Wednesday, 18 May 1983 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 11.30 a.m ., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Pharmaceutical Declaration Form To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the requirement that pensioners and health care cardholders fill in a complex declaration when presenting prescriptions is causing distress to beneficiaries and inefficiencies in the distribution of medicines by pharmacists . Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the federal government will immediately abolish the requirement that a declaration be completed by the pensioner and health care cardholder. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Cook (from 212 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That the Australian people have an irreplaceable heritage-built and natural- that is decaying before their eyes. 2. That the 1982-83 Federal Budget is the eighth in a row in which there has been no increase in funding for the preservation of Australia's heritage. 3. That the States and Territories were granted a total of only $2.2 million for an urgent program of works that is awaiting at least $20m to complete and that most of these projects will be in ruins before enough money is available. 4. That there are conservation projects in Queensland alone valued at tens of millions of dollars which have been postponed or abandoned due to lack of funding and that $3 million is needed immediately to complete restoration of properties owned by The National Trust of Queensland. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government approve an urgent supplementary grant of $800,000 for 1982-83, plus a forward commitment for a total allocation of $8 million in the 1983-84 Budget. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jones (from 104 citizens). To the Honourable the President, and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that whereas the Government of Australia has signed the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which in Article 23 (1) states that ''The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to the protection by society and the State''. And whereas the terms of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women would violate the above Article 23 (1). We humbly pray the Government to refrain from ratifying the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women; believing that its implementation would result in: (1) Undue cost to the Nation at this time. (2) ''The elimination of any stereotyped concept of roles of men and women at all levels'' as described in Part 3 Article 10 (c), being a disruption of traditional parental roles, is likely to result in emotional disturbances of childhood. (3) The strong encouragements to mothers to join the workforce, with the provision of networks of creches and child care centres as outlined in Article 11 of the convention is likely to result in maternal deprivation and psychological disturbances among children with an increase in childhood psychiatric illnesses. (4) The sexual role changing as recommended in Part 3 Article 10 (c) is likely to contribute to further marriage insecurity and breakdown. And we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our Nation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Bjelke-Petersen (from 75 citizens), Boswell (from 5,424 citizens), Collard (from 21 citizens), Kilgariff (on behalf of Senator Archer) (from 153 citizens), Robertson (from 412 citizens), Tate (from 80 citizens) and Walters ( from 82 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The Petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showth: That to date no postage stamps have been issued to commemorate the services of Australian Forces in Korea and Vietnam. Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled: Should seek and support the issue of such commemorative stamps. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 133 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled, the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: (1) that US, Australian and allied forces used huge amounts of toxic chemicals for military purposes, such as Agents Orange, Blue and White, in Vietnam during the war there; (2) many of these chemicals were, and are, known to be highly dangerous to human health; (3) Australia's Vietnam veterans and their families are suffering many severe problems which may be due to their exposure to these chemicals; and (4) the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia has been seeking a Royal Commission for well over two years to ensure an independent investigation of these matters. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Parliament of Australia will: (a) express its support for the Royal Commission; and (b) urge the Federal Government to establish the Royal Commission immediately. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Tate (from 37 citizens). Petitions received. Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I will move: That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources: (1) The need for and the implications of the introduction of a system of plant variety rights in Australia, and (2) The Committee be empowered to consider the minutes of evidence and the records of the previous Standing Committee on National Resources relating to its inquiry into the Plant Variety Rights Bill 1982. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate, recognising that the safety and security of Australia are paramount in the concerns of its people, and further recognising that our national security is reduced, not increased, by the growing danger of nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union which would result in millions of deaths of people in Australia and throughout the world, urges that the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia pose to the Governments of the United States and the Soviet Union that both countries agree to immediately halt the testing, production and further deployment of all nuclear weapons, missiles and delivery systems in a way that can be checked and verified by both sides. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I table papers in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Guidelines for the Form and Standard of Financial Statements of Commonwealth Undertakings-Report. 2. Australian Biological Resources Study-Annual Report 1981-82. 3. Safety Standards at the CSIRO. Applied Organic Chemistry and Advanced Materials Laboratories at Fishermen's Bend, Melbourne and the death of CSIRO employee Dr R. Bergamasco-Report of the Committee of Inquiry-together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Science and Technology. 4. Legal Aid Commission (ACT)-Annual Report 1981-82. 5. Studies of Tertiary Student Finances-Volume 4-Evaluation of the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme: An Investigation and Review of Policy on Student Financial Assistance in Australia-Report. Report Senator COATES(Tasmania) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later, Mr President. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Report Senator CROWLEY(South Australia) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Annual Report Motion (by Senator Durack) agreed to: That the Senate take note of the paper. Report Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(11.37) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The Senate has before it volume 4 of a series of reports brought down by a group of authors headed by David Beswick. The papers became available at 11.34 this morning and the one before us is marked as not being available prior to tabling. Therefore I have had three minutes to look at it. I mention that for that reason some of my remarks may have to be brief. The subject of student assistance has been a matter of lively public debate. This report is important because it sets out, in an approach to student financing, what might be called a portfolio approach. The portfolio approach to student assistance, which is recommended and is set out on page 14 of the report, includes a number of components in addition to a system of student loans. I will read out the components which are identified by the Beswick report in its portfolio approach to student support. They include: Family support, self- help, the provision of the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme allowance, the provision of loans and the provision of scholarships. I want to make it clear to those honourable senators who might read this report that, far from this report failing to identify loans as an appropriate form of student support as part of a portfolio approach, a document produced in the last week by the Australian Vice- Chancellors' Committee on student finances also identified student loans as one appropriate form of support for students. Against that background it is very sad that the new Australian Labor Party Government has moved to abandon a form of student loans and, contrary to its promises, has failed to put in place any other form of support. Students in Australia are worse off today than they were when the Labor Party took government. At that stage they had TEAS and a system of student loans. Today they do not have the loans. Senator Chaney —Do you think there will be something in the economic statement? Senator PETER BAUME —I am asked whether I think there will be something in the economic statement. I hope so, but I hold no real hopes. Senator Chipp —That does not make sense. Senator PETER BAUME —I am sorry. I would hope so, but I doubt that it will occur . I thank Senator Chipp for correcting me. Student loans were to come into effect for this academic year. During the election period no steps were taken by the Department to process the fine details. But in spite of this between 700 and 800 students actually made applications for student loans under the scheme. This figure was given to us last week in Estimates Committee D by Mr Rolfe, one of the officers. In spite of the fact that there were difficulties 700 to 800 students found it possible to make applications to receive student loans. They have now been disappointed. Loans have not been introduced because the Government has an ideological commitment against them. I ask the Government, when it is considering this report, what the Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee put and what students need, to be eclectic and flexible in its approach and to look again at areas where the loans have some part to play. The Government has promised, as a sop, to put more money into the institutional emergency loans schemes. It is my hope that it honours that promise and that, by so doing gives students some chance to benefit. It is desirable that we look at this question of tertiary student finances in the hope that certain other senators too may be able to take part in the discussion. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(11.41) —I enter this discussion because Senator Peter Baume has subjected the Government to castigation and reprimand for in fact implementing, as speedily as it did, the wishes of the population most directly affected by the Government's proposal that a students loans scheme be put in place. The body representing Australian students in tertiary institutions throughout Australia most strenuously opposed the introduction of a loans scheme . Senator Baume described the alternative-namely, putting funds into the institutional emergency arrangements within our tertiary institutions-as a mere sop. The fact is that that is the most desirable course. I can say from my own experience at the University of Tasmania-it is shared by all those who have had anything to do with our colleges or university institutions-that tertiary institutions have administered student schemes most efficiently, most compassionately and with a good understanding of the needs of the students studying in these institutions, particularly their needs for funds not only to secure their immediately narrowly conceived educational requirements , but also to cover housing and social activities which are part of their natural life as students within an institution. Those matters are best understood by the educational institutions involved. I believe that the arrangements within those institutions for making loans available to students at reduced interest rates have proved to be a reasonable way in which to operate. Of course there is nothing to stop individual banks such as the Commonwealth Bank from making loans available to students should they approach such banking institutions. But it is notorious that in the United States the banks lobbied against the continuation of such schemes in the Californian tertiary education system. They found that with the highly mobile population in the United States of America-this is the case in Australia also-very often loans which were taken up by students were not repaid by them when they moved to other States and Territories. In fact, it could be left to the Australian Government to pick up the tab for defaulting borrowers. It would still be within the discretion of the bank, under the Government's previous loans scheme, whether a loan was granted or not. One might well ask how a bank or manager would determine whether a loan ought to be granted when a prospective student came for a conference with him. He may consider the student's socio-economic background and whether it was likely that he would go through the course and obtain the qualification which would perhaps enable him, if he were lucky enough to secure employment and earn the funds necessary, to repay the loan. If the bank manager made a judgment that the person might not be successful in completing his course and gaining a degree , the loan might not be available anyway. I think the Government is to be commended for moving as quickly as it did to say that the community-I know Senator Macklin is most interested in this concept-is making a proper investment in the future of Australia by ensuring that adequate funds are available to enable our students to undertake tertiary studies and that it ought not to be a question of whether one can secure a loan from a banking organisation which should determine one's access to higher education. This Government believes that Australia's future will be better secured if we have as many students as possible participating in tertiary studies and being retained within those tertiary institutions. I notice that the report tabled this morning contains chapters dealing with case studies of attrition due to lack of family support, distance from home, need for independence, ineligibility for the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme and so on. I say that it would be better for honourable senators opposite to spend time analysing those chapters than for them to castigate the Government for doing away with the tertiary loans scheme. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(11.46) —This is the fourth volume of the Study of Tertiary Student Finances. The three other volumes in relation to the Study of Tertiary Student Finances have been debated previously in the Senate with some interest. In fact, I studied this volume hoping to see that note had been taken of the points I raised previously, particularly in relation to what I saw as flawed methods of research in the previous volumes, and whether they had been picked up. The point at issue to which the two honourable senators who spoke previously addressed themselves is, in fact, only a very small part of this volume which deals with student loans. I think the discussion in this report takes place merely on the basis of whether there will be mandatory loans, whether we are looking at discretionary loans being made through the institutions or at some other forms of finance. I think the points made in the report were covered fairly extensively in the debate last year in relation to this item. I do not really feel there is a need for them to be rehearsed. I hope the Government will address itself to the details contained in this report about the disincentive to undertake tertiary education on the part of a variety of people within our community, particularly those from lower socio- economic groupings. But it is stretching one's imagination to the utmost to believe that the distribution of intelligence in our community ties in totally with the distribution of wealth. Unfortunately, when one looks at the people who are able to go to tertiary institutions that is, indeed, what one finds-that there is an inverse proportion in the number of people in higher socio-economic groupings compared with people from other income brackets. What the current Government has upon its plate which was not addressed by the previous Government in any marked way is the need to try to redress that imbalance. It should be trying to enable people who have the capacity, the understanding and the will to go into tertiary institutions regardless of their socio-economic backgrounds. Unless we do that we are effectively organising for ourselves in this country the denial to future generations of the worth of those people and their input in all areas of study regardless of whether those areas be scientific, technological or artistic. I believe we must make sure that we are providing schemes of student finance which will enable that to take place. One area which I believe is vitally important-these studies have tended to look at undergraduates particularly-is the area of post-graduate studies. In this area I have advocated that if a person actually has the capacity to undertake and has undertaken successfully undergraduate studies, every one of those people ought to be permitted to undertake secondary or higher degrees. This was why the Australian Democrats in particular had such vehement objection to the imposition of fees at that level. We believe that it is at that level that one gets maximum return, not marginal return, for every dollar spent. So in those areas we believe there needs to be an open-ended commitment on the part of the Government to allow all those people who have the capacity and who have completed a primary degree to be able to undertake a second degree within our current tertiary institutions. Finally, if we have a detailed debate on this matter at a later stage-I believe that honourable senators will so move-we might be able to concentrate on some of the other areas, particularly on the characteristics of the people who are currently being denied access to tertiary institutions. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(11.51) —It is not surprising that the fourth volume of the Studies of Tertiary Student Finances has been raised in the several brief speeches in the Senate this morning. The fourth volume report is very important to the Senate. It follows on from the public inquiry of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts into the student loans scheme which was the former Government's proposal. I remind the Senate that the outcome of that Senate inquiry was for both of the major parties in this chamber to accept the recommendations of the Senate Committee and to see that loans scheme implemented. The whole of the four volumes of the report which is now before us needs to be debated. Because that loans scheme has been terminated by the new Government we are now discussing an area which does not have adequate financial provision for tertiary students in Australia. I believe that it is right for Senator Peter Baume, in commenting on this report, to regret not only on his behalf but also on the behalf of many honourable senators in this chamber that that is the current state of affairs in Australia. The new Government has denied financial resources to tertiary students without giving any specific outline of the scheme that it hopes will come to pass during the term of this Parliament. Therefore I take issue with Senator Tate when he says that the Government should be commended in the present instance for withdrawing that scheme. I do not believe that that is something that we on this side of the chamber can assent to. I do not believe that the Government can be commended for withdrawing that loans scheme money from hundreds of students who had applied for it. They will now be denied the financial resources to undertake studies this year. How many students have been denied access to tertiary studies in 1983 because of the decisions of this Government? The report that is before the Senate brings home to us the importance of that whole area. It is an unfinished area of decision-making in the Senate and it is especially so because that loan scheme has been denied to students. Along with that, this four-volume report relates to the need for an emergency loans scheme in lieu of that withdrawn loans scheme of the previous Government. Only last week in the Estimates committees the question was put to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan): Is there a concrete plan of finding out what the views of the tertiary institutions-universities and colleges-are towards the need for an emergency loans scheme? The Minister's reply was: 'In my own time I will make some inquiries. I can, at some point, become informed about this matter. No, there are no specific comprehensive inquiries at the CAEs and universities with regard to the needs for that emergency loans scheme given that this Government has denied the loan scheme that was available this year'. So the unfinished question on that grant is also a matter that comes out of this four-volume study. Quite contrary to what Senator Tate said I do not believe that this is an occasion to commend the Government. I believe that we in the Senate should take full cognisance of the report of the bipartisan Senate Standing Committee which thoroughly investigated these matters and which saw room for that loans scheme within the full spectrum of tertiary education finances in Australia. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave not granted. Senator Robertson —Mr President, I raise a point of order. We have already granted leave to Senator Peter Baume to continue his remarks later. The PRESIDENT —No, it was not granted. He withdrew his request. Senator Peter Baume —Stay in touch with things. Senator Robertson —I am speaking to the President, thank you, Senator Baume. Senator Peter Baume —You are wrong, Senator. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Peter Baume sought leave and subsequently withdrew the application. Senator Teague sought leave, and leave has been refused. I now call Senator Ryan. