report which is to be made available to the Leader of the Opposition, that this amendment would not have come about unless there was some late night aberration on behalf of the Attorney-General. Nonetheless, I will explain the purposes of the amendment. The suggestion is that ASIO as an organisation should be responsible to this Parliament. That is implicit in the amendment. For a variety of reasons which have been enunciated by Senator McLaren and others in relation to different clauses of the Bill, the Opposition feels that that should be so.
Of course, there is no need in such a report for information to be provided about the detailed nature of the Organisation’s activities. There can be no objection, in our view, to a report being made available to the Parliament on the general nature of the activities of the Organisation. There can be no objection to the inclusion in that report of numerous items of information which are common knowledge such as the proposals to erect a new ASIO building here in Canberra. That sort of information could be included in a report of that kind. There can be no objection, we would have thought, to the inclusion in that report of the number of warrants issued under clauses 24, 26 and 28 of this legislation.
Surely the information which is secret is information about the nature of those warrants, the circumstances in which they were issued and in respect of whom they were issued. That would appear to be secret information, in respect of which there should be maximum security. A listing of the number of warrants issued merely provides a check on the activities of the Organisation in the sense that members of this Parliament can see in this regard what are ASIO’s activities about which we are all concerned. Even members of the Government can see whether those activities are expanding and growing or whether they are maintaining a fairly even level of activity.
– Or diminishing.
-Or diminishing, as Senator Chipp has pointed out. The former Senator Murphy did not feel himself inhibited as Attorney-General in answering a question in the Senate about the number of warrants which had been issued in the previous five years. As I apprehend it, no disaster has befallen ASIO as an organisation as a result of that information being revealed. If honourable senators look at the figures over the five or six years for which they were made available, they could say that, contrary to the views of those people who are totally opposed to the existence of ASIO as an organisation, it is quite clear that the Organisation is not going mad in terms of the number of warrants that have been issued as is the Central Intelligence Agency, for example, which appeared to be going mad in the United States of America. That seems to be an activity which is healthy for the Parliament and the people of this country to know about. The attitude of people who would be opposed to this sort of amendment really suggests nothing more than a puerile fascination with the strange world of spooks. It means that members of parliament are just not allowed to talk about these matters.
The important factor is to distinguish between what is properly secret and secure information and what is information which should be public knowledge. It is that fascination with the strange world of spooks and the incapacity to delineate one type of information from another that leads to opposition to an amendment of this kind. We think it is not an irresponsible amendment in any way. It is quite a sensible amendment which could rebound to the good of an organisation such as ASIO and free this community of some of the paranoia which undoubtedly exists about an organisation like ASIO, probably quite properly in certain areas. That would be an important and worthwhile thing. Therefore I move this amendment which suggests that there should be a report of a general nature to the Parliament, a report, which would contain certain items of information that do not in any sense fall within the basket of necessarily being kept secret for reasons of the security of this country.
– We have already had some debate about this matter during the second reading stage of the Bill. The Government is not prepared to accept the amendment that is proposed by Senator Button on behalf of the Opposition. The Government’s view in relation to a report to Parliament is based really very much upon Mr Justice Hope’s findings in regard to this matter. He found that such a report would have to have so much taken from it that it would be hardly of any value to the Parliament. Certainly the report that the Director-General gives to the Minister each year would not be a document which would be suitable to table in Parliament. I appreciate that the amendment does not provide actually that that is the report that should be tabled. However, the Opposition’s amendment provides for the report to include details of all warrants taken out under the special powers of the Australian Security Intelligence
Organisation and under the powers of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act.
– Just the number, not the details.
– The Government takes the view that the number of warrants issued is itself a matter of great interest to our enemies.
– Oh, come on.
– That is the view that the Government has formed on advice it has received and the Government is prepared to accept that advice. I am not impressed by what Senator Murphy may have done in relation to security matters when he was Attorney-General. We as a Government do not propose to disclose the number of warrants which are issued. It seems that the main interest is in this sort of information, and certainly no information of that kind will be provided by this Government to the Parliament. I indicated in the second reading speech that I can see some merit in a ministerial statement about the organisation being made to the Parliament at some regular intervals in very general terms. I think that would provide a vehicle for debate in this Parliament on the organisation from time to time. I am not opposed to that. I would welcome the Parliament having an opportunity to debate some aspects of the organisation as it sees fit from time to time. But the Government is opposed to any formal reporting to Parliament in the way which is contemplated by this amendment.
– 1 have complimented the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) in my speeches on this Bill not only for being generous in the way in which he has tried to meet the Opposition’s amendments- not as much as we would have wanted him to, but at least he has made some gesture- but also for the logic which he has applied on many occasions in response to our amendments. However, this time I am singularly unimpressed with the reason that he gives as to why the Government is opposing this amendment. I would have thought that he is bringing an argument to the point of absurdity when he says that the reason for not agreeing to the Opposition’s amendment is that it will tell our enemies how many telephone taps we have made and how many warrants we have issued. Surely to goodness, if we have some spies among us or people who are intent on doing us in, they would know very well- each terrorist organisation would know- how many warrants have been issued and how many telephone taps have been made. They would not have to go to an annual report to the Parliament to find out that kind of information.
– How would they know that?
– A terrorist organisation or an organisation threatening the security of Australia would not have to wait the four or five months after the end of the financial year when the report is tabled in the Parliament to find out how many times they had been raided or how many times warrants had been issued to search their premises. An even more basic matter of principle is that, I think, the Parliament, the Senate on this occasion, is giving up its powers of total government supervision of individuals to a secret organisation. It does that quite willingly. But we believe that if the Parliament is to give up those powers, it is entitled to receive a general report on statistics which this Opposition amendment requires.
Proposed new clause negatived.
Proposed new clause 92D.