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(11.56) —I will not take very much time of the Senate at this stage but I feel I must make some comments on the wild misinformation that Senator Teague has delivered to us and repeat some of the very sound and accurate analyses made by Senator Tate when he commented on the decision of the Government not to proceed with the student loans scheme which was a proposal of the previous Government. A couple of points need to be made very strongly. First of all, no student organisation supported the loans scheme. It was seen by students, as it was by the Australian Labor Party, as a scheme which would benefit only those students from affluent, secure backgrounds who would be in a position to negotiate loans. I think Senator Tate made it quite clear. I know there was support from the Australian Democrats when he said that we do not consider one's financial ability to negotiate a loan as a suitable criterion for entrance into tertiary education. The other point to be made is that the Labor Party in Opposition made it quite clear from the moment the previous Government started to talk about this scheme that we would not proceed with it. We were supported in that view by all student organisations. There can be no question of deception or misleading of students. It is true that a number of students made application under the loans scheme that the previous Government introduced. It is also true that not one of those loans was concluded. There was no loans scheme in operation. No loans have been negotiated, and the reason why the loans have not been negotiated is that the complications were so enormous, and the unsuitability of the scheme was evident right from the very outset. It is the intention of this Government to increase the level of student assistance, and that will be a matter for Budget announcement. But we remain firm in our view that the kind of loans scheme proposed by the former Government was, as might be expected, a scheme to assist students from affluent middle class families, a scheme which would have deterred able students from entering into tertiary studies. Our aim is quite opposite to that. Senator Teague also said some very misleading things about my comments on the emergency loans scheme. It is the case that all universities have a small amount of money, which was granted to them under the Whitlam Administration, to make emergency loans to students in a variety of crisis situations. The emergency loans scheme was not set up to provide ongoing financial support for students through all their graduate or under-graduate studies. It is not a suitable replacement for the proper level of income support for students that this Government intends to provide. Nor is it an appropriate replacement for those loans which were sought by some students. I suppose some students thought that the Fraser Government might be returned. Senator Peter Baume —It is just another promise. Senator RYAN —There was no promise. The promise made by Labor in Opposition was that we would cancel this inequitable, impractical scheme immediately, and we have fulfilled that promise. We also promised to undertake a series of measures to assist students of ability and motivation from all backgrounds to enter tertiary education, and we are currently engaged in negotiating those schemes. The emergency loan scheme is a separate matter. It is not true, as Senator Teague said, that I reported to the Senate Estimates Committee that I would, in my own good time, look into this scheme. It is true, as I reported to the Senate Estimates Committee, that I have asked the Tertiary Education Commission to report to me on the state of those emergency loan funds. I should make it clear that we do not see those emergency loan funds as having any purpose other than assisting students in an emergency situation. A student from an affluent family, doing a three-year or four-year course of study, is not an appropriate person to be assisted. So I do not want to raise any false hopes of those students who were prepared to take out loans under the previous Government's scheme that the emergency loans scheme will be a replacement. It will not. What will happen is that there will be an increase in the general level of support for students who need it and there will be, as a result, a greatly increased participation in tertiary studies. Debate interrupted. The PRESIDENT —I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the Gallery of a parliamentary delegation from New Zealand. On behalf of all honourable senators I extend to our friends in that delegation a very warm welcome to the Senate and to Australia. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator DURACK —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, both in his capacity as Minister representing the Prime Minister and as Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I refer the Minister to article 21 of the National Economic Summit Conference communique, which reads: This Summit therefore proposes that the parties should as a matter of priority develop the option of a return to a centralised system under the auspices of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Article 21 has other provisions which emphasise the central role of the Commission. I also refer the Minister to a statement on the AM program this morning by the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Mr Dolan, who threatened an industrial free for all, to use his words, if the Commission knocked back the ACTU's 2.2 per cent claim to cover the consumer price index increase in the March quarter. Senator Walters —So much for consensus. Senator DURACK —Mr Dolan, I might add, also said: Well, they will put themselves out of business as far as I see it. There will be just no role for the Arbitration Commission because the unions will seek to achieve that increase. I ask the Minister: Is not Mr Dolan's attitude to the Commission totally at variance with the Summit view, to which the ACTU was a party? Is it not a threat to the very existence of the Arbitration Commission? Will the Minister assure the Senate that the Government will give full support to the Arbitration Commission? Senator BUTTON —During the question there was an interjection from Senator Walters, who said with great joy and gusto: 'This represents the end of consensus'. Of course, that is what the Opposition wants and that is why this question has been asked in the way in which it has. The answer to the question is, yes, in the paragraph referred to by the former Attorney-General the Summit communique did refer to the Government's and the Summit's desire for a return to a centralised wage fixation system. A series of private conferences is taking place under the chairmanship of the President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in order to implement that decision. The Government will be discussing the alternative methods of implementing that decision in the course of those private conferences held under the aegis of the President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. I was asked about Mr Dolan's statement. I do not see his statement as creating any more of a threat to the continuance of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission than many other statements of a similar kind which have been made over many years, including statements by the former Prime Minister of Australia, Mr Fraser. On a number of occasions he offered quite specific threats to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Mr Dolan's statement must be seen in that context. The Government's position in respect of wages policy will be indicated to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission at the appropriate time . Senator COLEMAN —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Trade to an article in the Melbourne Age on 21 April, headed 'Australian sugar technology costs Filipinos their jobs'. This article points out that new equipment supplied to the Philippines sugar industry has cost sugar workers 50,000 jobs over the last three years. The article quoted a study as having shown a reduction of between 50 per cent and 90 per cent in labour in the sugar farms. Changes of this magnitude obviously cause immense social problems. As this is just one example among many of the effects of foreign commercial activity on a local community and as private enterprise does not have a good record of exercising responsibility in such matters, can the Minister tell me what studies are undertaken and what restraints are exercised concerning the activities of Australian firms and their effects on underdeveloped communities? Senator WALSH —I did not see that article but I think similar reports have been published in the last month or two. I am not aware of what studies are in process or are contemplated on that question, or whether any restraints are being contemplated. I will refer the question to the Minister for Trade and provide a comprehensive answer as soon as possible. Senator MESSNER —My question is addressed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. I refer to the Minister's reference to Ricardian principles relating to rent during his erudite dissertation on resource rental tax on Tuesday last. Does the Minister's resource rental tax proposal not amount to nothing more than a system of centralised control by the Federal Government of resource development in this country? Is the Minister aware of Ricardo's comment: 'Corn is not high because rent is paid, but rent is paid because corn is high'? Is the Minister's argument for a resource rental tax not merely a means of putting the Government in the position of Mother Nature so that it can determine how high the corn will be allowed to grow? Senator WALSH —In response to that fatuous rhetoric about centralised control of resources I point out to Senator Messner that the Government has absolute control over the export of any minerals from Australia quite independently of whatever taxation system may exist. If it wished to exercise that sort of control for whatever, malevolent reason which seems to lurk in the mind of Senator Messner it could do so. It has, of course, no intention of doing so. I wondered how long it would be before I was asked a question which had thrown into it centralised control and States' rights and all that sort of nonsense with which the people on the other side seem to occupy their thoughts rather than addressing themselves to the real problem of this country, which of course is the problem of sorting out the economic debacle in which they left the country when they were ignominiously removed from office. Whenever I hear with respect to taxation policy, minerals policy, mining policy or anything else this question of centralised control and States' rights I am reminded of the statement made by a senior figure in the Western Australian Liberal Party who said that the Western Australian Liberal Party had fallen under the control of white collar criminals who hide their real objectives behind a smokescreen of States' rights. I would endorse that as being a very succinct and accurate assessment of the current condition of the Western Australian Liberal Party. Senator Martin —What has that to do with the question? Senator WALSH —Somebody said: 'What has that to do with Ricardo?'. It has this much to do with Ricardo: What those white collar criminals who a senior member of the Western Australian Liberal Party said had gained control of the Western Australian branch want to do is to appropriate all of the economic rent in existence, and a little more as well, into their pockets. That is what it has to do with Ricardo. I did not have time to write down the quotation from Ricardo about the price of corn being high or whatever it was. I will look at the Hansard tomorrow. Senator Durack —Haven't you read economics? Senator WALSH —What was that? Senator Durack —I thought you had read economics. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Walsh is answering the question asked by Senator Messner. I call Senator Walsh. Senator WALSH —From what I recall of the quotation, I do not believe that it had anything to do-- Senator Chaney —Mr President, I take a point of order to say merely that for the first time I have been moved to want to dissent from your ruling, but on reflection I will not. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. I call the Minister. Senator WALSH —Mr President, I have finished my answer. Senator MESSNER —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Are we to assume from the Minister's answer to that part of my question which he attempted to answer that not only is he prepared to try to control the export of minerals from this country, but also he is out to control the production of minerals in this country? Senator WALSH —I pointed out the simple fact that the Federal Government has absolute control over everything that is exported from or imported in to this country, if it chooses to exercise that control. Senator Chipp —Subject to parliament. Senator WALSH —Of course. The PRESIDENT —Senator Walsh, will you answer the supplementary question? Senator WALSH —Governments, in varying degrees ever since there has been a Federal government, have exercised that control. It will be exercised responsibly by this Government and in the interests of the Australian people. Senator ROBERT RAY —My question is directed to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, in her capacity as Minister assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women. Is the Minister aware of the recently announced progress of the South Australian Co-ordinated Committee Against Sexual Harassment towards a clear and legally accepted definition of such abuse in South Australia? Is the Federal Government monitoring reforms being introduced by State Australian Labor Party governments in the area of combating sexual harassment? Can the community look forward to the adoption of measures at a federal level similar to those reforms currently being examined in South Australia, such as the legal definition of sexual harassment and the drawing up of complaint procedures within government departments, including educational institutions? Senator RYAN —The honourable senator's question touches on a matter which is of growing concern in the work force. The incidence-or the reported incidence-of sexual harassment is increasing every day. There is no doubt that the record level of unemployment which, of course, is even higher for women, has exacerbated a very unsavoury situation for many women employees, who are placed in a much more vulnerable position with regard to this kind of violation of their rights than they would be in a situation of full employment in which they could, with confidence, leave a job where they were being harassed in this way and take another one. The Government takes very seriously the reports of this kind of violation of the rights of women workers. Consequently, in reply to the specific part of the honourable senator's question, we are monitoring the progress that is being made in the various Labor States with regard to the development of legislative and administrative machinery to protect women against sexual harassment in the work place. With regard to our intentions federally, the Government will introduce sex discrimination legislation in this session. That legislation will provide some measure of protection against sexual harrassment in the areas of employment which it covers. It will cover all areas of Commonwealth employment-statutory bodies and so forth-and areas of large private employment. We will be building on and strengthening the efforts being made in the States to provide legislative and other forms of protection against this most unacceptable form of intrusion on the rights of working women. Senator CHANEY —My question, which is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy, relates to the announced intention of the Government to impose a resource rent tax. In a number of statements the Minister has suggested that such a tax would be imposed only if the States agreed to it. I refer the Minister to the answer he gave to a question asked by Senator Maguire on 5 May when he stated: . . . if the States do not co-operate I do not believe that there is very much we can do. That statement echoes the report of an interview in the Bulletin on 3 May, when he was reported to have said: With oil we can do almost anything we like. With everything else, if the States do not co-operate, there is nothing much we can do, anyway. In contrast to that there were statements by his predecessor, Mr Keating. I instance one of them. Mr Keating referred to the power that the Government would have to remove the incentives for State mineral taxation by re-arranging Commonwealth-State finances, and he said: In simple terms, this would involve reducing Commonwealth general revenue grants to individual States by the amount in question. So, there was a suggestion of possible coercion in the statement of Mr Keating last year. Can the Minister advise the Senate whether it is a firm Government decision that a resource rent tax will be introduced only if there is agreement with those States which are affected by the imposition of such a tax? Senator WALSH —As I am sure Senator Chaney appreciates very well, the situation is that the primary taxing right, excise excluded, for minerals located on-shore rests with the States; and the comments that I have been making about that are based upon the recognition of that simple fact. But there is certainly no legal impediment to the Commonwealth imposing a resource rent tax additional to the various taxes already imposed by the States. However, it is not the objective of the Government to impose an additional tax because, firstly, at least at this stage, few mining enterprises, if any, are in a position in the long term- indefinitely anyway-to pay an additional tax and, secondly, our intention is not that there be a new or additional tax but that there be a replacement tax for those which are already in existence. As for the comments that Mr Keating made-again inevitably I am relying upon my recollections of what Senator Chaney said-my interpretation of the passage quoted by Senator Chaney is that if a State agrees to surrender whatever taxing right it now has, then obviously some offsetting financial arrangements will have to be made through the distribution of general purpose payments to the States. I am not in a position to say whether it is legally feasible to introduce an arrangement whereby the States themselves levy a rent-type tax on the mining industries. If that were legally possible, in my view that would be a satisfactory alternative to a federal tax. But I suspect that the legal situation is such that only the Commonwealth Government could collect the type of tax preferred by the present Federal Government, although that, of course, would not preclude revenue gained from within a State by such a tax collected by the Commonwealth Government being returned to that State. If that were done the bottom line regarding revenue to all the States is ultimately determined, under existing arrangements anyway, by the absolute size of Commonwealth payments to the States and the distribution of that absolute payment among the States. Senator COATES —Has the Minister for Social Security seen an article on the front page of this week's Tasmanian Mail headed 'Welfare cheats warned'? Is he one of the welfare cheats concerned and what is his reaction to his warning? Can he inform the Senate whether social security fraud is a major problem in Tasmania? Senator GRIMES —Yes, my attention has been drawn to the article on the front page of the Tasmanian Mail and no, I am not one of the welfare cheats talked about in the article. This article is the third in a series produced in the Tasmanian Mail. The first was an alleged letter from a reader complaining about what were described as social security cheats. The next article consisted of a series of responses to that letter, raising the matter of what those readers or the writers of those letters described as the problem of social security cheats in Tasmania. The final article, which appeared this week, as Senator Coates says, is headlined 'Welfare Cheats Warned' and contains a photograph of me, reference to the Tasmanian Mail approaching me in Canberra and asking my view, and comments from officers of the Department of Social Security in Tasmania. I say first of all that I think the tone of this article and the other articles is unfortunate and gives a very unbalanced picture. The simple fact is that social security fraud-by 'fraud', I mean people who cheat on the system deliberately-is not a problem in Tasmania. In fact, in the totality of the social security budget, it is not a problem in this country at all. Of course it occurs and, of course, this Government, like other governments, does not approve of it and will seek to eliminate it as much as possible. I am talking about deliberate fraud and cheating on the system, such as people who receive multiple benefits illegally, or who work and receive an income and at the same time are receiving benefits and not declaring that income. This Government does not approve of that sort of behaviour at all. But this article, like the ones before it, implies that the social security system is in fact burdened by people such as that. What disturbs me is the tone and the lack of balance in the article, but two aspects particularly disturb me. One is that the article encourages people to ring the Department of Social Security or, apparently, my office, anonymously, and report people. The article encourages this behaviour, the implication being that I encourage it. I do not believe it is appropriate in our society for people to ring making anonymous accusations against others on the scale that has followed the publication of this article. I do not believe that is the sort of society we want, or want to encourage. The second point about this article is that it says: The Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, has been approached in Canberra over the numerous complaints. He is treating the subject matter seriously and is understood to have asked the Department in Tasmania to treat the matter with priority. What is disturbing about that report is that at no time did the Tasmanian Mail approach me. At no time was I asked to comment on the previous articles, nor have I made comment on them. If I had had the opportunity to do so, I hope I would have been able to introduce some balance into the article. I think it is unfortunate when newspapers claim that they are representing the views of the Minister and have contacted the Minister when they have not. I think it is particularly unfortunate when reporters from those newspapers approach officers of my Department telling them that they have approached me when in fact they have not. Senator MASON —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is the Government aware that a condition of the house arrest of Father Brian Gore in the Philippines on what is probably a trumped up murder charge is that Father Gore must not give interviews to the media, which means that Father Gore is now in a position where he cannot speak publicly on his own behalf? Is the Minister aware of statements made by Father Gore on the Australian Broadcasting Commission AM program on Monday, which may well have been the last interview he could give, of the extraordinary circumstances of his arrest in which interview he pointed out that soldiers: . . . came in a gunship-helicopter and came across, jumped out of the gunship with guns . . . Father Gore said that he would not go with them in the helicopters, that he would not, 'go in the things', and that they would go down later. He said: We followed them down about 20-30 minutes later and we were met by a convoy of two jeeps full of soldiers who surrounded us, with balaclavas and masks, and I thought it was it, I thought we were going to be ambushed. Father Gore's final comment was: It was an over . . . maybe an overkill tactic of trying to scare us. Is the Minister aware that this week the Philippines Government has created new laws under which journalists can be imprisoned for life or sentenced to death for criticism of the Government? In view of these gross civil rights infringements, and especially the position of a respected Australian citizen, Father Brian Gore, will the Government express Australia's repugnance to the Philippines at civil rights violations in that country? Will the Government reconsider the extent of Australian assistance to the Philippines, especially with regard to the military aid we are giving in this financial year, which I understand totals $1.848m, mostly in the form of staff exchanges, training and assistance programs and Nomad aircraft maintenance? Senator GARETH EVANS —The information available to the Government about Father Brian Gore can be summarised at present as follows: He was arrested on a murder charge on 6 May, together with Father O'Brien, an Irish priest, Father Dangan, a Filipino priest, and six lay workers. President Marcos ordered the release of the three priests under house arrest on 7 May. The six lay workers have not been released. Bail petitions were lodged on 10 May. At the bail hearing on 17 May Father Gore and the other priests were formally arraigned on the charge of multiple murder, all pleading not guilty. Three of the other six people who were also charged and who were recently arrested turned state's evidence and were removed from the charge sheet. The proceedings were then adjourned to today-Wednesday, 18 May- with Father Gore, Father O'Brien and Father Dangan remaining under house arrest. We do not have precise details as to the conditions of those arrests, except the general advice is that the conditions are in fact quite lenient. Senator Mason —You can take it that that is definite; he is not allowed to speak to the media. Senator GARETH EVANS —We do not have definite confirmation that the non-access to the media is a condition of Father Gore's house arrest although that confirmation is being sought at the moment. It is the case, of course, as the honourable senator indicated in his question, that Bob Wurth of the Australian Broadcasting Commission interviewed Father Gore in Negros after he had been released into house arrest, that interview being broadcast on 9 May. Whether that is the last such media interview that will be allowed I am not yet in a position to be able to advise the honourable senator. The only other matters I add are these: Such available information as we have about the conduct of the case generally indicates that due processes of law are being properly applied. The Australian Consul in Manila visited Father Gore at his residence in Oringao on 9 May. Father Gore then indicated that he had no request for additional assistance. The Consul is presently in Kabankalan for the bail hearing. Mr Hayden, of course, met Father Gore in Manila and was assured of his satisfaction with the present level of Australian interest and concern about his case. As to the final, more general, matter that Senator Mason raised, the situation is that the Government has publicly indicated that it will take a heightened interest in human rights issues and will certainly take this into account in its foreign policy making. This interest has certainly been registered with and is well known to the Philippine authorities. Senator McINTOSH —Does the Attorney-General have any evidence that Australian companies trading overseas are falling foul of American anti-trust legislation? Is the Attorney-General of the opinion that the agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United States of America relating to co- operation on anti-trust matters signed last June offers enough protection for Australian companies trading overseas? If the answer to the second part of the question is no, does the Attorney-General have any intention of introducing legislation, such as the Foreign Antitrust Judgments (Restriction of Enforcement ) Amendment Bill 1981 to allow protection for Australian companies in the future ? Does the Attorney-General intend to have the matter of anti-trust agreements on the agenda of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development with a view to arriving at a broader treaty agreeable to all trading nations? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Australian Government is aware that several Australian companies and/or their overseas subsidiaries that either operate in the international market-place or carry on business in the United States of America are subject to investigation by United States authorities in connection with the possible violation of United States anti-trust laws. I am not at liberty to disclose the names of those companies because the information has been passed to the Australian Government on a confidential basis. The Australian Government is also aware, of course, of the current anti-trust investigation which commenced in May 1980 by the United States Department of Justice in relation to the Australian-United States ocean shipping trade. Officials from my Department, together with officers from other interested departments, have been monitoring the progress of these investigations to ensure that Australia's national interest is protected. Some recent developments in that respect are causing us some concern. As to the parts of the question relating to the bilateral agreement with the United States and the possible future of the recovery Bill, the situation is this: Since taking office the present Government has not made any formal decisions yet, as a government, about either the bilateral agreement or the need for further legislation, such as the Foreign Antitrust Judgments (Restriction of Enforcement) Amendment Bill 1981 which was introduced by my predecessor, Senator Durack. In Opposition we did express general support for both these measures. I simply advise that, in accordance with my instructions, my Department has already begun consultations with other departments on these questions. When those consultations have been completed I do intend bringing the matter forward to Cabinet. I can also say that I am planning to visit the United Kingdom and the United States late next month in order to discuss, along with two or three other matters of importance, these and related questions on extra-territoriality . As to the final part of the question relating to the OECD, the situation is that Australia has already made a detailed statement in January this year on the bilateral agreement with the United States to Working Party 3 of the OECD's Restrictive Business Practices Committee. I understand that that agreement has generated considerable interest among other countries. There is probably a general consensus that both multilateral and bilateral agreements or understandings of this kind are a useful means by which jurisdictional conflicts between nations can be avoided or resolved in a spirit consistent with that generally attempted by the present Government of accommodation and compromise according to the principles of comity and national sovereignty. Senator LAJOVIC —Can the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations inform the Senate of the cost to the national economy, in particular to the community of the Hunter River region, of the seven-month-old strike at Drayton mine in New South Wales? Further, can the Minister explain to the Senate and people of Australia how it is that this Government of so-called consensus cannot resolve this more and more serious confrontation in our community? Senator BUTTON —I am only able to say that I thought I saw some reports of some possible solution to the dispute involving the Drayton mine. I will refer the honourable senator's question to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and obtain an answer. Senator ROBERTSON —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Defence aware of reports that the surface of the Tindal airstrip caused problems during the recent defence exercise code-named Pitch Black? If so, can the Minister give details of the problems? Can he also indicate when the committee which was recently formed to investigate the development of Tindal and comprising Commonwealth, Northern Territory and local government officials expects to hand down its report? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am afraid I have to confess that in the rush of recent events the condition of the surface of the Tindal airstrip escaped my notice. But I will in fact draw that question to the attention of the Minister for Defence and secure an early answer for the honourable senator. Senator MISSEN —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to the decision by the Foreign Minister to appoint a committee headed by Mr Gordon Jackson to review Australia's foreign development aid program. I ask: Firstly, why is it that the review committee is composed exclusively of businessmen and economists and totally excludes non- government organisations and others vitally concerned with the delivery of aid? Secondly, what consultation took place before the appointment of the review panel? Thirdly, does the Government repudiate the views expressed on 25 April by the Sydney Morning Herald, which newspaper originally had a representative on the review panel, which rejected the Foreign Minister's statement that the Government is particularly concerned that Australian aid should be employed for the benefit of those people in recipient countries who most need it and insisted that 'it will be wrong if it gives the review a bias towards humanitarian objectives and away from the politics of aid'? Fourthly, how will the Government ensure, in view of the composition of the committee, that the review will uphold the objectives stressed by the Government giving primacy to the maintenance of humanitarian objectives? Senator GARETH EVANS —The aid review panel was appointed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and will provide its report to him. I am advised by the Minister for Foreign Affairs that those members were chosen because of the broad range of experiences and skills which they can contribute to such a task. These skills cover much more than economic expertise and business acumen. Their skills cover the full ambit of humanitarian and socio-economic concerns of Third World countries and of program management. It was the Foreign Minister's particular express desire that members of the panel should not be seen to be representing particular sectional interests. For example, the panel will have to examine the role of non-government organisations within the official aid program. Therefore, it was perceived as being inappropriate for a current office holder in a non- government organisation to be included on the panel. Of course, the honourable senators will appreciate that several members of the panel have had very extensive experience in the past in relation to those aid organisations. The panel will be seeking ideas and submissions throughout the whole community. As to the general philosophy of aid and the reference the honourable senator made to the Sydney Morning Herald editorial, may I say that the Government accepts that humanitarian concerns are a quite fundamental consideration in framing aid policies. Obviously, other factors, including foreign policy considerations, are also important. One of the tasks of the panel is to ensure that our aid reflects Australia's interests and values while making a real contribution to the economic and social advancement of the people, especially the poorest peoples, in recipient countries. Senator CHILDS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment. Did the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment and the Minister for Finance issue a statement on 29 March of this year to the effect that in the May sittings of this Parliament the Government intends to introduce legislation to amend the taxation incentive for films provided under Division 10BA of the Commonwealth Income Tax Assessment Act in order to eliminate the bunching of film production? Are these amendments to be introduced during this period of sittings? Are the Ministers aware of the serious effects on the film production industry which would result from failure to ensure passage of the amendments in this period of sittings and the employment implications for those affected? Senator RYAN —The Government's commitment to assisting the film industry in the way outlined by Senator Childs in his question concerning the tax incentives is firm and unwaivering. The legislative provisions will eliminate the bunching that was one of the enormous problems besetting the film industry during the period of the Fraser Administration. I understand that there is bipartisan support for this legislation. It will be proceeded with very quickly and the film industry will have a secure and stable base for future development, which this Government is committed to establish. Senator TEAGUE —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is it not true that last Saturday, Sunday and Monday Mr Bowen, the Deputy Prime Minister, was the Acting Foreign Minister in this country and that in this capacity he set forth his views concerning Australian and Japanese troops going to Kampuchea? Why should not the Australian public and the world at large expect that these views are the views of the Australian Government? Has the Prime Minister repudiated, reprimanded and disciplined this Minister for abusing his authority both as Deputy Prime Minister and Acting Foreign Minister? In any event, how are we all to know when a Minister of this Government is speaking responsibly or merely putting his feet in his mouth? Senator BUTTON —Senator Teague, let me say that if a question is asked in that spirit I will put my foot in your mouth. The PRESIDENT —Order! I suggest that the honourable senator address his remarks through the Chair. Senator BUTTON —I am sorry, Mr President. Let me say that yes, last Saturday, Sunday and Monday Mr Bowen was the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs. Yes, he expressed certain views about Japanese and Australian troops participating in a peacekeeping operation in Kampuchea. I understand that his remarks were made at a rural conference in New South Wales. I say to the honourable senator that at the moment I cannot remember the name of the town. I take it that the remarks were made in the context of addressing a party conference and discussing a wide range of solutions which this Government might be able to put forward in relation to a problem about which it is concerned. The comments made by Mr Bowen are no different from the sorts of comments which have been made, for example, by leaders of the National Party at National Party conferences over many years and which were not necessarily in accord with Government policy when the Fraser Government was in office. I do not know whether Mr Bowen has been repudiated, reprimanded and rebuked by-- Senator Teague —And disciplined. Senator BUTTON —And disciplined by the Prime Minister. I am unable to answer that question. I have no doubt that the Prime Minister had a friendly discussion with Mr Bowen regarding the matters to which the honourable senator refers. Senator TEAGUE —Mr President, still having my teeth and tongue in my mouth, I ask a supplementary question. If the Prime Minister has not disciplined the Deputy Prime Minister will he do so, and will he convey an answer to the Senate? Senator BUTTON —The supplementary question, of course, repeats the initial value judgment of Senator Teague. I am not going to embark on a process, at Senator Teague's request, of disciplining the Prime Minister to discipline Mr Bowen and so on. If the honourable senator requires a further answer on the matter I can pursue it and give it to him. Senator HEARN —Is the Minister for Social Security aware that organisations funded under the Youth Services Scheme will run out of funds on 30 June? Does the Government propose to continue funding youth refuges? Senator GRIMES —I am aware of the situation. Last year the previous Government provided $1.7m, I think, for a one-year continuation of the Youth Services Scheme while a national evaluation was being held. That national evaluation report is available. It has been with the States since April and was made public earlier this month. At the request of Senator Messner I will have it tabled in the Senate next week, the reason for the delay being the need to get sufficient copies. In the meantime I will be consulting with the States as to the continuation of this Scheme. We are continuing the Scheme while also considering the matter of crisis accommodation for youth. I expect that next week, when the report is tabled in the Parliament, we will have some debate on this matter, if I can anticipate Senator Messner's comments from what was said in the Estimates committee last week. Senator HARRADINE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance and refers to the bank accounts debits tax. I remind the Minister that when he was in Opposition he described this tax as being inequitable, discriminatory, inflationary and counter-productive. Is it not a fact that the Bank Account Debits Tax Act exempts debits made to accounts in the name of non-profit schools but this exemption does not extend to support bodies associated with the schools? Is this not a tax on the efforts of such organisations as parents and friends organisations which are designed to provide educational aids for the schools which are exempt under the Act? If so, what does the Government intend to do about it? Senator WALSH —The Minister for Finance announced, I think on 29 March, that a review of the application of this tax would take place in six months' time. I am not sure whether Senator Harradine was quoting me when he mentioned that point. Anyway, comments were made by members of the then Opposition about this tax when it was introduced last year. I do not remember saying that, but I recall some people in the then Opposition making those sorts of comments. Senator Harradine —It was a resolution which I supported at that time, and you proposed it. Senator WALSH —Those are the sorts of comments one makes when one has no knowledge of the enormous $10 billion impending deficit. On the Monday after the election, this Government discovered that it faced that deficit, having been told many times in the weeks before by the then Government that the impending deficit was $6 billion. What was the then Government still saying in the week leading up to the election, after it had been twice told by the Department of the Treasury that the impending deficit was between $9 billion and $10 billion? The then Government-the discredited Fraser Liberal-National Party Government-was still telling the Australian Labor Party and the public that the impending deficit was $6 billion, even though it had been twice told by the Treasury that it would be between $9 billion and $10 billion. Since the election, we know the truth-no thanks, of course, to any member of the previous Government. Once the Labor Party assumed government, the Treasury provided to the Labor Party the information which it had previously provided to the discredited Fraser Government. As a result of that $10 billion impending deficit, many actions will have to be taken which would not have been contemplated by the Labor Party at a time when it did not know that it was confronted with that sort of deficit. That will necessarily be one of the questions which will have to be considered when the review forecast by the Minister for Finance takes place in September or thereabouts. As to the finer details of the actual application of this tax to which Senator Harradine referred, I am not able to answer off the cuff and I will refer them to the Minister for Finance for a definitive answer. Senator SIBRAA —Has the Attorney-General seen statements by Mr Meagher, senior counsel assisting the Costigan Royal Commission, that some New South Wales Rugby Football League matches in Sydney and Victorian Football League matches in Melbourne involved teams deliberately controlling the extent of the winning margin? I ask whether he is also aware of a statement by a former captain of the Australian rugby league team, Bob Fulton, who said: It's just a ridiculous claim made without one shred of evidence . . . It's the same as the rugby league players association making unsubstantiated allegations about QCs 'fixing' cases in court. I cannot believe people are allowed to make irresponsible and untrue statements without proof. Is the Attorney-General aware that one of the allegations assumes that on a given day the majority of players in all teams taking part in a round of the New South Wales Rugby League or the VFL were involved in fixing the matches? Does he not agree that this suggestion is ludicrous? Senator GARETH EVANS —The answer to all those questions is yes. In saying that, I think it ought to be appreciated that the attention that the Press has given this matter really does represent something in the nature of a classic beat-up, as might be expected when the issues of crime and sport are intertwined. The matter lacks only sex in order to occupy all the pages of the newspaper. The particular passages in the Meagher papers which he presented to the Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science Congress do not justify, in my view, the degree of speculation and excitement which has in fact been generated. The only reference that I can find to football fixes appears on page 33 of what is a 200-odd page document. In the context of a much longer discussion on the extent of starting price bookmaking and its connection with organised crime, the following passage appears: Evidence is now starting to emerge that the bookmakers have extended the events upon which they will accept wagers beyond horse racing to other forms of racing. There is a reference to dog racing, and then a further sentence which reads: More recently, however, it appears that football, in the form of Rugby League in Sydney and Australian Rules in Melbourne, has been the subject of wagering. There is no reference to which particular league he is talking about, whether it is the Victorian Football League in Melbourne or the equivalent organisation in Sydney. It is just a description of the code in question. He then goes on: This would suggest that organised crime in Australia is moving in accord with organised crime in the United States. There is then a further discussion on the situation in the United States, in respect of which the following passage appears: Money is also accepted on the size of the win, this apparently being more frequent than merely upon who may win. Games are 'fixed' by having key players ' shave points'. That is their play will reflect the need to keep the score within the point spread. Then the following sentence appears: It is too early to say whether this has come to Australia in a major way although recent reports have suggested that some attempt has been made to fix