– I move:
This is amendment No. 24 on the list of amendments moved by the Opposition. I really do not know at whose head I beat the air on this occasion, the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) having departed from the chamber. Perhaps I can persuade Senator Webster to agree with us- something I have never succeeded in doing before- about the efficacy of this amendment.
– Now, be fair. There are pressing needs, I would have thought, for Senator Durack ‘s temporary departure. He has been here since 8 o’clock.
-So have I, Senator Chipp. The amendment relates to what we have described as a judicial audit of the organisation. Without reading the amendment, I will try to explain the purpose of it. It suggests that every three years a judge holding the rank of a Justice of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory or of the Federal Court should be appointed to inquire into and report to the Minister upon several matters. I want to mention those matters because they are important. Paragraph (a) of the amendment reads: whether the Organisation has complied with its Charter and the law under this Act and any other relevant law of the Commonwealth or a State or Territory;
Paragraph (b) states: whether the Organisation has unjustifiably infringed the civil liberties of any person or group of persons; and
Paragraph (c) states: whether the Organisation has operated effectively and efficiently.
The judge is asked to report to the Minister on those matters. The Minister is then asked to cause the report to be laid before each House of the Parliament. There are one or two other provisions in relation to the function of the judge. According to my best estimate, the debate on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Bill in the Senate has now occupied something like 26 hours. During those 26 hours concern has been expressed with varying degrees of intensity and commitment about a great variety of the provisions of the Bill. Some favourable comments have been made about the fact that this legislation provides ASIO with a charter for the first time. It provides certain guidelines, however inadequate they may be in some respects for the operation of the organisation.
As I have said on a number of occasions during this debate, we have a unique opportunity in this Parliament to set up an organisation of this kind with new legislation in order for it to benefit from the experience of the past. The experience of the past, including experience of intelligence agencies overseas and the experience of ASIO itself, is recorded by Mr Justice Hope in his report. I do not need to remind honourable senators about the references in that report to the departures from the proper functions in which ASIO has indulged in the past, lt is desirable in our view in those circumstances that the Organisation be reviewed from time to time by an independent judicial authority. The review is just another way, 1 suppose, of trying to make an organisation of this kind as publicly acceptable as it can be. It is another way of providing certain checks and balances in relation to an organisation of this kind. In a sense it is another method of supervision which the Opposition thinks is highly desirable.
We regard this amendment as important. One could talk about it for longer than I have. In view of the repetitive nature of this debate I will not do so. The debate has shown a genuine concern amongst a number of honourable senators about the degree to which an organisation like this potentially infringes the civil liberties of a subject. Because of that concern we see no objection that can be offered in terms of practicality or otherwise to the sort of suggestion we are making in this amendment.
– I am sympathetic to the purpose of the Opposition’s amendment. I think it is correct to say that there is overwhelming and perhaps unanimous support for the need for an organisation such as the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. If there is need for such an organisation the organisation must be effective. We must also ensure that while being effective it is also law abiding. I think the Parliament itself must be so satisfied. As the Bill before us would have it, the way that the Parliament is to be satisfied that the body is law abiding is through the Attorney-General. I have no doubt that the present Attorney-General (Senator Durack) would be diligent, thorough and honourable in his dealings with that body, but this attitude does not necessarily extend indefinately, into the future. I think that there must be some structure whereby Parliament can be really satisfied, regardless of the person holding the office of Attorney-General, that ASIO is performing as we wish it to perform.
How we achieve this is important. Any form of judicial audit or external investigation is necessarily very disruptive to the ordinary operations of ASIO. If it is carried out by someone such as Mr Justice Hope, who has been closely involved with the Organisation, it can be done with a small amount of disruption. Someone completely new to the Organisation- a person who has had no previous experience of it, who is finding out how it works and investigating all the facets of its operation- would be a major disruptive influence. I think therefore that having this type of judicial audit at three-year intervals is wrong. Nevertheless I think that periodic investigations of this nature should be carried out. I suggest that a more sensible interval would be something like 10 years. I think that as the Organisation has just been restructured it would be working properly. I think that as the Attoryney-General has suggested, a type of external audit should be carried out within two or three years. I would like the Attorney-General explicitly to make quite clear again that this type of external audit will be carried out in the next three years or so and also to give serious consideration again to whether we cannot put this provision into the Act. I think that an undertaking by the Government to have periodic audits is one thing; an explicit provision in an Act is far more convincing to the Parliament.
– The amendment moved by the Opposition certainly deserves and has been given very close consideration by the Government. At first glance it appears to be a justifiable proposal in principle. However, as Senator Hamer has already indicated, to have an audit conducted every three years by a judge who may well have absolutely no experience of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation would be very disruptive. The first audit would be required to be carried out within less than three years. The amendment provides for an inquiry to be carried out as soon as practicable after 30 June 1981. The first inquiry would be carried out in less than three years from now. Therefore the Government would be required- if this amendment were carried- to engage a judge after every three-year period to conduct a fairly major investigation of the Organisation. The terms of the amendment set out the matters the judge would be required to look at. Paragraph (c) of sub-section ( 1 ) of proposed new section 92D states that an inquiry will be held into whether the Organisation has operated effectively and efficiently. It is clear that such an inquiry would amount to a full and thorough investigation of the whole of the activities of the Organisation.
In the first place the judge would require time to learn about the Organisation before he would really be able to investigate it effectively. The experience gained from the investigation by Mr Justice Hope was that the inquiry required a tremendous amount of servicing and attention from the Organisation itself. That was quite proper; no one is complaining about that. But to have such an investigation of this magnitude once in every three-year period would be a tremendous drain on the resources of the Organisation and on members of the staff who would be required to assist and to answer questions and so on and thereby be diverted from their role as part of an intelligence and security organisation. One has to remember that at present the Director-General of Security is himself a judge. He has several years left of his term of office. A judge will be presiding over the Security Appeals Tribunal which in itself will be providing, in a sense, some external audit, of the Organisation. The Organisation will have to justify its security assessments to that independent tribunal. That is another element of judicial oversight of the Organisation.