results in some games. That is the sole extent of the reference to football in this entire series of papers. I make it clear that the Meagher papers involved Mr Douglas Meagher, Q.C ., speaking for himself and not on behalf of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. That is made perfectly clear in the context of the presentation of these papers. No report of the Commission has been made to date on the subject of SP bookmaking as it affects wagering on matters other than horse racing, nor to my knowledge is any such report, by the Commission as such, contemplated. Further, it is not clear whether the reports of fixing to which Mr Meagher refers are based in any way on hard evidence or constitute hard evidence available to the Commission or Mr Meagher, or whether they are merely scuttle- butt being retailed. I suggest that in the absence of any hard evidence on this matter, given the considerations to which Senator Sibraa has referred in his question, it would be wise to treat this matter as being in the latter category. Senator SCOTT —My question is addressed to the Minister for Resources and Energy . I refer to two projects which were part of the previous Government's $640m water resource development plans over the next five years. The two projects were the funding of the Split Rock Dam on the Manilla River in New South Wales and the funding necessary to increase the height of the wall of the Glenbawn Dam on the Hunter River. I ask the Minister: Is it the Government's intention to pursue these important water conservation objectives? Senator WALSH —As I recall it, the two specific proposals referred to by Senator Scott were included in what was called the supplementary program which the then Prime Minister announced on 25 January. On Thursday night an announcement will be made encompassing this matter, among many others. In the period since the Australian Labor Party was elected to Government, I have made several comments about this supplementary program in general. The supplementary program, to cost $350m, was literally pulled out of the hat and, in some cases, out of dusty bottom drawers. Every ill-considered and uneconomic project submitted to the Department for many years was, on the instructions of the former Government, pulled out of bottom drawers and thrown together, on two days' notice, into what was called a supplementary water resources program. It is a prime example of the sort of fiscal irresponsibility which has landed this country into its present mess. It is a major demonstration of the sort of fiscal irresponsibility which caused the previous Government to leave the present Government with the dreadful legacy of an impending deficit approaching $10 billion. The circumstances under which this program was announced should be recalled. The then Prime Minister was desperately seeking an excuse to have a premature election before the public found out the truth about the state of the economy and the condition of Government finances. As part of that campaign to set the scene for a premature election which he cynically thought he could win-so he was a fool as well as a knave-he produced out of the hat this supplementary water resources program. In most cases there was no economic evaluation and in most of the other cases where there was an economic evaluation it was highly adverse. One case involved a project which the State Government-I emphasise, the State Government-had already stopped. But none of those considerations of responsibility or fair dealing mattered to the then Prime Minister at that time, because he was obsessed with having an early election. Senator Button —And his colleagues. Senator WALSH —Yes, and his colleagues. They knew about it. The Treasurer of the day knew the broad order of magnitude of what was coming up, and he is the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party today. The then Prime Minister and his colleagues knew what was coming up. They decided that they would set the scene for an early election. Part of the superficially attractive backdrop to the scene for that election was this supplementary water resources program. Had the previous Government been re-elected, of course, that backdrop would very quickly have been dropped. The Fraser Government, had it survived the election, would have repudiated that promise and dozens of other promises which it had previously made. But it hoped that prior to the election that it planned it could raise expectations, do a bit of a fiscal conjuring trick and generate some illusions, one of which was this program. As to the specifics of the question, I am afraid Senator Scott will have to wait until the statement is made on Thursday night. Senator REYNOLDS —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Health aware of the current uncertainty in regard to the funding of women's refuges and rape crisis centres, particularly in States such as Queensland where continuation of these facilities is dependent on fund raising? Can the Minister outline this Government's policy in regard to stabilising and rationalising funding of women' s services centres so that Australian women may have confidence in the future of these vitally important programs? Senator GRIMES —As Senator Reynolds said, there has been considerable uncertainty in the area of women's emergency programs in the last few years. For this reason the present Government intends to introduce a national women's emergency services program. We have a specific interest in this area because, for instance , the women's shelters were first funded federally by an Australian Labor Party Government. If ever a program demonstrated a previously unfulfilled need that program did. Up until 1981 the Commonwealth's direct involvement in the funding was very important to the certainty of the runners of those programs that those programs would continue. As the honourable senator would know, in 1981 the previous Government changed the funding of refuges to block grant funding under the community health program. There always has been a problem in this area, particularly in States run by conservative governments and particularly in Queensland. Even from 1975 to 1981, when the other States were willing to make up the 25 per cent which was not taken up by the Federal Government with recurrent funding, the Queensland Government would pay only 12 1/2 per cent. It insisted on those who were running the refuges making a contribution by raising capital and recurrent funds, and it still persists with that policy today. The Tasmanian Government, the other conservative State Government, since 1981 has allowed funding for women's refuges to go down, so the services are suffering in those areas. The services are also suffering because there has been a lack of increase in the Commonwealth 's contribution through the community health scheme and because women's refuges more and more have to deal with women with psychiatric problems and problems outside the area that they were involved in before. It is for this reason that we believe it is important that the program be a national one and that we get involved in it. We believe that the attitude of the Queensland Government and the Tasmanian Government that women who are bashed or otherwise maltreated at home should stay with their husbands because they signed some marriage vows is a disgusting one. We believe that for that reason there needs to be national involvement. To add an even greater perception to Disraeli' s description of conservative governments as 'organised hypocrisy', in Queensland and Tasmania most of the women who go to women's refuges are taken to them by State instrumentalities such as the police and local community welfare associations. On the one hand, people such as Mr Hinze in Queensland and Mr Cleary in Tasmania deplore the existence of women's refuges, saying that women should stay at home and be bashed, and at the same time the very people-- Senator Walters —That is a gross misrepresentation. Senator GRIMES —The honourable senator does not represent organised hypocrisy; she represents disorganised hypocrisy. The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator should withdraw that remark. Senator GRIMES —Mr President, I withdraw. On the one hand a State government is saying that it is opposed to refuges and on the other it is using its own authorities to take people to them so that they can be properly cared for. For all these reasons we intend to introduce an emergency program so that, in co- operation with the States, we can ensure that the people who run these refuges, who are and at the moment, underpaid and working under great difficulties, will have something to look forward to, rather than the uncertainty they have faced in the last five years. Senator CHANEY —My question, which is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy, follows the answer he gave to a question asked by Senator Scott. What access has he had to the papers of the previous Government which relate to the matters raised in his answer? If he has had access to those papers, how was that arranged? If he has not had access to those papers, what is the source of the alleged facts and information which he gave in his answer relating to the production and introduction of that program? Senator WALSH —I have not had access to any papers and I will not disclose the other sources. Sitting suspended from 1.2 to 2.15 p.m. Discussion of Matter of Public Importance The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Mr President has received a letter from Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The threat to jobs posed by the ACTU's aggressive and unrealistic wage demands. I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria)(2.16) —The Opposition has brought forward a matter of public importance in the terms that you have just read, Mr Deputy President, because of our concern at the reported unanimous resolution of the Australian Council of Trade Unions Executive meeting yesterday. I understand the ACTU resolved to push a virtually non-negotiable claim for full indexation from the March quarter this year and threatened a wages free-for-all if it failed to get that from the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. I understand that the ACTU also wants this year a start on what it claims to be a 9.1 per cent catch-up in wages since the last round of wage rises. The ACTU claims that its failure to get these claims which it is now putting forward and which Mr Dolan, the President of the ACTU, has described as not being ambit claims would seriously disturb the prices and incomes accord which it signed with the Australian Labor Party prior to the formation of the present Hawke Government. The news yesterday of that resolution led national employer organisations to reject the claim, and even yesterday the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was strenuously suggesting that there needed to be wage restraint for the next 18 months or so. If we contrast the statements of the national employer organisations-and presumably of the Government, to judge from what the Prime Minister said as late as yesterday-strenuously urging maximum wage restraint with the unanimous resolution of the ACTU Executive we find very grave conflict. As was expressed in some leading articles today, the unions have put an end to consensus. In that context the Opposition has brought forward this matter of public importance. I think it necessary to state the context in which the theme of consensus has been developed and by which the expectations of the Australian community were raised by being told that there was to be a sharing of the burden and a recognition of the need for a continuation of wage restraint. As was said by a number of employers at the recent National Economic Summit Conference, any increases in wages would result in further unemployment. I quote but one of the participants at the Summit, Mr Coates of the AMP Society. Amongst other things, he said: However, I believe it is appropriate to say that in our present economic circumstances any shift of benefits to the employed will almost certainly be at the cost of the unemployed. For those reasons perhaps we ought to go back to what has been said by members of the Government and others in the context of the Summit and in relation to the accord with the ACTU prior to the last election. The Treasurer, Mr Keating, in his speech to the Summit, spoke of the desire of the Government to provide 500, 000 jobs over the next three years. He said that this would require annual gross domestic product growth of over 4 per cent, a performance that has not been sustained in Australia during the past decade. Mr Keating talked of the need to endeavour to create employment and recognised the difficulties in the relationship of wages and profit to employability through the Australian community. I refer to one part of Mr Keating's speech in which he used the subtitle 'prices and incomes policy'. He stated that the other component of the government's economic strategy was the prices and incomes policy, and said: Its rationale, and what it can and cannot reasonably be expected to achieve, are outlined in this statement of accord between the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Council of Trade Unions. That accord made the following points: Without a prices and incomes policy, economic recovery will soon lead to increased inflation, thus forcing the Government to adopt contractionary anti- inflation policies which will truncate the recovery; A prices and incomes policy permits higher rates of economic growth, without incurring the circumscribing penalty of higher inflation; Other points were made by Mr Keating on a number of occasions since the Summit and during the reporting of the Summit. I think it is fair to say that the Government stressed the need for maximum wage restraint in order to pursue the creation of the 500,000 jobs over the next three years which it claimed was possible if we had a higher rate of economic growth and were able to return to the profitable investment that needs to be employed to provide employment for Australians. The Prime Minister, in his address to the House of Representatives on 3 May in which he reported on the Economic Summit Conference, made a number of points and put before the Parliament the communique of that Conference. He noted the words of the communique which said: The Australian economy is in deep recession. Economic activity and employment are continuing to fall and unemployment is still rising. Profits are depressed, and wage earners have had to accept deferral of improvements and maintenance of living standards. Inflation and interest rates remain high. There are signs of improvement in the world economy and of an end to the drought in the eastern States. He made further comments along those lines, then turned to the more specific achievements of the Conference. He stressed that about three achievements of the Conference were all of equal importance. The first was the degree of common understanding reached on the nature and source of Australia's economic problems. The second was the degree of consensus reached, as expressed in the communique, on the basic framework and approach required to begin to arrest the decline in our economy, to arrest the expansion in unemployment levels and, in an ongoing sense, to put our economy on a path of sustained non-inflationary growth. Thirdly, he stressed that the first step had been taken and commitments had been given and that there was a recognition on all sides that the consensus reached was only that first step. He said that what needed to be done was to translate into effective action that consensus and that understanding which it was claimed were achieved at the Summit. I think we are at the point at which effective action needs to be taken to put into effect those claims of consensus made at the Summit, the need for economic recovery and our concern about the high numbers of unemployed and about those who will find difficulty in retaining and gaining employment in the future. The key elements of the communique, as stressed by the Prime Minister, were that there be restraint in expectations and claims from all sections of the community except the impoverished and that an effective incomes and prices policy is essential if an expansionary fiscal policy is to be pursued without adverse consequences for inflation. He then talked about paragraph 18 of the communique-the recognition by the trade union movement that the maintenance of real wages will be an objective over time during a period of economic crisis. He said that a fourth element was that the suppression of sectional claims was essential except in special or extraordinary circumstances. That was the basis on which we have entered a month or two of public comment by the President of the ACTU and by others with regard to their understanding of their role in the seeking of a hearing of their wage claims. It will be remembered that, at the Summit, it was decided and, I think, agreed- certainly there was consensus-that there would be a return to centralised wage fixing through the Arbitration Commission. Indeed, the Summit made no detailed effort to address itself to the future of wage levels or wage fixing because it was said that, as a result of the information that was revealed at the Summit and the fact that there had been a return to a central wage fixing approach, this would be dealt with in the hearings at the Arbitration Commission. I think that is why it is of some concern that the statement made yesterday by the President of the ACTU and the subsequent interviews that he gave on these subjects revealed that he believed that the ACTU Executive's approach to what is virtually full indexation and a return to some catch-up will need to be upheld in the Arbitration Commission or there will be a free for all approach. In an interview on the AM program today Mr Dolan was asked: Does this mean . . . an end to the wages pause? He answered, without any equivocation: Well, certainly. Yes. Therefore, the approach of the Government, of employers and, I think, of a wide cross section of the Summit, that believed that there ought to be restraint throughout 1983 at least and, in many cases, the opinion that it ought to extend further than that, has certainly not sustained any consensus with the President of the ACTU, as revealed in the statement he made yesterday. I repeat, that when asked: Does this mean . . . an end to the wages pause? Mr Dolan answered: Well, certainly. Yes. He was further asked a question in regard to the Commission knocking back a claim. This was a reference to the claim that Mr Dolan describes as: Not in any way an ambit claim. 2.2 per cent is quite clear. It was the movement in the CPI in the March quarter. In the March quarter. Now that is all we are claiming. When asked: If the Commission then knocks back such a claim, will you accept it? Mr Dolan answered: Well, they will put themselves out of business as far as I see it. There will be just no role for the Arbitration Commission because unions will seek to achieve that increase. When asked: Is this the industrial free for all you are talking about. Mr Dolan said: That is right. I do not think that we have any doubt as to the approach of the Leader of the ACTU with regard to the claims that he will pursue in the Arbitration Commission . But I think what will be of concern to all of us will be the response of the Government to that approach and to the submission that will be made in the public interest by the Government to those wage hearings and to some of the other meetings that are being held with regard to this matter. What interested me in the past few days was that I was not surprised to see the unanimous resolution of the ACTU Executive because of the things that Mr Dolan had been saying throughout April and May. A report on 21 April states: The ACTU President, Mr Dolan, yesterday warned that union promises of restraint under the ACTU prices and incomes accord with the Federal Government would break down if the Arbitration Commission awarded less than full indexation under a new centralised wage system. There was no approach in that report to anything less than full indexation, even though at the Summit the information that was given from many different quarters showed that full indexation would not improve employment prospects; indeed, it would add to unemployment. I think that what was said by Mr Dolan a little earlier on 17 May showed that the claim for consultation and consensus between the trade unions and the Government was not very healthy at that stage, because on 17 May it was reported: The ACTU is today to look specifically at the wage rise they will seek at the resumed central wage fixing hearing. Mr Dolan said on the ABC PM program last night that Mr Hawke had never talked about a 3 to 4 per cent rise, that that figure must be the work of a journalist. He then went on to make a comment about journalists and their imagination. I think that what was shown in that particular report in regard to Mr Dolan was that the consultation that we had been led to expect would occur between the trade union movement and the Government was obviously not clearly being undertaken between the two parties concerned because, if Mr Dolan was claiming at that time that the Prime Minister had not mentioned to him a 3 to 4 per cent increase this year, that is quite contrary to the statements that were being made by the Prime Minister. I quote from the House of Representatives Hansard of 3 May, page 81, where the Prime Minister said: . . . I believe that an increase of the order of 3 per cent to 4 per cent and no more by the end of this year will be consistent with a situation in which the Australian economy will be able to move into 1984 . . . With some prospects of 'growth' and 'recovery'. To hear the Leader of the ACTU say, as late as this report on 17 May, that he had not heard that the Prime Minister was using that figure makes me wonder exactly what is to be upheld with regard to the prices and incomes accord. One of the conditions of that prices and incomes accord that were agreed upon by the Australian Labor Party and the trade union movement prior to the election was: To protect the purchasing power of wages and salaries the adoption of a system of full cost of living adjustments will be strongly supported in tripartite consultations and before industrial tribunals. If that is the accord which Mr Dolan seems to believe should be upheld, I think it is fair enough for us to ask what the submission of the Government will be to the Arbitration Commission. On behalf of the ACTU, Mr Dolan is asking for full indexation and commencement of catch-up of a 9.1 per cent increase that he says has not been given to the trade union movement since the last wage hearing. In the accord is the objective to protect full indexation and the full cost of living increases and the pledge that the Labor Party, if in government, would support these in tripartite consultations and before industrial tribunals. It is also stated in the accord: Where over award payments exist the Government will support the maintenance of those levels in real terms to ensure consistency between paid rates and amounts paid under minimum rates awards. Some other aspects of that agreement are the proposals with regard to income tax and other consultations that are to be held between the two parties concerned. Because of this accord and the fact that Mr Dolan has said from time to time that his union movement is more interested in the prices and incomes accord than in some of the matters that may have been dealt with at the Summit, I pose the question whether it is the prices and incomes accord that is the policy that will bind the present Government with the trade union movement in accord or in consensus to endeavour to have full cost of living adjustments upheld before the hearings that are shortly to take place. If that is the case-if the accord is the document that binds the two parties-there must be some concern with regard to the prospects of improving employment opportunities. None of the scenarios, A , B or C, that were presented at the Summit gave the impression that it would be easy to produce the 500,000 additional jobs that the Australian Labor Party has claimed it could or would want to provide within the next three years. If we look at the three scenarios that were put before the Summit, we would have to wonder whether the very serious claim of the ACTU before the Commission-that is, not the ambit claim-is more likely to look like scenario B than either of the other two scenarios. If that is the case, and if we are looking at a scenario which is the maintenance of real wages and full indexation and which talks of a catch up-the words, 'over time' can mean anything in anyone's interpretation-of wage increases that have been foregone and full indexation in the future, that looks like scenario B. In that case, in the next year or two an unemployment level of something over 12 per cent is the frightening prospect that looks likely to occur. It was for these reasons that we felt it was timely to hear from the Government . I assume that the Government will say: 'We will discuss these matters before the Commission'. I am not expecting the Government to come forward and say that it will reveal in this set-up today what, in the public interest, its submissions will be to the Commission. I fully accept that that is something that needs to be done in its own way, and in the way in which it usually is done , as a submission directly to the Conciliation and Abritration Commission. What concerns me is the matter which has now been raised by the ACTU and which seems to be calling up the IOU on the prices and incomes accord with the Government and the IOU which talks about full indexation. The Government seems to be abandoning what might have been the realisation of the state of the Australian economy, from the information that was given by those who were represented at that Summit Conference. To talk now about our concern of the prospects of employment improvement is something that is worthy of our attention in this place today. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Coleman) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(2.36) —The topic of the matter of public importance is: The threat to jobs posed by the ACTU's aggressive and unrealistic wage demands. I suppose if any expression in Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle's well balanced speech was used more than once, more than 10 times or more than 20 times, it was the expression 'I wonder'. We have all heard of Alice in Wonderland. The speech which we have just heard is 'Margaret in Wonderland'. That is what the speech has been about. She said: 'I wonder what will happen if. I wonder what will happen then. I wonder what will happen after that'. The process of wondering is a legitimate one, but it is not, in a sense, a constructive contribution to the issue which was raised under the matter of public importance, which is: The threat to jobs posed by the ACTU's aggressive and unrealistic wage demands. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle has been reciting the collected works or comments of Cliff Dolan, as President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, which have brought about in her a state of wonderment. She asked: 'Does this mean an end to the wages pause?'. Not in the Government's view. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —It does, in Mr Dolan's view. Senator Hamer —It does, in the ACTU's view. Senator BUTTON —Yes, I know. What I am really saying is that honourable senators opposite are really playing the same old record. Let me put it in some perspective right at the beginning. It was very interesting that Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle made no attempt to address herself to the question of what the Opposition feels about the issue of declining standards of living, particularly among lower income workers. Has not the whole issue got to be looked at in this context? I put it to honourable senators opposite in this way: Unless this Government adopts a coherent wages policy, delivers its promises and develops a working relationship between government, employer and employees in industrial relations, there is little hope that inflation will be contained and the conditions set for growth in our economy. I put it to honourable senators opposite also that there are major pressures on Australia's economy. It will be a crucial year if we have no national wages policy and ineffectual communications between government and the trade union movement. They are not my words; they are the words of the former Prime Minister in January 1982. He said: 'Unless we have a good relationship with the unions, unless we have a wages policy, then these things will follow: There will be no growth. There will be increasing unemployment'. That is what was said in January 1982 and that is what the former Government did last year. I will come to the details of some of that in a minute. Today Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle talked about the National Economic Summit Conference and the views which were expressed at that Summit. She talked about the prices and wages accord and analysed the details of that document with some precision. Then, as I have said, she expressed wonderment about whether all these things would happen. Of course it is true that Mr Dolan has made a number of remarks on behalf of the ACTU about the ACTU's views in respect of a wages policy. Mr Dolan is like Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle; he has a constituency to represent. He has this much in common with Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle: Both constituencies are getting smaller-Mr Dolan's because of unemployment and Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle's because of the sorts of arguments which have been put in the Senate today and which were put by coalition spokesmen and spokeswomen when they were in government for the last couple of years. That is why the constituencies are getting smaller. That is why the Opposition is now so concerned about the question of consensus-something which it was never able to attain in government and something which it bitterly resents this Government having attained. When we talk about the question of consensus this matter of public importance is brought forward in relation to the Government's wages policy. I do not think we had when we were in opposition many headlines such as 'Opposition Split on Wages Policy'. That headline appeared in the Australian Financial Review of 5 May. The article stated that the Opposition had not yet reached agreement, as at 5 May, and it foreshadowed a long discussion about whether the Opposition adhered to or agreed with the Summit view that there should be a centralised wage fixation system. If there had not been a move towards a centralised wage fixation system, which is the subject of discussion now in the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, we would have had the sort of chaos that characterised the Fraser years in terms of industrial relations and wages policy. I want to make one or two comments about that. First of all, let me deal with the nub of the issue. Wage levels in 1983-84, as foreshadowed by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle in her comments, will be determined by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and will be determined by the Commission in the light of a view which the Goverment will be putting to it about the desirability of restraint throughout the community. Senator Hamer should not smile at that comment. That has been said a hundred times and I am saying it again. Senator Hamer —You are committed, by your accord, to support quarterly wage indexation. Senator BUTTON —I am just saying that the view that will be put to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission will be put in the light of the Government's view about the need for restraint throughout the community. We do not hear very much about that issue from the Opposition. All we hear is what we have always heard-that the sector upon which restraints should be imposed, irrespective of anything else which happens in the economy, is the wages sector. That is why the former Government invented the wages freeze as it was called. That is why it was unable to reach a conclusion, as a government, last year and early this year, as to when the wages pause or freeze would end. That was the level of commitment that the former Government gave to the trade union movement. I put that in the light of the former Prime Minister's comments about the necessity for commitment to, and consultation with, the trade union movement. The former Government never gave the trade union movement or the work force of this country any indication as to when the wages pause would end. So I think Mr Dolan is entitled to make comments about when he thinks it should end. Senator Lewis —When do you say it should end? Senator BUTTON —The Government has said on a number of occasions that we wish to maintain wage restraint throughout this calendar year. We have also said-- Senator Lewis —That is what we were saying. Senator BUTTON —That is very clever. The honourable senator has got it right for once. He was saying the same thing as us. Congratulations! In the knowledge that the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission will have a claim before it this year we have said that we will be putting a submission to the inquiry before the Commission. It may well mean that there is an increase in wages which, provided it is within the sorts of restraints which we seek, we as a government believe can be accommodated consistent with economic recovery. We do not believe that the sole determinant of economic recovery and the sole determinant of competitiveness in Australian industry is wages as do Opposition members, who keep repeating it to the exclusion of everything else. The other aspect of this matter of public importance which is raised today is a new-found concern with a threat to jobs. That is really something when we look at the Opposition's record on that matter. The greatest threat to jobs in this country in the last eight years has been a Liberal-National Country Party government. I am reminded of a comment Mr Whitlam made some years ago about Mr Snedden's new bodyguard in 1974 when I hear Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle speak on this issue, as I was when Senator Chaney spoke a week ago. He said it was not so much to stop someone shooting him as to stop him shooting himself. That is the argument which has in fact been put here today. Senator Chaney and Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle could both do with new bodyguards. In the seven years of the previous Government the number of Australians unemployed increased by 400,200 or 118 per cent. The increase in unemployment under the Fraser Government from February 1976 to February 1983 was 118 per cent . Unemployment reached levels unparalleled since the Great Depression. By the time the previous Government was beaten one in 10 Australians were out of work and one in four teenage Australians were unable to find work. In the previous Government's last year of office unemployment increased by more than a quarter of a million or 54.3 per cent. As a new Government we suffer from the disastrous effects of the policies of the previous Government. The whole of industry suffers from the disastrous effects of the absence of any wages policy under the previous Government. From the middle of 1981 until the end of 1982, when the so- called wages pause was plucked out of the head of the then member for Macarthur- - Senator Lewis —What? Senator BUTTON —Yes, it was his idea. The then Government had to be seen to be doing something, so the wages pause was invented and that was the end of-- Senator Lewis —I thought you said we did not do anything. Now you are saying we introduced the wages pause. Senator BUTTON —Yes, I am saying the previous Government invented the wages pause late last year. The point I make is that the problems which this Government inherits and the problems which Australian industry inherits are problems which were created as a result of a total absence of a wages policy in 1981 and the first half of 1982. When the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd announces a steel price rise it says: 'That is due to wage increases in part'. One asks: 'How can it be due to wage increases? We have had a wage pause?' It says: 'It is due to the wage increases which flowed through the system from 1981 -82 when there was a record increase in wages because of the total absence of a wages policy'. That is one of the reasons for the dramatic increases in unemployment in the calendar year 1982. As I said, the Government is concerned about general restraint in the community , including restraint of wages. We will approach the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in order to seek an atmosphere of general restraint. The whole prices and incomes accord is based on the view that if we are to have an economic recovery in Australia it has to be on the basis that the burdens and the benefits of that recovery are being shared between various sectors of the community. That is why we are putting into place a prices surveillance mechanism and why we have talked about a very minimal level of wage increases in the expectation of a possible recovery later in the year. So the real problem which this Government has-we feel saddened by an attempt to divert us from our course on these matters-is to overcome the vast difficulties which have been caused by the absence of a wages policy, a matter which Senator Lewis knows about. I am smiling only because I was beginning to sound like Senator Walsh talking about wages policy. But I am confining my remarks to wages policy and Senator Walsh devotes his comments to a much wider range of economic vicissitudes which have been visited on this country by our predecessors. In the area of wages policy alone the effects on industry and so on have been enormous. We are chided here because Mr Dolan said something. The best way to make clear one's views about Mr Dolan if he does not listen to the Senate-he may listen; I would not think so-is to put out a Press release on behalf of the Liberal- National Party Opposition saying that his recent comments pose an aggressive and unrealistic threat to jobs. I think members of the Opposition should put out such a Press release if that is their view and carry on the debate in that arena , if they want to do that. But I think Mr Dolan will then say: 'Look, who are you to talk? You have got us into all our present problems. Who are you to talk about this sort of issue?' In a sense that is all I am saying about the remarks made by Mr Dolan. Senator Lewis —He is going to say the same to your Government too, isn't he? ' Who are you to talk?' Senator BUTTON —He will go to the Arbitration Commission, the unions will make their submissions and the Commission will deal with them. Senator Messner —With your support. Senator BUTTON —I have declined to say what approach the Government will make, but I have said, in a manner which I think even Senator Messner can understand, that the Government will approach the Arbitration Commission in an atmosphere of urging general restraint within the community. I think the honourable senator could even twig to what that means. If he reads the transcript of the AM program this morning he will see that Mr Willis made that quite clear in the course of an interview. The Opposition is really wondering whether the Government will be stood over by Mr Dolan or anybody else on a wages policy. Mr Dolan is not the sort of person who stands over anybody and he would not, I believe, seek to stand over the Government. But the Government's policies on wage restraint, the desirability of reducing unemployment and the extraordinary mess we have inherited from past years, are quite clear. In the fullness of time they will be unravelled-partly tomorrow and partly when the Arbitration Commission meets to consider these matters. They are being partly dealt with now in the context of discussions in the Commission about a centralised wage fixation system. Of course, those processes will take a little time. But there is no intention, on the basis of statements made by anybody in the Opposition, in the ACTU or anywhere else, to depart from the general policy approach the Government enunciated at the Summit, has enunciated since and will continue to enunciate. No doubt we will make a few errors here and there. I do not retreat from that. I suppose that remark will be the subject of Question Time next week. I do not retreat from that. No doubt we will make a few errors here and there. But the broad policy thrust is quite clear. It is sad that there should be attempts to undermine by an Opposition which has lost the capacity-perhaps it never had it- for obtaining consensus in Australian society about the real issues which concern the Australian people. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(2.56) —We are considering a matter of public importance which states: The threat to jobs posed by the ACTU's aggressive and unrealistic wage demands. This must be seen against the background of the present Australian economic situation. This was very well discussed at the recent National Economic Summit Conference and I give credit to the Government for the amount of economic information it made available to the community during that Summit. It was quite clear-I think there was general agreement-that the facts of our present situation are that our inflation rate is double that of our trading partners, our growth is negative, our interest rates are non-affordable to certain sections of the community and profitability is at historically low levels. I would like to emphasise that out of profits comes investment and out of investment come jobs. If profits are starved jobs cannot be created. There is no doubt at all-I think even Senator Button and I might agree on this- that for an intrinsically rich country, which we are, we are in a sorry economic state. One of the worst manifestations of this is the unemployment rate of over 700,000 people. I think there was also general agreement at that Summit that we must fight unemployment and inflation simultaneously. This I believe was an important agreement and one which does credit to all concerned. At the Summit the Government put forward three scenarios about the impact of wages primarily on inflation and unemployment. These scenarios have been mentioned by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle because they are central to this whole argument about wages. I would like to run through them again. Three scenario projections were proposed which, by their very nature, cannot be certain. They do give guidance as to how the economy might perform and what the consequences of different wage movements would be. Projection C was the low wage, low inflation outcome. This was based on half yearly indexation of wages so that no additional wages would be paid until April 1984 and after that there would be 80 per cent indexation. Projection B was the other extreme-the high wage, high inflation outcome with full payment of the catch-up this July for the effect of the wage pause and full automatic consumer price index increases quarterly after that. Projection A was the intermediate case with no catch-up, some wage increase later this year to be followed by full quarterly indexation starting next year. These are projections and they have dramatically different results. The two preferable projections-that is, the low inflation, low wage increase projection and the intermediate projection-both would result in an increase in the number of jobs available and in growth. But the high wage projection has negative effects on jobs. We would not be creating new jobs. We would be creating more unemployment and, worse still, our inflation rate would be higher. If we took this option of the high wage rate we would be doing immense damage to the unemployed and to our trading pattern with other countries. Yet this is the course, with minor modifications, which the Australian Council of Trade Unions is now proposing to follow. On the Government's own figures this will do great harm to the unemployed. It will increase the number of unemployed. It will not even approach solving the unemployment problem and will push up our inflation rate to a level far beyond those of our trading partners. Yet this is the pattern proposed by the ACTU. I thought it was agreed at the Summit that some sacrifices by the 90 per cent of people in work were necessary so that there would be a fair deal for the 10 per cent unemployed. Now the ACTU, with Government support-a matter I will come to in a moment-is proposing to jettison and sacrifice the unemployed. Jobs for the boys is their motto but they mean jobs for the boys in work and be damned to those who are unemployed. The memory of the Summit is fading now. I suppose some people still remember it . It was a public relations success at the time and people did leave with a feeling of euphoria that Australians had come together, looked at their problems and realised that they had to make a common effort to solve them. I think nearly all the give was on one side. Employers gave an agreement on centralised wage fixing which, after all, got us into our present problems. Employers accepted-I think this was a quite proper acceptance-that restraint is not only a matter for the wage earners but also that it must extend right across the community. Senator Cook —Do you oppose centralised wage fixation? Are you one of those people who oppose Ian Macphee? Senator HAMER —I will come in a moment to the dangers of centralised wage fixing and how to guard against its dangers. The employers agreed on centralised wage fixing and I think that in practical terms they had no option. We have a long history of centralised wage fixing. Our industrial system works on that basis and I think it would not be realistic to try to continue without centralised wage fixing. But what was not agreed at the Summit was for how long the wage pause would last. All the Government's projections showed that it was most important for the unemployed and the inflation rate that the wage pause should last as