As I said in my reply to the second reading debate, the Government is prepared to invite Mr Justice Hope, if he is available, to have a look at the way the Organisation is operating within a few years. We see that as a sensible and desirable course and one which, because of Mr Justice Hope’s considerable experience in and knowledge of the Organisation, would not have the major disruptive effects that would occur if the Opposition’s amendment were agreed to. Of course it is always within the capacity of the Government to decide whether it ought to have an external judicial audit of the Organisation. If the Government of the day refuses to do so it is within the power of the Parliament to require that it be done. But the Government’s view is that rather than try to bind subsequent governments in the way in which this amendment would require, it would be far better to leave it to the Government to decide when and whom it would invite to provide this external audit. Presumably a judge would do it. We would rather not try to bind subsequent governments in the way the amendment would require. As I have said, one parliament certainly cannot bind another anyway. If a government were unwilling to adhere to a periodical external review of the actions of the Organisation, the Parliament could always require it to do so by amending the Act.
As 1 say, in principle, the Government agrees that some sort of external review of the Organisation, probably by a judge, would be desirable. But we think that it is something that should be judged in the circumstances as they arise and as time passes. We believe that this would be preferable to forcing an audit on a government and on the Organisation, as frequently as this amendment would require, which would be extremely disruptive.
– The Attorney-General (Senator Durack) seemed to be saying that he accepted the spirit of the Opposition amendment and that the Government might do something about it in years to come. As has been pointed out on occasions, though we have put it another way, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. In our view, they should be spelt out in the legislation. The basis of the Attorney’s rejection of the Opposition amendment really borders on the bizarre. The Attorney said that it would be very disruptive to have a judicial audit every three years. If he thinks that, he could accept Senator Hamer’s suggestion, which was rather a long shot, I suppose. It is quite open to the Attorney- he has the numbers here- to make the audit every five years or even more frequently.
That seems really to be the only basis on which he has announced to the chamber that the Government has considered this amendment and rejects it because of this provision in it. We find that extraordinary and we again urge the Committee to take the view that this is the proper course to take in relation to an organisation such as ASIO. We may be incorrect in suggesting a review every three years, but the concept of a judicial review is an important one, which the Attorney himself seems to concede. There seems to be no objection at all, in substance, to the amendment. Because of that fact, I urge the Senate to support the amendment.
Proposed new clause negatived.
Clause 93 agreed to.
Proposed new clause 94.
– I gave notice about a month ago of my proposal to insert a new clause 94 as follows:
This Act, and any regulations made under section 93, shall cease to have effect and shall be deemed to have been repealed upon the expiration of a period of five years from the date of commencement of the Act.
This proposal follows what I think is the course of the debate and the fact that we have not in any real sense written into the legislation provision for accountability to Parliament. There is of course no likelihood that the Parliament, once it passes this very important and powerful piece of legislation, will continue to have any real powers to scrutinise the way in which those powers will work. They are extremely wide powers. In many respects they will permit ASIO to do things which were done in the past and were shown to be illegal. It seems to me proper that there should be an opportunity of seeing how these new powers will operate. We have engaged in some 28 hours of discussion of amendments. Some have been refused, some have been accepted and we have had indications of the possibility of acceptance of further amendments.
There is no certainty that there is a fixed and certain way in which ASIO should work. None of us in this chamber is very knowledgable about the workings of ASIO. We know that only half of the reports of Mr Justice Hope have been made public. We do not know and we can only surmise what is in the rest of the documents. Therefore, as members of parliament, we work in a most fallible fashion and must continue to work in such a fashion so far as our scrutiny of ASIO is concerned. I believe that some solution needs to be found to this inability of members of Parliament to scrutinise. I do not know what the Government’s attitude is to the solution which I have just proposed for the benefit of members of this Committee. I read the newspapers and I have had indicated to me that it is not particularly enamoured of the proposal which I have made. Nobody has told me. I would not have a clue as to what the Government’s attitude is. But I am not the Leader of the Opposition; I am just a back bench Government senator. We will no doubt hear the Government’s view.
We have not appointed a parliamentary committee to investigate this matter. I think it is a great pity that there is no scrutinising committee from which we could gain an indication from time to time, as is the case in some other parts of the world. That would have been a possibility. Mr Justice Hope rejected that proposal and the Government has rejected it as well. All we are really left with at the moment is a somewhat vague promise that in three years or so Mr Justice Hope may look again at this matter. It is not sufficient to have vague promises. Such a proposal, if contained in the legislation, might be better than the one which I am making now. But it is not there. There should be some certainty that after a period these very new and untried powers will be looked at. We will need to see whether they are working well or whether they need some alteration. They would not need the type of investigation which Mr Justice Hope undertook. The legislation would not require the complete scrutiny it was given in the past. It would need something more direct. We would need to see how the powers had been used and whether further amendments were needed. Amendments may come forward in the future but surely we must be in a position of knowing from someone’s scrutiny whether there is a need for a change in the legislation.
I have come forward with a proposal to insert what has been described as a sunset clause. Sunset clauses are obviously going to be contained in legislation in the future in a number of States in Australia. Organisations are not going to continue indefinitely to operate without challenge but they will have to justify their existence. I do not think that the insertion of a sunset clause would mean that ASIO would come to an end. I am suggesting that if this legislation has a fixed limit it will be necessary for some investigation to be undertaken. Then the Parliament would retain some power and new and amending legislation would have to go through the Parliament before that period had expired. For those reasons I believe that the amendment which I have put forward is a practical and sensible one. I do not know what sort of support it has. I will test it now. I move:
– I will make my shortest contribution to the entire debate. The Opposition supports Senator Missen ‘s amendment, for the reasons which he has outlined.
– I will also try to make my shortest contribution. I believe that in many cases the principle of sunset legislation will have to become a more standard practice in the drawing of legislation both in this Parliament and in other Australian parliaments. We have already seen one example of what I suppose could be called sunset legislation. That concerned the surcharge on income tax. It was written into legislation with a specific date upon which it would cease to operate. Any attempt to extend that time would require further legislation. The amendment which Senator Missen moved, however, seems to me to be on somewhat more dangerous ground simply because of the nature of the Bill and the organisation to which he seeks to attach a sunset clause. Sunset legislation in this country and even in the United States is still very much an experiment, although, in many ways, it is a very valuable experiment. However, I do not believe that this is the organisation or legislation upon which that experiment should at this early stage- almost the first stage- be put to the test.
– I am surprised that Senator Missen complained that he did not know what the attitude of the Government would be. I remember being chided earlier this evening for indicating the attitude I was going to adopt to a clause before I had heard the argument in favour of it. I do not think that Senator Missen will be surprised when I say that the Government is opposed to his amendment, mainly for the reasons that Senator Puplick has given. We could not possibly take the risk of legislation concerning a security organisation such as this coming to an end at a particular date, especially when that date is only five years away. I ask honourable senators to consider the time that has been required to process this legislation. I do not mean the time it has taken to debate the legislation in the Senate, although possibly honourable senators would be happy to have a debate of this dimension every five years. Over a very long period there have been preparations and discussions within the Government and committees involving the processing of the Hope report in order to prepare this legislation. 1 admit that the mere renewal of the legislation might not be such a major task as the initial preparation because of the very extensive investigation by Mr Justice Hope and the fact that it was the first time that such an inquiry had been conducted. Nevertheless, a tremendous amount of work would be involved in reconsidering the whole of the legislation, including the discussions that would take place about what changes might be necessary and the drafting of the legislation well before it came into the Parliament. It is by no means a simple proposition, no matter how attractive it may appear, that legislation should have a definite life and should have to be renewed. There is no doubt that the notion of sunset legislation is one that will obtain some support. I expect that the Government will be providing for termination dates, probably more often than it has done in the past. I think this is something to which the Government will have to give close attention, because if this type of legislation became too common, it would have very severe consequences of a practical nature for the operations of Parliament itself, to say nothing of government. But that is by way of general comment. Legislation dealing with one security organisation is not something which 1 believe should be used in any way as an experiment in this type of proposal. The Government could not possibly take the risks that would be involved in a cut-off date virtually for the existence of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, and therefore will oppose this amendment.
- Senator Evans has already indicated that the Opposition supports this amendment. I find grave difficulty- having heard the arguments advanced by Senator Missen in favour of what, in some circumstances, one might justifiably describe as this trendy aberration from the United States- in understanding how he can vote on and oppose a number of Opposition amendments to various clauses of this Bill on the grounds of practicality, and then suggest this provision as one which he would otherwise regard as being practical.
– Your time is too short, Senator. Three years is too short.
– I am referring not only to that amendment. The honourable senator has done it on a number of occasions in the course of the Committee stages of this Bill. It is the inherent and practical difficulties which have been put time and time again by Government senators about all sorts of things, whether they be judicial audits or reports to Parliament or accountability to both the Leader of the Opposition and Ministers. All these things have been described as impractical. Right at the end of this voluminous debate, which Senator Missen wants to have again in five years’ time for God’s sake, we have this sunset clause proposition put forward. With the greatest of respect to my colleague, Senator Missen- he is someone for whom I do have a great respect- I think this is nothing more than a stunt, having regard to the attitude which he took to other provisions in the Bill. I support it because the Opposition has supported the notion that some machinery should be available for review on a regular basis right throughout this debate.
– That is all I am saying.
-A11 right. We have commended other machinery to the Senate without success because of the Government’s position. This being the last amendment we are considering- the amendment of last resort in relation to this matter, as it were- we support it, although I would have thought that there would be a vast number of other arrangements which would have been made and which would have achieved the same purpose. They would have been of benefit to the organisation and to the community, and without the grave practical difficulties which are inhrent in Senator Missen ‘s proposal.
Question put-
That proposed new clause 94 (Senator Missen’s amendment) be inserted in the Bill.
The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Senator D. B. Scott)
AYES: 25
NOES: 32
Majority……. 7
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
Postponed clause 1 8 and amendments thereto.
-The Opposition is awaiting a response from the Attorney-General. We would be delighted now to hear it.
– I think I made my response to the amendments that Senator Evans moved in the very lengthy discussion the Committee had on this clause before consideration of it was postponed. We reached the point where Senator Evans had persuaded me that I ought to give the Opposition a bone- I think that was his phrase- and I agreed to do that.
Amendments negatived.
– I have an amendment which adds a further sub-clause to clause 1 8. 1 therefore move:
Page 7, clause 18, at end of clause, add the following new sub-clause:
A prosecution for an offence against sub-section (2) shall be instituted only by or with the consent of the Attorney-General. ‘.
I do so because it was felt, and I agreed, that circumstances could arise where there may be only a technical offence or a breach not of a criminal kind. In some circumstances where information was given, the action might be quite proper and useful, and therefore it would not be right that a prosecution should be brought, perhaps by a private prosecutor. That is one matter the AttorneyGeneral should consider before prosecutions are launched. It is for that reason that I have moved the amendment.
-The Opposition is indebted to the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) for that particular bone, but we feel that what is still missing from the statute is some guidance as to how that bone should be chewed. The Attorney’s amendment states:
A prosecution for an offence against sub-section (2) shall be instituted only by or with the consent of the Attorney-General.