long as possible, preferably into next year. Now the President of the ACTU says that the wage pause is over and the Government will have to go along with him. That is a point I will come to in a moment. At the Summit there was no agreement on how long the wage pause should last. There was no agreement on how future wage adjustments should be made. There were many criticisms of the CPI as an appropriate measure. There was no agreement on what is a more appropriate measure. Most important of all perhaps is the fact that there was no tackling of this problem of comparative wage justice-the flow- on whereby powerful unions can pick off particular industries that are profitable. Then that whole wage structure which they have negotiated for people who can afford it, flows right across the board to industries that cannot afford it. This would have done so much harm to our industries in Australia. There was no agreement on these points. All these were thrown back to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and everyone hoped for the best. But at least people went away from the Summit thinking that scenario A-that is, the intermediate one with some wage restraint, a small increase towards the end of this year and indexation next year-had at least been agreed to. In fact, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is on record as saying that he thinks a wage increase of 3 to 4 per cent might be appropriate towards the end of this year. That is not what the unions are asking for. I will come to that in a moment. The unions are asking for much more than that, but Mr Hawke thought that that sort of increase would be appropriate. Apparently, according to Mr Dolan, Mr Hawke never got around to telling Mr Dolan of that. Now the ACTU is applying for immediate indexation from the March quarter and, as is quite apparent from Mr Dolan's conversation, it will go on demanding quarterly wage increases immediately knowing what the consequences will be for our inflation rate and for the unemployed. What will the Government's attitude be when these matters come before the Arbitration Commission? Senator Button was saying that the Government would be urging wage restraint. Mr Hawke, the Prime Minister, has said that the Government's submissions will be based on the results of the Summit and on the prices and incomes accord with the ACTU. I would like to read one section of the accord: Accordingly it is agreed that to protect the purchasing powers of wages and salaries, the adoption of a system of full cost-of-living adjustments will be strongly supported-- Strongly supported by the Government, I suppose-- . . . in tripartite consultations and before industrial tribunals. The ACTU is not calling in its debts and the Government is committed by the accord, which it has signed and on which it fought the last election, to supporting the demand of the ACTU for full wage indexation. The consequences of this on unemployment and inflation-on the Government's own figures-will be catastrophic, but that is what the Government is now doing. The ACTU is calling in its debts and the Government is committed to supporting the ACTU in what is, by its own economic projections, an outrageously damaging thing to the whole community. So much for the pious remarks which were made at the Summit. I will read a few of them; I think they sound rather odd in the light of what the ACTU has done since. These are the remarks-they were very well received at the time- of Mr Kelty of the ACTU. He said: The task therefore is to develop a set of integrated policies the aim of which is to increase employment and reduce the inflation rate. Yet the action the ACTU is now taking will do the exact opposite. This is what it said only a short time ago, in the euphoric atmosphere of the Summit, and now it is taking actions which will have exactly the opposite effect. Mr Kelty also said: The ACTU believes that the priority must be employment growth. Yet the Government is doing more for the people in work, and be damned to the unemployed. Mr Kelty continued: We accept that seeking the achievement of lower rates of inflation and higher levels of employment will involve moderation in wage demands. What is meant by the word 'moderation' is a matter for discussion. It is quite evident that what Mr Dolan considers moderation to be is full quarterly indexation, despite the fact that the Government's own projections show that we cannot afford it if we are to tackle the problems of unemployment and inflation. The ACTU calls that moderation. It is a bit like Genghis Khan who created a desert and called it peace. Senator Foreman —What do you call it? Senator HAMER —I call it a disastrously foolish policy, and it will have very grave consequences for people whom the ACTU claims to be in favour of-the unemployed and the community as a whole. Mr Kelty then said: We all need to make some difficult decisions if employment is to be increased. The ACTU has made some difficult decisions. The difficult decisions are that it will not do anything about unemployment; there will be more for the people in work. This is the final quote I will give from Mr Kelty: We need to ensure the employed have a commitment to the unemployed and that we do not develop a privileged elite within the work force. The latter is exactly what the ACTU is doing. I will quote again from some of the promises and undertakings made at the Summit. The President of the ACTU, Mr Dolan-the man who is now effectively breaking any hope of tackling, in the short term, this problem of unemployment-points out, and he is quite correct, that: Sustained growth for several years of the order of five per cent a year is required if unemployment is to be attacked. That is true. But the policies that the ACTU is now proposing-which the Government is committeed by its prices and incomes accord to support and argues strongly in support of them-will have a disastrous effect on our rate of growth. It will come down to probably under 2 per cent, if it increases at all. This is what the Government is committed to by its agreement. Finally, I will quote from the summary of the Summit, which was given by the Prime Minister. He said: Specifically we set the following objectives for the conference and one of them was to devise machinery for achieving the necessary restraint, including methods of wage fixation influencing non-wage incomes and price surveillance. The Government certainly did not succeed with regard to wage fixation. The Prime Minister also summed up one of the conclusions of the Summit. He stated: There was recognition by the trade union movement for the maintenance of real wages, the objective over time during a period of economic crisis. What the trade union movement wants is to have its cake now. It is quite clear from the Government's projections that in the last year or two we have been paying our work force more than the community can afford. It has had disastrous effects on our inflation rate. It has done great damage to profitability and the community as a whole is the sufferer. What we must aim for and what I hope the Government will disregard is its public commitment to the prices and incomes agreement with the ACTU-after all the Government has broken most of its other promises; I do not see why it should not break this one. It should break this one and fight strongly in the community interest, in the interests of the unemployed and in the interests of future growth to ensure that there is continuing wage restraint in this community. Only by that can we get out of our present economic difficulties. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(3.10) -The text of the matter of public importance refers to the threat to jobs posed by the ACTU. I thought we had had only one opinion poll on this matter recently. There was a sample of 8 million people. In that opinion poll it was quite clear that the Australian electorate said that the greatest threat which was posed to jobs was the Liberal-National Party Government. On 5 March the people made the decision to remove that Government out of office. What appears to have occurred with the traumatic shock of that among honourable senators opposite is some sort of political amnesia. Those opposite have forgotten that they are responsible for the majority of the unemployment that exists in this country at the moment. They were in power for over seven years and they had chances to implement policies to remedy areas such as wages policy or unemployment, but they failed to do so in any sort of consistent or constructive manner. The reality is, in terms of this Opposition, which brings forward these sorts of matters of public importance, that it has no wages policy whatsoever and has not had a wages policy in the last two years. Yet it is an issue that obsesses honourable senators opposite. Trade unions and wages are matters that obsess members of the Liberal-National Party. They can think of very little else; they can speak of very little else, yet they have no firm view on what constitutes a proper wages policy for Australia. Never do we hear a statement from them that constructively sets out what they regard as a proper wages policy for Australia. In the middle of 1981 the Liberal-National Party abandoned centralised wage fixing by going to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and arguing against indexation. It gave no thought to what would follow. It had no idea how wage movements would occur in the future once it got rid of indexation. Like all Liberal governments, but especially the one of the last three years, it thought two or three months in advance. It thought that one of the biggest problems in Australia was indexation, so it got rid of it. However, no thought was given to what would follow. In the natural course of events what did follow was that the unions reached a situation of collective bargaining, and we saw a wages explosion in the latter half of 1981. When a wages explosion occurred in 1973-74 honourable senators opposite blamed the Government. However, when a wages explosion occurred while they were in government they blamed the Australian Council of Trade Unions or any other scapegoat they could find. The wages explosion in 1981-82 had the effect of maintaining Australia's rate of inflation at a far higher rate than that of any of the comparable Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. We now have an inflation rate of over 10 per cent and our major trading partners have an inflation rate of 5 per cent. The previous Government-the Liberal government-laid down the pre-conditions for that explosion and as my leader, Senator Button, indicated, its solution to it, thought-up on the run, thought up as an act of desperation, was a wage freeze. It later became a wage pause, which apparently is a more acceptable term, but it wanted a wage freeze. Of course that was allied with the fact that honourable senators opposite wanted an early Federal election. Most of those plans went down the drain when the then Prime Minister's back cracked. Honourable senators opposite decided on a wages pause. We debated the wages pause here last year time and again. Many questions were directed to the relevant Ministers, including one by me, asking Senator Chaney and Senator Sir John Carrick what will happen after the wages pause. Senator Button, Senator Walsh and others continually said: 'You have a wages freeze on, what happens following that? What will be your wages policy?' All we got were evasive answers, non-answers. Honourable senators opposite had no idea. That was the response from a government that thought two or three months into the future, and no further. Economic policy was developed in such a way as to meet an immediate crisis without thinking of long term goals. We never received an answer as to what was the Liberal-National Party attitude to wages policy. We have had two Opposition speakers in this debate today, Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle and Senator Hamer. What did they say should be the future of Australia 's wages policy? They have no idea. They have not worked it out. They were in Government for seven years and did not work it out. Now they are in Opposition, they presumably have a little more time to cogitate on these sorts of matters. Again, they can come forward with no suggestion whatsoever as to what the future policy should be. Another Opposition speaker, Senator Lewis, is to follow later. He might like to answer these questions: How long do Liberal Party senators want the wages freeze to go on? Do they in fact support a return to centralised wage fixation? Should wage fixation be based on indexation? Should wage fixation be based on productivity? Should it be based on a combination of those sorts of factors? How do we bring about some sort of equality into the wages policy in Australia? The Liberal Party has no answer. Instead it puts up pious resolutions attacking the ACTU, as it has done for years with its union bashing tactics. It should come up with a constructive alternative. This Government will be making its position clear before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. It made it clear at the National Economic Summit Conference. Senator Button again made it clear that we are in favour of wage restraint for this year. What the Liberals really are on about is to get rid of centralised wage fixing and to leave it to the market forces. What they do not seem to understand is that the market forces have not solved the economic problems in this country. I understand, of course, that, with the absence of so many dries on the other side now-nearly all of them fell at the last poll-that is not even a popular view over there, but the remnants of their beliefs are still there. Their view is that somehow the market mechanism will re -establish market growth. They say that all we really need to do is to hold down wages for another six months or nine months. That brings me to the subject as to how long the Opposition would like the wages pause to go. Does it really want it to go for nine months or for nine years? To what extent does the Liberal-National Party want to reduce the Australian standard of living? At what point will they be satisfied? Can Opposition senators produce a graph? Can they produce evidence that, when the standard of living of the average Australian reaches a certain point, economic growth will start to come into effect? They cannot do it because they have no idea how to do it. I must say that it has become apparent during this debate that the Liberal Party fails to understand the Australian Labor Party's relationship with the trade union movement and Government decision making. We are not responsible for the decisions of the ACTU. That does not mean that we are not free either to support it or to oppose it, but we are not automatically locked into every decision of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. We make our decisions as to the future of the wages policy on the basis of the benefit to the whole of Australia. We do not just comply because the ACTU believes that this or that should occur. I was quite surprised when Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, in her opening remarks, was talking about the reported resolutions from the ACTU. I take it that Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle has not read the resolutions, has not sought to get a copy of the resolutions and is relying on Press reports of what the ACTU is supposed to be doing or is not supposed to be doing. For instance, in the actual statement, the ACTU, when referring to the catch-up of 9.1 per cent, uses the following qualification: 'Consistent with the progress of economic recovery'. That is, it will not pursue the 9.1 per cent figure until the time is ripe or until the economic circumstances exist in which they can pursue that claim. In conclusion, this has probably been the first time when the Opposition has brought up a debate concerning a matter with some major relevance to economics. It has been very noticeable here at Question Time and during the discussion of matters of public importance that the Opposition has avoided discussion of all economic topics. Are Opposition senators not interested in the future of interest rates in this country? Are they not interested in the growth of the housing industry? Are they not interested in what is happening to the rate of inflation? The reason why they fail to introduce these topics here is that those opposite must bear the guilt for the destruction of the Australian economy in the last seven years. I can recall quite clearly that the Whitlam Government was blamed even five or six years after its existence for some of the economic ills of this country. Yet a comparison between the dimensions of the economic problems that occurred in Australia towards the end of 1975 with those that occurred at the start of 1983 make the Whitlam days look like heaven. We have unemployment running at a rate of 10 per cent. Those opposite seem to have forgotten that point. Have they forgotten that interest rates are at a record high and which Government was responsible in the last seven years for bringing about that situation? Have they forgotten that economic growth this year may well go into the negative for the first time since the Great Depression ? Have Opposition senators forgotten all those matters? No. All the Opposition can do is produce a carping matter of public importance attacking the ACTU for its wages policy. All I can say about the ACTU is that it has a wages policy. The Liberal-National Party Opposition does not have a wages policy and does not look like having a wages policy. It is doubtful whether, before the next election, it will have a wages policy. It is up to the Opposition, if it is to bring up matters like this for discussion, to put up some alternative. Where do Opposition senators want wage fixation in this country to go in the future? Senator Cook —They cannot make up their minds. Senator ROBERT RAY —As Senator Cook said, they cannot make up their minds. They have no idea of addressing the problem. They have no idea of addressing any economic problem because they are in tatters. They have had their chance. They have had 7 1/2 years to try to redress the economic problems of this country and they have failed totally. Now they are seeking to be absolved from the blame and to find a scapegoat. They say: 'Let us blame the ACTU. Let us blame someone else '. As far as I and, I am sure, everyone on this side of the Senate are concerned , that argument does not wash. The discussion of this matter of public importance serves only to highlight the bankruptcy that exists on the Opposition benches and which will continue to do so until Opposition senators start to tackle the real problems and come forward with some solutions. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(3.22) —The Australian Democrats enter this debate because we want to express our concern at the cracks that seem to be appearing in the amity and apparent accord that followed the election and which were especially evident at the National Economic Summit Conference. We always regarded that accord as very fragile and valuable. It is fragile because of increasing tensions in the community due to the state of the economy and especially because of the undoubted fact that, while a wage pause is current, the prices of many goods and services are rising and inflation has indeed not been contained. If the trend of the first quarter of this year continues, inflation will be 8.8 per cent this year. The subject of this matter of public importance brought forward by the Opposition for discussion is: The threat to jobs posed by the ACTU's aggressive and unrealistic wage demands. I cannot quite see at this stage that the Australian Council of Trade Unions has yet made aggressive and unrealistic wage demands. I would agree that, if it did, that certainly would represent a threat to jobs. I think this is the crux of the matter. We are reaching a point of danger, a point at which the consensus and the accord we talked about in recent weeks is at threat. Surely this is the attitude and the line which should be taken. It is not a time for confrontation; it is not a time for aggressiveness; it is a time for trying to make sure that that accord is continued and that we achieve something. Because of statements made already in the Senate about what the President of the ACTU, Mr Dolan, has said over the last 24 hours, I have obtained a transcript of his statements on the Australian Broadcasting Commission program, AM, this morning to assist my memory . It is a fact that in answer to this question: . . . has the accord of the Summit effectively been destroyed? Mr Dolan said: Oh, the contrary, you know, don't tell me, how can you argue a 2.2 per cent wage increase application is not constraint. You know the consumer price index has moved by 11.5 per cent since the last wage increases took place. To do Mr Dolan justice, some statements bandied around that he is proposing a free-for-all seem a little out of context. I think it is worth while looking at the transcript to get the matter back into context. Mr Dolan was asked: . . . given the Federal Government's own call for restraint, do you think the ACTU executive decision cuts against that, cuts across the Government? Mr Dolan replied: No, I repeat again, I believe that is complete wage restraint. And you know, restraint doesn't mean that you don't get any wage increase at all. On the other hand, if the consumer price index is going to continue to move in the same way, and perhaps as you've suggested, you know, 2.2 per cent increase in the next three quarters of this year, well then certainly that's 10 per cent virtually for the year, you know a wage and salary earner's expected to have their standard of living reduced by 10 per cent? The interviewer then said: Does this mean then an end to the wages pause? Mr Dolan answered: Well certainly, yes. I suggest to honourable senators that here we have the point of stress and danger. A little later, the interviewer asked: And if the Arbitration Commission knocks back such a claim you will accept it? I stress that that is in reference to the 2.2 per cent only. Mr Dolan said: Well, they will . . . put themselves out of business as far as I see it. You know there will be just no role for the Arbitration Commission because unions will seek to achieve that increase. The interviewer then asked: This is industrial free for all you are talking about? Mr Dolan answered: That's right. That is the sort of context in which we have to look at this matter. As I have said, it seems a pity that this matter should become one of confrontation politics at this time. Surely there are danger signals in what I have just quoted which everybody should recognise. Now, far more than at the time of the National Economic Summit Conference-which was during a honeymoon period-there is a real need for careful, reasoned debate. There is also a need to recognise that behind this issue remain the basic problems of the economy, that the Government has been elected to solve those problems and that those others of us here, the Liberal-National Party Opposition and the Australian Democrats, have a duty to share in