The Opposition seeks to add to the proposed new sub-clause. I now move:
At the end of proposed sub-clause (5), add ‘which consent shall not be given unless the Attorney-General is satisfied that the communication the subject of the prosecution had, or would be likely to have, the effect of seriously prejudicing security’.
A number of times during the debate honourable senators have heard argument as to whether there should be explicit statutory guidance on how the Attorney-General’s mind should be focused in the exercise of the various directions, discretions and powers vested in him. This is another attempt to give explicit statutory content to a particular power and to require him to direct his mind specifically to the question of whether security would be seriously prejudiced by the kind of communication that is in issue. It is only in those circumstances of serious prejudice that a prosecution should then proceed. The AttorneyGeneral will be well aware- if Senator Lewis, who is trying to interject, can curb his bucolic hormones for just a few moments to let me make my comment- that clause 18 has been the subject matter of very considerable comment and discussion in the Press and very considerable concern from, amongst others, the Australian Journalists ‘ Association, which has passed resolutions condemning clause 18 as it stands in round terms. This criticism justifies detailed scrutiny and careful scrutiny of this clause before the Committee passes it in its present form or even the form in which it is now moved by the
Attorney-General. For those reasons, the Opposition presses the amendment which I have just moved.
– Just briefly, for reasons that I have given in earlier debate on a similar clause and a similar amendment in this Committee, I cannot accept the addition to my amendment proposed by Senator Evans.
Amendment to amendment negatived.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Motion (Senator Durack) agreed to:
That the Chairman report that the Committee has considered the Bills, has agreed to the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Bill 1979 with amendments, and seeks leave to sit again to consider the remaining Bills on the next day of sitting.
Australian Security Intelligence Organization Bill 1979 reported with amendments and leave sought for the Committee to sit again to consider the remaining Bills on the next day of sitting.
Report adopted and leave granted.
Motion ( by Senator Durack) proposed:
That the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Bill 1 979 be read a third time.
Suspension of Standing Orders
– I had a contingent notice of motion in relation to the third reading of this Bill. I now move:
That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Button’s moving an amendment to this motion for the third reading of the Bill to refer the Bill to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs.
In the course of this debate, which has now gone on over some 25 hours or 26 hours–
– Twenty-nine hours and 15 minutes.
– Twenty-nine hours and 15 minutes, I am told. There have been numerous instances of concern being expressed by honourable senators on both sides of the chamber about the provisions of this Bill. A large number of qualifications have been expressed even about clauses which had been adopted. In the last stages of the Committee stage we had an amendment from Senator Missen to the effect that the legislation effectively be subject to a sunset clause and be reviewed again by this Parliament in five years’ years time.
The details of this Bill are, of course, very complex. It has been the view expressed by a number of senators over a period that the only way properly to deal with the details of this Bill is not in the context of a debate in the Senate sitting as the Committee of the Whole, but in the context of one of the important and significant standing committees of this Senate. A committee would have time not only to examine the clauses of the Bill in detail, but also to hear evidence about the clauses of the Bill and perhaps to assuage the concerns of many people in the community about the provisions in this Bill. Many people in the community have had no opportunity to be heard in the context of a Senate debate. I know that the suggestion is not palatable to exhausted people such as Senator Puplick who might have to take part in such an exercise.
– And tired and emotional people such as Senator Lewis.
-Yes, and tired and emotional people such as Senator Lewis. The important point which the Opposition seeks to make is that this Bill is a detailed and complex one which requires close examination. This Senate has always been most successful as a chamber in recent years because of the results of the deliberations of its standing committees. Much of the most productive work of the Senate has stemmed from the deliberations of the standing committees of the Senate.
– Do not kill the goose that laid the golden egg.
-Senator Missen as Chairman of the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee has often told the Senate how worth while have been the deliberations of his Committee on matters such as this. The provisions of this Bill, insofar as concern has been expressed about them, are not unrelated to another inquiry which Senator Missen ‘s Committee is currently conducting, namely, that into the freedom of information legislation. Again and again the Opposition has expressed concern about the civil liberties aspect of this legislation, about the complexity of it and, indeed, in passing, about the level of public discussion on the legislation, lt is because of that that I move for the suspension of the Standing Orders in order that I might move a motion to refer the legislation to that Committee. For those reasons I commend to the Senate the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders.
– Speaking to Senator Button’s motion, the situation is that this chamber has been sitting for over 29^ hours on this Bill as a whole, of which some 20 hours has been spent in the Committee stage. One might have thought, perhaps, and no doubt the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) will tell us that this represents more than enough consideration of this Bill. However, that sort of time span is not really anything of great significance when one compares it with the amount of time that committees spend on major references. For example the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee, in its freedom of information reference, has been taking evidence and deliberating now for something of the order of at least 20 days, which would represent approximately 1 20 hours of consideration. I would suggest to honourable senators that this ASIO legislation is at least as important as that, if not more so, and justifies that degree of detailed attention.
As Senator Button has said, the Government, it is true, has made some minor concessions along the way during the debate. But the reality is that there is an awful lot in the Opposition’s amendments, many of which have attracted favourable comment from outside this Parliament, which has not been accepted by the Government. These amendments relate to a whole range of considerations going to the accountability of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and the various mechanisms that we have suggested in that respect. They relate to the special powers that are to be exercised in relation to the installation of listening devices, search and seizure, the interception of mail and so on. They relate to the penalties which are going to continue to be imposed for the communication of certain information in relation to ASIO. There are matters in relation to the conduct of the appeals tribunals which we have pressed, which have not been accepted by the Government but for which there are very strong arguments that they ought to have been accepted. There are many people in the community who have expressed already in correspondence to me and other senators, in letters to the Press and so on, their desire that they be heard in the processes of this Parliament on this matter. Here I refer to correspondence from the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties and a number of other letters. It is important and I simply reiterate -
– The League of Rights?
– No doubt we will hear from the Church of Scientology, the League of Rights and all sorts of organisations which we may or may not wish to take seriously. But their voice ought to be heard because the best guarantee of a society’s status is one which genuinely preserves and respects civil liberty in a society that gives exactly the same consideration to minority groups which might be thought unattractive or disreputable to mainstream people in our society like Senator Sim and others with whom he sits. It is that which is the measure of a society’s true respect for civil liberties. It is that sort of consideration which we ought to take into account by giving these people and everyone else in the community an opportunity to debate the detail of the legislation. I support the motion.
– I rise to a point of order. I do so after Senator Evans and Senator Button have sat down because I did not want to curtail their argument as I support it. For the record I think it is fair for me to say that we are not debating now whether this matter should be referred to a standing committee, we are debating whether Standing Orders should be suspended. I simply make the point with great respect to the Chair that Senators Button and Evans have been allowed to continue with this debate in which constant references have been made to the substantive matter of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. The other evening when I was trying to move a suspension of Standing Orders I was not even allowed to mention the subject.
– You were not agile enough.
– If Senator Georges wants to make light of something that I think is quite fundamental to the Senate, he is entitled to do so. But I simply make the point and sit down.
– I have noted what you have said Senator Chipp. The motion before the Chair is for the suspension of Standing Orders. The question is: That the motion be agreed to.
- Mr President, a change in procedure was decided upon earlier in the evening. There was a difficulty with Senator Button ‘s contingent notice of motion relating to a proposal to refer this Bill to a Senate standing committee.
– I have no difficulty, Mr President. The matter is before the Chair now. I have moved a motion calling for the suspension of Standing Orders in order that I may then move a motion.
– That is right. I am sorry. I think that there has been a misunderstanding. It was agreed that the honourable senator would be able to move his motion to refer the Bill to the committee. I thought that he was moving it all in one package.
– No, I did not hear of that agreement.
– I am not opposing the suspension of Standing Orders.
– We will clarify the situation. The question is’: That the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders be agreed to.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
– I move:
I rely on arguments already advanced by Senator Evans and myself in support of the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders.
-Mr President, the Government is not prepared to agree to the motion to refer this Bill to the Senate Standing Committee nominated by Senator Button. The Senate has had a full debate, both during the second reading stage and the Committee stage. I am indebted to Senator Evans for having kept such a close tally of the time that has been devoted to the Bill. As has happened so often in this debate, Senator Evans expressed very forcefully and clearly arguments against the motion that he is supporting. I adopt his arguments.
We are debating a Bill which gives effect to the recommendations of a royal commission into the Australian security organisation. It is not as though the views of a large section of the community should be sought on this Bill. The royal commission enabled people to express their views in relation to security organisations. Mr Justice Hope investigated these questions over a long period. He made a very full report- not all of which, admittedly, has been published; but substantial portions of which have been published.
I therefore suggest that the basic reasons advanced by Senator Evans as to why a committee should be enabled to look at this Bill have really been met by the way in which this legislation has come before the Parliament. It was introduced into the Senate by me on 8 March- over two months ago. The Government has given the Senate the fullest opportunity for consideration of the legislation, apart from the time that has been taken in this chamber in debating and considering it in detail at the Committee stage. In that time of two months there has been ample opportunity for the public to study the Bill and for submissions to be made to the Government and members of Parliament. If the motion for the third reading is now passed, this legislation will proceed to another place; so further time will be available for members of the public to make their views known and there will be further time for debate and consideration in another place. 1 suggest that in the circumstances there is absolutely no reason why this most important and most beneficial legislation should be delayed by reference to a committee. If that committee follows the course of most Senate committees- I do not criticise them for this- it will take a considerable amount of time and will be going over ground that has already been covered by the Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security and by the Senate.
As a result of the widespread interest shown by honourable senators in this legislation- that has been proved during the course of this debate- it has been properly and more appropriately considered in the Committee of the Whole rather than in a standing committee. In a standing committee very few honourable senators are able to participate in the deliberations. This legislation is of such importance and such widespread interest to the public and members of the Senate and the Parliament generally that it is appropriate legislation to have been considered in the Committee of the Whole. Furthermore, it has already been considered by the Committee. There has been ample time for amendments to be considered. They have been considered. The Government has changed its attitude towards some of the clauses of the Bill as a result of the Committee’s considerations. There has been the fullest debate on this matter. 1 believe that the time has now come for this Bill to be passed by the Senate and for it to proceed to another place.
Friday, 11 May 1979
-As Chairman of the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs- the Committee to which it is suggested that such a reference should be sent- I think that I should say, in the shortest possible way, that no suggestion has been put to the Committee that it should accept such a reference. The Committee as a committee is not aware of such a suggestion. It certainly has not requested such a reference. At the present time it is fully engaged on current references.
For the purposes of the record, I wish to amend the motion which I moved to read:
Leave out all words after ‘That’, insert the following: ‘the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Bill 1979 be referred to the Senate Standing Commitee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs for inquiry and report’.
Leave granted.
– The Hope report was open to public scrutiny for many months. However, the Australian Democrats do not believe that the legislation, as it stands, accurately reflects that report and the public comment on it. For that reason we support and applaud the Opposition amendment, and I commend it to the liberal-minded senators on the Government benches, if there are any.
Question put:
That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Button’s amendment) be left out.
The Senate divided. (The President- Senator the Hon. Sir Condor Laucke)
AYES: 24
NOES: 32
Majority……. 8
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
Original question put:
That the Bill be now read a third time.
The Senate divided. (The President- Senator the Hon. Sir Condor Laucke)
AYES: 32
NOES: 22
Majority……. 10
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a third time.
page 1886
Motion (by Senator Durack) proposed:
That the Senate do now adjourn.