the solution of those problems. That is what we are here for. One basic intractable problem is productivity, which is plainly an important factor in the economic equation. Article 8 of the Summit communique states: It is a legitimate expectation that income of the employed shall be increased in real terms through time in line with productivity. There is a problem here in that productivity in Australia is not increasing at anything more than a minuscule rate-0.2 of one per cent in 1981-82 for non-farm product per person employed. That is in spite of new technology and in spite of the fact that in other countries new methods, new technology and new ideas have increased productivity dramatically. This is an intractable problem in our society which ought not be intractable. It is one to which we should address ourselves. In fact, a closer association of incomes with productivity, if it could be achieved, in some cases would be of great value. In comparison with the increase in productivity, real average weekly ordinary time earnings for adult males in full time employment rose by 3 per cent in 1980 -81 and 4.4 per cent in 1981-82. Those figures are taken from the working papers of the Summit. We recognise that not everybody has benefited from these increases and we are concerned about the effects of inflation and prices on low income earners. This is an area which should concern all honourable senators because there is a certain level below which people cannot be squeezed and still maintain any decent semblance of a reasonable life. If people have only a certain very low income and yet prices go up around them, they are almost forced to a point of desperation, to a stage where their children literally go without food, proper clothing and things of that kind. That, therefore, is a special area of need which we ought properly to recognise. We wish the Government would. That does not really go along with what Mr Dolan has been saying. He has been talking about overall wage increases whereas, surely, the problem of the country should be solved by applying some discrimination and applying those of our slender resources we can spare to those who need help most. I would have thought that a trade unionist with the standing, background and history of Mr Dolan would recognise that and would recognise the trend of his organisation's policies. The Democrats are also concerned with the effects of a general wage rise, some of which would flow to people who have already received substantial pay increases. What effect will this have on the already historically low profit levels of business? I do not think anyone can dispute that there is only one way in which employment can basically be increased in this country, and that is in the private sector. There is no future in putting more and more people on the public payroll to build new toilet blocks in Woop Woop, much as Woop Woop might like new toilet blocks. This is not the answer to increasing productivity and the basic wealth of the country. Senator Chipp —Don't knock Woop Woop. It is a very pleasant town. Senator MASON —I am sorry for saying nasty things about Woop Woop. I apologise publicly to the people of Woop Woop. Senator Chipp's interjection reminds me that he has said in this place-I agree with him very much; we pushed this point during the election campaign-that if we created conditions for small business in Australia in which each business could employ just one more person then we would not have any unemployment. That does not seem to us to be an impossible objective. It seems the sort of objective that should be looked at rather than what has been said so far in this debate and what indeed seems so far to be the attitude of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. In saying that we worry about low income earners and that we are concerned that pay rises would flow on to people who already have had inceases, we are doing no more that supporting the Economic Summit communique. We do that because, although we did not participate in that august assembly, we believe it was of great value and it did achieve a unique measure of consensus in general terms, certainly in the short term. We now call on the participants to construe this consensus into reality. It is of no use Mr Hawke or the Government putting full page solemn advertisements in newspapers that 'The Summit continues' unless people can see some results. They do not want to be told just that the Summit continues; they want something to happen. I would rather see the money which was spent on those advertisements spend on new toilet blocks at Woop Woop. At least the people at Woop Woop would have got them. Senator Lewis —Hear, hear! Senator MASON —That is something that might be considered. Senator Lewis, I am not really interested in hearing 'hear, hear!' from the Opposition on this matter because it seems to me, looking back over the last few years, that the previous Government was not averse to spending money on advertisements itself. Let us put that in its proper context, too. The Summit communique further states : Economic activity and employment are continuing to fall and unemployment is still rising. Profits are depressed; and wage earners have had to accept deferral of improvements and maintenance of living standards. That is a basic synopsis of the situation. We support the Government in pursuing its intentions to solve this problem. I think Mr Hawke and senior members of the Government have made it fairly plain that they want wage restraint; that they want to overcome this terrible economic bind this country is in. I ask: How serious are the unions now in accepting their role in this respect? I stress yet again that it is a borderline situation; we are on the brink of something. This is why it is so important that this matter be sorted out as quickly as possible. The Australian Democrats think that we might all be better off if the ACTU pressed claims on behalf of low income earners so that they could be compensated for the effects of inflation. If the Government could do that in its mini-Budget , perhaps using fiscal measures to achieve these aims, it would do a lot more for the community. I ask: Is the ACTU concerned about those of its members who have not achieved a pay rise and whose low incomes have caused them economic hardship? Is the ACTU concerned for those people who have experienced the hardship of unemployment, or is it concerned about maintaining the living standards of those employed people who can well afford to make some sacrifice for the sake of the community and who were committed to doing so by the ACTU at the Summit? That is the hard question that has to be asked of the ACTU and I would be delighted if at some stage Mr Dolan gave us an answer in specific terms . If not, if indeed it favours maintaining the living standards of those who can afford to make some sacrifice, then can we say that consensus is over? Have the unions decided to put self-interest before employment? The Summit agreed that employment should be placed before self-interest. Will the trade unions accept point 14 of the communique, which says that the timing or quantum-whatever that might mean-of wage increases is a matter for the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission? Today, Mr Dolan said: . . . there will be just no role for the Arbitration Commission because unions will seek to achieve that increase. That statement is a threat not only to the intentions of the Summit but also to the structure that the Summit agreed would be in charge of wage fixing. We are not convinced by the fact that the 2.2 per cent claim is still less than the 3 per cent to 4 per cent figure the Government wants to achieve-Mr Hawke is on record as saying that-because unless inflation for the rest of the year falls below 2 per cent which regettably, seems unlikely, the Government and the unions apparently will not be able to reconcile their objectives. It is very important that they should. Does Mr Dolan want scenario B of the three scenarios presented to the Economic Summit? It seems to me to most closely approximate the ACTU's present demands. Scenario B, based on full catch-up after the wages pause, followed by quarterly indexation, was said in the Government's own scenario to produce little growth, inflation of over 13 per cent and unemployment rising over 12.5 per cent by 1985-86. Is that what we want? Is that what the ACTU wants ? If it continues to take the stand that it is taking now that is certainly what we are likely to get. To reassure the unions the Government must, I believe, quite rapidly stop worrying about so-called spy flights over Tasmania, Federal Ministers' minor indiscretions over lunch and similar flotsam of politics and get down to the real problems of this country. There must be real incentives to increase productivity. We commend the ideas in former Senator Siddons's Industrial Democracy Bill. There must be a breakthrough into new and innovative areas of employment such as the energy industries. There must be a genuine effort to keep the costs of government down. I think the Government should address with the utmost seriousness the likely effects of higher taxation on employment and prosperity generally in this country. Taxes are rising now simply because of the abandonment of indexation. Let us not fool ourselves over that. Inflation is a bonanza for the Government, vastly increasing tax revenues while not increasing tax rates. The Government knows or ought to know the task ahead of it. If it stops talking and knuckles down to it efficiently and promptly it ought to be able reasonably to counsel the unions to be patient. But if matters continue to drift I think we are due for a very rough time indeed. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(3.37) —The subject that the Senate is debating today as a matter of public importance is: The threat to jobs posed by the ACTU's aggressive and unrealistic wage demands. Before I move to that subject I must respond to a challenge put by my Victorian colleague Senator Robert Ray, who said: 'Senator Lewis will be speaking later in the debate. Perhaps he would like to tell us what he thinks about the wages pauses and the recovery of the economy'. Mr Deputy President, like you, I am on the record as to what I consider the then Government-my Government-should have been doing in the middle of last year when we suggested a wages pause. At that time I spoke very strongly in favour of a 10 per cent across the board cut in the salaries paid to senior public servants and Ministers and at least a 5 per cent cut in the salaries paid to back bench senators and members of parliament and middle ranking public servants. I am on the record as saying that if we adopted this attitude, asked the unions to agree to a wages pause and asked all the professional people not to increase their fees we might very well achieve the result for which we were aiming. So I am on the record as to that matter. So far as the current state is concerned, let there be not the slightest doubt that if I had been at the National Economic Summit Conference I would have urged the adoption of scenario C or even scenario F. But, of course, not only was I not at the Summit but not even my leader was invited to it. Not one member of the Liberal or National Parties in Opposition was invited to attend Mr Hawke's Summit, so, of course, we did not have the opportunity to present any alternatives to the views expressed by those who attended. Having responded to Senator Robert Ray, I now turn to the statement by Mr Dolan , the leader of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, yesterday about what the ACTU intends to do in regard to its wages claim. Firstly, I congratulate the Government on its political professionalism. I mean that. I say that we in the Liberal Party have much to learn from the Government. Prior to the last election we had presented to us what I described then as an infamous document. I still believe it to be infamous. I refer to the statement of accord between the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Council of Trade Unions regarding economic policy. Still, it was a good public relations exercise leading up to the election. We then had the election campaign and the Summit provided by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). They were all first rate public relations exercises. The result of those exercises is that the expectations of the people of Australia are very high. The editorial on the front page of today's Australian states: During the recent election campaign, the Labor Party, and Mr Hawke in particular, raised the hope that there would be a new spirit of compromise and a consciousness that we are all part of one nation. Most Australians had been led to believe that a new spirit had arisen in this country. I support that. I am very much in favour of such a spirit of compromise and a consciousness that we are part of one nation. I hope that we can get together all aspects of this nation for the betterment of the nation and in particular those who are in need. In particular I refer to the unemployed and those on low incomes. Yesterday Mr Dolan announced the decision of the ACTU Executive. That has struck fear into the hearts of all Australians who are concerned about unemployment. What Mr Dolan was talking about was clearly a return to scenario B , which was the worst of the scenarios presented to the Summit Conference and which envisaged, as Senator Mason has pointed out, a rise in unemployment from its present level to about 13 per cent-a disaster for the nation. That was the decision announced by the ACTU yesterday that has caused so much concern. Let me mention just one other thing in relation to today's Australian editorial. It stated: Labor complained that union militancy was the result of Mr Fraser's alleged refusal to consult with the unions. They have now been consulted to a hitherto unknown extent, and this is their answer. That is a very important point raised by the Australian editor. Having said that expectations are very high, I now turn to the details of the three public relations exercises entered into by the Australian Labor Party. First of all I come to the statement of accord which the Labor Party put down in February of this year just prior to the election. In it one will see an attack on the wages freeze of the then Government and statements such as the following: Such one sided inequitable wages policies are completely repudiated by the parties to this statement as manifestly unfair . . . The Labor Party was saying that it and the ACTU agreed that a wages freeze was unfair; in other words, that if the Labor Party got into government it would not have a wages freeze. The accord stated further: Current and past policies of the Fraser Government are completely repudiated by the parties to this statement . . . I draw the Senate's attention to the fact that nowhere in this wages accord is there any mention of a fall in real wages being proposed by the Labor Party. That is a very important point which I wish to come back to later in my speech. I now go on to the policy speech of Mr Hawke, in which again he attacked the wage freeze. He said: The wage freeze itself was explicitly designed to cut ordinary family income and ordinary Australian living standards by 10 per cent. In effect he was saying that the wage freeze was designed to achieve a cut in real wages across the board of about 10 per cent. In making that statement Mr Hawke was criticising the wage freeze proposal and indicating generally to the trade unions that the ALP, in government, would not be involved in such a proposal. Let me now come to the truth of the matter. We have in the Senate a senator by the name of Walsh who, despite the fact that he uses some of the most vitriolic language that I am sure any senator, any person listening on the radio or any member of the public has ever heard, every now and then comes out with some statement which is the truth. Senator Walsh has blown the gaff in relation to the Labor Party and its wages policy. Earlier this month, on 4 May, Senator Walsh is recorded at page 177 of the Senate Hansard as stating: I believe, and the Government believes and has made explicit on many occasions, that a fall in real wages is very likely an essential component of a package for economic recovery. Does the Senate understand the point that Senator Walsh made? He believes, and he says the Labor Party believes, that a fall in real wages is essential for economic recovery. Of course, last year the previous Government said that a fall in real wages was essential for economic recovery. There must be a transfer of profitability to the private sector. That is the only way that this nation will recover. That means that there must be an across-the-board fall in real wages. Senator Walsh was accurate when he made that statement. In my view, the only thing he is inaccurate about is his statement that the Government has made it explicit on many occasions that it believes in this. I drew attention to the fact that there is no mention of a proposed fall in real wages in the statement of accord and no mention of it in Mr Hawke's policy speech. Senator Walsh continued: The Australian Labor Party both in opposition and in government has made it perfectly clear that it believes that there must be restraint on wages growth. I dispute that the Labor Party in Opposition ever made that statement. It is perfectly clear from the wages accord and from what Mr Hawke said when he was Leader of the Opposition that the Labor Party was opposed to the previous Government's proposal for a wages freeze. It made it perfectly clear, at least by innuendo, that it would not support a wages freeze when it came into government. Senator Walsh went on to say: As I said, the Labor Party both in opposition and in government has made it perfectly clear-- He repeated the statement, by the way- . . . that it believes that in the short term a decline in real wages is probably an essential component of a package for recovery. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) stated yesterday his belief that the economy could accommodate a wage increase of around 3 per cent towards the end of this year. In other words, Mr Hawke was saying that there would be a fall in real wages. Inflation was running at around 10 per cent and if there was a wage increase of 3 per cent, clearly there would be a decline in real wages of about 7 per cent. So Mr Hawke is now saying that there should be a fall in real wages. Of course, Senator Walsh does not agree-I agree with him-that there ought to be an increase of 3 per cent, because he stated: There may be room for legitimate dispute about that- However, I believe I have made the point that the ALP, now that it is in government, for the first time has revealed to the people of Australia that it believes there must be an across-the-board fall in real wages. Of course, Mr Dolan has now discovered what the ALP is talking about. Referring to the statement of accord, in effect he says: 'Look, this is not what we agreed upon. If you look at the statement of accord, you will see that we agreed on the maintenance of real wages; in other words, wages ought to rise each quarter in accordance with the consumer price index'. The ACTU is today insisting upon a claim for 2.2 per cent for the current quarter. Apparently, that figure is the CPI increase. As a result, I believe I have established beyond doubt that this document was designed to hoodwink the people of Australia in the lead up to the last election and designed to hoodwink the ALP which apparently fell for the concept of agreeing, in the language of the statement of accord, to full indexation of wages. It is now disclosed that the Labor Party-in my view quite rightly-is opposed to full indexation of wages at this stage. Mr Dolan has made it perfectly clear that if the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission does not accept the ACTU's proposals for full indexation of wages in 1983-not in 1984- there will be a free-for-all in this country. What has happened to the consensus of the Summit? It has fallen apart, as disclosed by the front pages and editorials of newspapers around Australia today . They show concern that the so-called consensus that Mr Hawke and the Labor Party had brought together in the build up to the election campaign-this professional campaign-was designed completely to hoodwink the people. We have reached the stage where one cannot believe what a leader of the Labor Party of this country puts forward to the people about his policies. We have seen what has happened in Victoria when Mr Cain became Premier of that State. He turned against all the promises he made during his campaign. We have seen what Mr Hawke has done since he became Prime Minister of this country. He has turned against all the promises of his campaign; he has turned against the consensus. He is now confronted by Mr Dolan, who is revealing the defects in the ALP campaign in its lead up to the election and, particularly, the defects in this so-called accord between the ALP and the ACTU. On behalf of the Opposition, I warn the Government of the problems that will arise. This policy will lead to massive unemployment if the ACTU is able to get away with the claims to which it says it is entitled because of this absolutely outrageous document which the ALP signed when it was in opposition. Senator COOK(Western Australia)(3.52) —I oppose the matter of public importance that has been proposed by the Opposition. Last week I had the privilege to represent my party in speaking to the matter of public importance concerning the Australian Broadcasting Commission. At the beginning of my speech I described that matter of public importance as a junk MPI. This matter qualifies for the same title. In fact, if this is the best that the Opposition can do, with its junk MPIs, it ought to go into business as Steptoe and Son. It is a bankrupt, threadbare proposal. There is not much for me to comment on after the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, and Senator Robert Ray have debated the issue. But some remarks can be made to put the Government's point of view in summary form. The first point I make is that the Opposition cannot credibly enter this chamber or go to any other place in this country without escaping the responsibilities for its seven years in office. There has been a tendency in this debate to try to make it appear that the Fraser years never occurred and that that Government is not responsible for the high level of unemployment. It may well be a comment on the immaturity of the Opposition that it does not wish to face the responsibilities for its actions. I contrast the record of this Government with that of the Opposition. We have a comprehensive and equitable wages policy. The previous Government had no wages policy at all. Indeed, in January 1982 Mr Peacock, the present Leader of the Opposition, said: Unless the Government adopts a coherent wages policy, unless it delivers its promise of tax cuts, unless it develops a working relationship between Government, employers and employees in industrial relations, there is little hope that inflation will be contained and the conditions set for