- Mr President, my midnight mission tonight is to make a plea on behalf of the Maltese community in the hope that when our Ministers are overseas in the parliamentary recess one of them will visit Valletta and endeavour to normalise relations with Malta. Senator Carrick, who represents the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) in this chamber, has an editorial from the Times of Malta which I think speaks much more eloquently than I could. I simply say this: The role of the Maltese community in this country going back a long way is well known. The island in a collective fashion was awarded the George Cross and Maltese have played a very notable part in the trade union field and other areas.
I think Senator Puplick made some comment earlier about whether we took the right attitude in regard to foreign affairs. With all the overseas travelling that we expect from governments, I simply ask Senator Carrick whether one Minister from our Cabinet of 27 could make a peace mission to Valletta in the recess in an endeavour to restore the good relations that were always a feature of the past. Even though I make this appeal at about 12.20 a.m., I hope that mission will be accomplished. As a tribute to a very efficient editor I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the document in Senator Carrick ‘s hand.
Leave granted.
The document read as follows-
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
NORMALISE’ AUSTRALIA-MALTA RELATIONS
The Maltese Herald (24 April) reports on its front-page an announcement by Malta’s Department of Information denying a statement by the Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, that Malta wants a one-way traffic’. According to the paper, the announcement claims that Australia has ‘as much- if not more- obligations to Malta, as it has to many countries which receive generous assistance from Australia’. On trade relations between the two countries, it says that ‘in this sector the current has been entirely in Australia’s favour’. The announcement concludes: ‘When the attitude of the Leader of the Australian Government is taken into account jointly with the attempts made not to let the Common Market help Malta, it would not be difficult to realise the drift which unfortunately exists between the two governments. ‘
In its editorial, the Maltese Herald asks: ‘Do you not think that the time is ripe for ministerial discussions between the two countries? . . . It is the duty of the two countries to normalise the situation. ‘
The Times of Malta (25 April) also quotes the Maltese’s Government ‘s statement.
– In wishing Senator Mulvihill and all his colleagues a very happy Friday morning, may I take up time to read four paragraphs? My advice is that the Australian Government has been concerned for some time that it has not proved possible to set aside past differences between the two countries and to concentrate instead on restoring bilateral relations to their former warmth. However, to get the matter into perspective, I should point out that a number of other Western countries are also experiencing difficulties in their relations with Malta.
All the same, as I stated in the Senate on 27 February, the Australian Government- for its part- has consistently made clear its desire for reconciliation with the Government of Malta. I note in this context that as recently as 1 8 April a leading article in the Times of Malta made the same appeal. I feel that with goodwill on both sides and on the basis of the active and deeply respected natural links between Australians and Maltese we can overcome our problems and restore the relationship to its traditional pattern.
It is in this spirit that the Australian Government, in response to an official request, has recently offered the Maltese Government two training awards in veterinary science, as well as undertaking over recent months a substantial study of ways and means of strengthening trade and investment links between our two countries, a report on which has just been conveyed to the Maltese Government.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Senate adjourned at 12.20 a.m. (Friday) till
Tuesday, 22 May 1979, at 2.30 p.m., in accordance with the resolution agreed to this day.
page 1888
The following answers to questions were circulated:
asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 13 September 1978:
Was the instruction book, Visits Abroad by the Prime Minister of Australia, revised to specify that refrigerators should be provided in each room occupied by the Prime Minister’s official party; if so: (a) on whose instruction was the change made; and (b) what was the cost to the Government of providing and stocking refrigerators for the Prime Minister and his official party (i) in Bonn during his visit to West Germany and (ii) in each of the other stops made by the Prime Minister during his most recent overseas trip.
– The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
There is a guidelines paper which has existed for many years for overseas posts dealing with visits abroad by Prime Ministers. The document is updated periodically to take account of changes in requirements and changes in practice. It is a guidance paper and of course in respect of any particular visit or any particular requirement, it is expected that there will be communication between overseas posts and Departments here to ensure that arrangements are appropriate.
In 1 976 in the light of experience with previous visits going back over a number of years, the guidelines paper was amended by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet on its own initiative to specify that if possible rooms used by the party accompanying the Prime Minister on overseas visits should have refrigerators.
When I visited Bonn in June last year, the guidelines were interpreted too literally and there was an over provision of refrigerators in rooms occupied by the visiting party and accompanying press- in two hotels not normally equipped with refrigerators.
Immediately this matter was brought under my notice 1 instructed that the guidelines document be changed and that there be greater emphasis across the whole area of facilities provided for parties travelling abroad on the need for economy.
The costs associated with the visit are provided for in Appropriation Act (No. 1) 1978-79. As is normal, any nonofficial expenditure on hospitality is met by or is recovered from the individuals concerned.
asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 2 1 February 1979:
– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
Ministerial Meetings with Business Consultants (Question No. 1190)
asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 27 February 1 979:
1 ) On what dates since 10 December 1977 has the Minister or members of her personal staff met representatives from:
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 20 February 1979:
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
I ) Statistics on student assistance beneficiaries are prepared on the basis of calendar, not financial years. The latest statistics for recipients of spouse allowance under TEAS are for 30 June 1978, the mid-point of the 1978 calendar year. At that date, 1,553 TEAS grantees were in receipt of this allowance.
asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 2 1 February 1979:
Did the Department of Social Security receive information from a Sydney psychiatrist, in March 1977 or thereabouts, that he had given a drug, phenobarbitone, to patients; later taken blood tests to measure phenobarbitone levels; and found only a small number had evidence of the drug in their blood; ifso:
did the Department ofSocial Security take action as a result of such information;
what was the doctor’s name; and
did the doctor inform the patients of his activities.
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
Bearing in mind the matters before the Court and the confidentiality requirements of the Social Services Act I am not able to provide the information requested.
asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 22 February 1979:
) How many of these appeals were:
3 ) How many of the appeals referred to the Social Security Appeals Tribunals were:
How many of the appeals recommended by the Appeals Tribunals were:
How many of the appeals referred to the DirectorGeneral were:
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
Statistics of appeals processed are not maintained in respect of those lodged within a period, but are based on appeals finalised during a period. Review Officers deal with dissatisfied clients of the Department before an appeal is lodged with a Social Security Appeals Tribunal. Appeals, upheld by departmental officers, as shown in (a) below, are not decisions of Review Officers, although in most cases, a Review Officer would have considered the case previously. The total of the following figures varies from that shown in (l ) due to appeals undetermined at the beginning or end of the December 1978 quarter.
(a) Numberof appeals disallowed by Social Security Appeals Tribunals was 1,207
(a) Numberof appeals recommended to be upheld by Tribunals which were upheld in the offices of State Directors was 297.
(a) Number of appeals upheld by the DirectorGeneral or his Central Office delegates was 5 1 .
asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 27 February 1979:
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
I draw the honourable senator’s attention to the Prime Minister’s reply to Question No. 1335, Senate Hansard, 2 May 1979, page 1608.
asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 1 March 1979:
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
Bearing in mind that this matter is before the Court, it is not proposed to authorise the considerable expenditure of manhours that would be required to extract this information.
asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 1 March 1979:
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 6 March 1 979:
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
Westwood Training Complex, Bowral, New South Wales (Question No. 1493)
asked the Minister for Social
Security, upon notice, on 27 March 1979:
– The answer to the honourable senators question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 28 March 1979:
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
Federal electorate in which project is located capacity of project whether project is funded direct or via the State whether project is operational or not yet operational.
It is also anticipated that a supplementary booklet will be prepared following analysis of a census currently being conducted on the Children ‘s Services Program. This supplementary booklet will contain additional information including whether the project is funded under the Child Care Act and more detailed analysis on service provision and usage by groups considered by the Commonwealth to be in priority need of child care services. It will also contain information on the staffing of these services.
asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 28 March 1979:
Melbourne for professionals wishing to obtain skills in the areas of the language and cultural differences of migrant groups as recommended by the Galbally Report.
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 29 March 1979:
Has the Minister, at any stage, informed State Governments that any attempt to waive compulsory contributions from all tertiary students as a condition of enrolment would, in the view of the Federal Government, be contrary to the agreement entered into during 1973 which has resulted in the present public funding arrangements for tertiary education.
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
No. My understanding of the agreement referred to by the honourable senator is that the Commonwealth agreed to provide funds for the academic programs of institutions but not to support student organisations, or non-academic amenities and services which, it was understood, would continue to be the financial responsibility of students. However, within a State, it is for the institutions and State authorities to determine whether non-academic amenities and facilities should be supported from compulsory student contributions or in some other way.
asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 29 March 1979:
Does the Federal Government insist on student participation within student bodies involved in socio-political activities and compulsory association by students with bodies which are allegedly constituted for sporting, recreational, and other activities in tertiary institutions.
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
The Government considers that universities and colleges of advanced education should not require students to be members of an organisation as a condition of their enrolment, continuation in courses of study or graduation. However, the Government agrees that it is proper for a tertiary institution to require students to make a contribution towards the cost of establishing and maintaining non-academic facilities and services such as sporting facilities and cafeteria. The Government is introducing legislation covering these matters in respect of the ANU and the CCAE.
The Government has made these views known to State Governments and tertiary institutions.
Roxby Downs Mineral Deposits
-On 27 March 1979 Senator Messner asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for National Development, the following question, without notice:
Because of the opposition of the South Australian Labor Government to uranium mining, is it likely that the world’s largest copper-uranium deposit at Roxby Downs will not be developed, especially in the light of last Wednesday’s announcement of the discovery of high grade copper at Benambra in Victoria by Western Mining Corporation Ltd. If so, would this be a bitter blow to South Australia’s hopes for industrial development, the blame for which could be laid solely at the door cf the Australian Labor Party’s uranium policy.
The Minister for Trade and Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
Under the present South Australian Government’s policy with respect to uranium mining it appears that it would not bc possible to develop the Western Mining Corporation’s Roxby Downs copper-uranium deposits. 1 understand that it would be impractical to recover the copper without also extracting the uranium content. The exploration to date has indicated a major deposit of copper-uranium ore containing some gold. It is unfortunate that the South Australian Government’s present uranium policy will deny that State the very substantive economic benefits, including jobs, which the development of the Roxby Downs mineral deposit could bring.
Women’s Refuges
-On 4 April 1979, Senator Harradine asked me, as Minister for Social Security, a question without notice (Hansard, page 1274) concerning an advertisement issued by the Western Region Women’s Refuge. I undertook to refer the question to the Minister for Health.
The Acting Minister for Health has provided the following information:
It is, of course, legitimate for a women’s refuge organisation to be concerned with women’s welfare and the advancement of the status of women in our society. However, an advertisement in these terms is completely unacceptable in the context of approval of the refuge for the purpose of funding by the Commonwealth. Community Health Program salary funds, in relation to women’s refuges, are intended solely for the employment of workers to undertake the care of women and children in refuges, not for ‘outside’ activities of any kind.
Accordingly, the Victorian welfare authorities (who have the immediate responsibility for supervision of refuges in that State and through whom the Commonwealth funds are chanelled) will be requested to obtain from the organisation a firm written undertaking that future advertisements will not contain statements of this type and, further, that during the course of their employment, refuge workers will bc engaged fully in the care of refuge residents and not in any other ‘outside’ activities such as political actions. If such an undertaking is not given or, if given, is not adhered to, immediate consideration will be given to the withdrawal of Commonwealth financial support.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 10 May 1979, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1979/19790510_senate_31_s81/>.