growth in our economy. Mr Peacock stated that the Government should adopt a coherent wages policy. Until the last election the Opposition did not have one and it still does not have one. On 5 May this year, a front page article in the Australian Financial Review, under the heading 'Opposition split on wages policy' stated: The Federal Opposition yesterday decided that it had to strengthen its argument against the Government's wages policy by developing a policy of its own. Although it has begun the first major Parliamentary session of the Labor Government by attacking the operation of the prices and incomes accord the Opposition is still divided between adherents of a decentralised system and those who would like to develop an alternative centralised approach to that of the Government. The Opposition not only did not have a wages policy in January 1982; it still does not have one. It now pretends to attack this Government for a remark made by the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions with regard to wages. I only wish that the Opposition would make up its mind on its position on wages. Let us contrast its position with our position. We have a prices and incomes accord with the ACTU, an accord which is the basis of our approach to the economic well-being and recovery of this country. We held the National Economic Summit Conference which was notable for providing, in the beginning to all participants and now more widely to the community, all the relevant information necessary to know about the economy and to make informed choices for our future development. The communique which was issued after the end of the Summit provides a basis for unity of approach to wage fixation. We are now looking at a much more stable climate for industrial relations than under the Fraser Government. Let us contrast that with the Opposition's period of office when there was confrontation and division. Indeed, at one stage during the last few years of the Fraser Government the then Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Ian Viner, succeeded in alienating not only unions but also employers, both of whom attacked his handling of the industrial relations area. The then Government was divided amongst itself and against the industrial relations world . After indexation it pursued a policy which enabled sectional claims to evolve and which in fact encouraged a situation in which the strong got stronger and the weak and defenceless fell down in order to try to reduce real living standards in this country. That is the Opposition's record. Ours is one of order , consultation and rationality. Our target is half a million jobs over the next three years based on stable and progressive economic growth. The Opposition's record is half a million unemployed during the seven years of the Fraser Government and 271,000 people unemployed last year. That is the situation; and the blame for what the Opposition parties have done cannot be escaped and cannot be shrugged off. It cannot be made to appear that the seven years of Fraserism did not occur. The Opposition's attack is upon the ACTU's wage claim. If that attack were to be credible, one would have thought that the Opposition would have started with an understanding of what the ACTU actually decided. That seems to me to be a relevant question. The Opposition has quoted a number of conservative newspaper editorials to justify its argument. The only comment I make about that is that the Opposition is conservative and the newspaper editorials are conservative, so it is not suprising that they both have the same view, which is a wrong view. Yesterday the ACTU made a decision on wages and salaries. It is perhaps useful to quote certain sections of that decision. I do not pretend to speak on behalf of the ACTU here, but let us look at its decision. It said: The Executive notes the recognition given at the Summit to the legitimacy of the ALP/ACTU Prices-Incomes Accord. The ACTU supports the accord. The second thing it said was: It was further recognised at the Summit that the question of the timing and quantum of wage increases should be the subject of further discussion between the Parties at Conferences chaired by the President of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, Sir John Moore. The Government has attended various discussions, as have the ACTU and the employers-an observation of fact. The next thing the ACTU Executive said was: This Executive resolves to pursue the ACTU claim for a return to a centralised wage fixation system consistent with the Prices-Incomes Accord. It then said what its claim would be, and that is what struck a note of opposition from the Opposition. I hope that members of the Opposition listen because it is a salutory lesson in what in fact is really being said. I quote from the ACTU decision: Implementation of the terms of the Accord in respect to wage rates will involve the ACTU seeking: (A) an increase of 2.2 per cent to account for movements in prices as measured by the movements in the CPI for the eight capital cities for the March quarter of 1983. The first point is that the ACTU is going to the Arbitration Commission-a body which has been venerated in this debate by the Opposition but which, during its period in government, it tried to undermine and destroy-to arbitrate for a wage increase based on cost of living adjustments, which case will not be heard until the middle of June this year. That is the claim of the ACTU. The second part of its claim is: (B) Full cost of living adjustments on account of movements in the CPI on a quarterly basis for subsequent quarters. The ACTU has made it clear that its argument is not so much with the amount of the claim but with the system by which wages are fixed. If there is a difference between the ACTU position and that of the Government, it is in that area. The Government has said that it is prepared to examine the possibility of indexation from the end of this year onwards but that, for the balance of this year, a 3 per cent to 4 per cent wage increase may be able to be accommodated. The ACTU is saying that it wants indexation based on the March quarter. That is the difference between the two positions. What has really been misrepresented is part (C) of the ACTU decision: (C) The application of the 9.1 per cent to be pursued over a period of time consistent with the progress of economic recovery. The 9.1 per cent is the rate of inflation from March to March. The ACTU is setting aside the cost of inflation to ordinary workers and wage earners over the last 12 months. It is accepting that that should be set aside and not pursued immediately. The big problem with the wage freeze which the previous Government invoked is that if things happen in Australia which happened during such freezes in other countries and if at the end of the freeze the Government has no policy on what should apply to the exit from the freeze, there will be yet another wages explosion consistent with the previous Government's view of cyclical fluctuations-explosion-recession followed by explosion-recession. The ACTU is saying that the exit from the freeze can be arbitrated, based on consumer price index increases, and that the CPI increases in the last 12 months can be set aside and pursued over time-these words are significant-consistent with the progress of economic recovery. I wish Senator Lewis was here to hear that, because he based a number of his arguments on the premise that it would not be consistent with economic recovery. That is what the ACTU said, and that is what the Opposition failed to attack. Senator Robert Ray —They have not even read the decision. Senator COOK —Members of the Opposition obviously do not know what is in it because they chose to believe what they read in the newspapers and attacked using straw arguments. The significant thing is that the ACTU has delineated what its claim will be when the Arbitration Commission meets in June. The Opposition, when it was the Government, sought a wage freeze for 12 months and, in response to the Government's arguments, the Arbitration Commission decided to hold a wage hearing decision in June. The ACTU will announce its position in June. If one looks at the fundamental questions of economic need at present, one sees that this Government has pursued a policy of saying that there is an absolute need for restraint. If one looks at the ACTU claim in the light of that call for restraint, one can see that a sacrifice is being made by wage and salary earners through the ACTU claim of a 9.1 per cent increase; that is to say ordinary wage and salary earners in Australia will be 9.1 per cent poorer in that a drop in real wages of that level will have occurred. That is the sacrifice of the union movement to try to get the economy of Australia moving again. However, under the prices and incomes policy, that sacrifice must be equitable. Therefore, the ACTU calls upon employers and governments-the other two tiers in the community; the other parts of the triumvirate-to exhibit equal sacrifice in an effort to lead to recovery. There seems to me to be a lamentable problem in the Opposition's economics. When it talks of wages it has the one-dimensional view that wages are simply, only and nothing else but a cost. Of course, it is admitted that that is one effect of wages. The second effect of wages, the two-dimensional effect, is their effect as purchasing power in the pockets of consumers. If wages are held down, so is purchasing power. If purchasing power falls, so does net aggregate demand. I refer the Opposition to a survey conducted by the Confederation of Australian Industry in March 1983. I refer the Opposition to the question in that survey that was put to businesses throughout the country. The question was: What is the most significant single factor affecting your company's profitability? To that question, 90 per cent of the respondents to the Confederation of Australian Industry survey answered that the major factor was lack of orders. In other words, the major factor affecting business recovery according to business is lack of orders, that is, lack of demand. If demand is to be lifted, it presumes that people have purchasing power and can afford to buy. Senator Chaney —Should we double wages then? Senator COOK —I am talking about a responsible course, that is, to maintain some balance in the equation. Wages have fallen by 9.1 per cent in real terms over the last 12 months. That is a sacrifice that the wage and salary earners have made in this country in order to try to get the economy back on its feet. But if real demand was to fall below those figures the economy would be in a much more serious position. Perhaps the Opposition should come clean and say how far it wants wages to fall. Does it want Australians to live at Asian living standards, to compete with the Asian manufacturing industry, because that seems to me to be the final conclusion which the Opposition imputes from its own calculations. I have only a few seconds remaining to speak. Perhaps I should use them to conclude that the Opposition is envious of the accord which the Australian Labor Government, under the premiership of Bob Hawke, has been able to achieve. It is jealous of our success in that area. The only way the Opposition can push its political goals and try to win office is to destroy the accord. But the accord is fundamental to the economic growth and development of this country. I conclude by inviting the Opposition to forget its mean-minded, narrow attitude to development and appreciate that business, unions and others in the community are in accord and join the unity for the economic well-being of this country. That would be a very positive contribution it could make to the debate. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Debate resumed from 17 May, on motion by Senator Coleman: That the Senate take note of the report. Senator COLEMAN(Western Australia)(4.7) —I rise simply to make it quite clear that in its report the Senate House Committee made mention of a number of submissions that it received. I think it is important to note that the reason for raising the matter of contract cleaning was that in the original report an error had been made in the possible saving on contract cleaning that might have been occasioned if, in fact, it had been decided to go ahead with that form of cleaning. We had been given evidence to the effect that there would be a considerable saving. It was noted at the time in the original report that that amount might be $200,000 per annum. In our interim report this time we have made a notation to the effect that the possible saving might be of the order of $100, 000 per annum. It is also important to make the point that, whilst we received submissions from the Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia, which was concerned to outline to the Committee the case for the Parliament to be serviced by directly employed cleaning staff rather than contract cleaners, we drew to the union's attention that it was never at any time considered by the Committee that contract cleaning may or may not have been preferable to the present cleaning arrangements. The purpose in raising this issue in the first instance was purely and simply to illustrate that we were not necessarily being provided with all the information that was necessary as far as the working of the Committee was concerned. The report noted that the cleaning requirements of the Parliament do not equate in all respects with those of commercial establishments, because we do not sit as a commercial establishment in this chamber or in the other place. We have quite remarkable periods of sitting when the Parliament needs some particular attention. At no stage could we ever be considered to be like any commercial establishment. I simply make the point that the majority of honourable senators are here for three days out of a five day week for a number of weeks each year. They are in Parliament House at any time from 7 a.m. onwards, frequently until after midnight. It would be impossible, in my view, for contract cleaning to be properly carried out under those conditions. In its report, the Committee also makes mention of the concern that was expressed by the Combined Library Unions Committee which had had a problem with degreasing fluid which had been used to clean filters in the air conditioning plant and which occasioned members of the Library staff to believe that it had had some effect on their health. It was felt at the time that because this is an interim report, to save the Senate the bother of having to reconvene the Committee each time anything was referred to it, either through an Estimates committee or directly by the Senate, it should be an interim report and maintain the status quo of the House Committee. Other people desire to speak on this subject. I do not want to delay the Senate , but I must express my personal concern at the high cost of the replacement of the pergolas in the Senate and House of Representatives courtyards. It is important for future generations to be aware that Parliament House was in a particular state at the time of its erection. From a national and historical view point, it is important that Parliament House be maintained in as near as possible to its original condition. It was not therefore the intention of any member of the Committee at any stage to consider that those pergolas should not be re-erected. What we were concerned with was that they are not the original design. They were a very expensive item and something that perhaps the House Committees of the two chambers sitting as the Joint House Committee should have had referred to it prior to the actual reconstruction being carried out. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(4.12) —I shall speak but briefly to the interim report of the Senate House Committee. I was, of course, Chairman of the Committee when this additional reference was sent to it. It arose out of certain statements that had been made by the Secretary to the Joint House Department in relation to the earlier report on the Joint House Department that had been brought down by the Committee. As the report says, the Committee gave Mr Jorgensen full opportunity to explain where he thought we had not taken note of the evidence actually presented to us and where we had not dealt with the matter fairly and justly as he had claimed at Estimates Committee A. Anyone interested enough to read the Hansard transcript of the proceedings will find that these interpretations of how the Committee handled the information put forward were debated quite extensively with Mr Jorgensen. The Committee pointed out that, when evidence was raised before any committee, it had a right of judgment. The Committee made its judgment and brought down its initial report. As I said, Mr Jorgensen had the opportunity to debate that at length and to present any other information he wanted to ensure that the Committee's attitude and recommendations had, in fact, been fair and just and based on fact. As the second report says, very briefly, nothing was presented to the Committee to sway it from its original opinion. I consider Mr Jorgensen's statements to the Estimates Committee in question to be extremely unfortunate. I can understand that this level of sensitivity might have been raised by some of the comments in the report and the judgments passed in the report. However, he made a quite trenchant criticism of the Committee. I think his choice of words was very unfortunate. I can only hope that, now that he has had several more hours of the Committee's attention and all possible opportunity to give evidence, he will at least accept that the Committee had the right to make the judgment it did, that it did so on the basis of fact and that it did so fairly. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory) —On behalf of Senator Tate, I present the second report of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills concerning the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Bill 1983, the Bounty (Room Air Conditioners ) Bill 1983, the Bounty (Steel Products) Bill 1983 and the Referendum ( Constitution Alteration) Amendment Bill 1983. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator ROBERTSON —On behalf of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills , I lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 3 dated 18 May 1983. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to make various amendments of the statute law of the Commonwealth, to repeal certain Acts, and for related purposes. Bill presented by Senator Gareth Evans, and read a first time. Standing Orders suspended. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.17) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Bill continues the practice developed during the last Parliament of introducing an omnibus Bill into each sittings of the Parliament to make a large number of non-contentious amendments. Whilst in opposition we supported such legislation but were concerned that too often substantive amendments of major policy importance were tucked away in these Bills and the detail of such amendments was not readily available to the legal profession and the public. On the former point I have approved procedures in relation to such Bills. The principal feature of those procedures is the criteria of the nature of matters which might be included in the Bill. I now inform the Parliament of those criteria: (1) Only matters which genuinely deal with tidying up, correction and updating, routine administrative changes or are of minor policy significance, may be included. (2) No matter that is contentious, or is closely related to a contentious matter, may be included. (3) Matters that involve lengthy and complex drafting, particularly of a kind that may hold up the Bill, should generally not be included. (4) Matters that involve substantial policy issues, including legal policy issues, should generally not be included. (5) No matter that would constitute a change to the national companies and securities legislation may be included. (6) No matter that imposes, abolishes or varies a tax or varies the incidence of a tax may be included. (7) No matter involving an appropriation may be included except the repeal of a spent appropriation power. Where, upon examination of the details of the proposed amendment my Department, or the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, considers that a proposal does not satisfy those criteria they will draw the matter to my attention for the consideration of the Legislation Committee of Cabinet. My Department is considering what further steps can be taken with the reprinting of the Commonwealth Acts program to have amendments made by these Bills incorporated in the parent Acts as quickly as possible. To assist the dissemination of the contents of these Bills my Department has arranged to forward copies of the Bill and explanatory material to the Law Council of Australia upon its introduction so that that body can inform the profession through its member State bodies. I should mention that this Bill differs in format in a substantial way from its predecessors. Previously each amendment was a separate clause of the Bill. Under the new format most of the substantive amendments are contained in the Schedule to the Bill with no separate clauses for each amendment. The changed format allows for easier drafting and will overcome the inevitable errors that seem to have occurred in past Bills because of the late rearrangement of the material resulting from the inclusion or deletion of provisions with the many consequential changes to clause numbering, cross-references and so on. The proposed amendment in this Bill of section 182 of the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act (No. 1) 1982 falls into the latter category. I propose, with the leave of the Senate, to have incorporated in Hansard a supplementary statement explaining in detail the changes to the various Acts which are to be made by this Bill. The statement does not include minor amendments of a drafting nature. In some cases, there are a number of amendments of a similar nature being made to a number of different Acts. In those cases, the amendments are described in detail only in relation to the first relevant Act appearing in the Schedule. I should, however, expressly draw the attention of the Senate to the proposals contained in this Bill regarding the furnishing and tabling of annual reports of departments and authorities. This is a matter with which the Parliament has been concerned for some time. In particular, the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations has made detailed recommendations for an annual reports Act containing detailed reporting criteria. More recently the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs has commented adversely on the contents of annual reports. Following interdepartmental committee consideration of the recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations an amendment to the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 has been drafted which would require all bodies which do not have a specific period within which to furnish a report to the Minister to do so within six months of the close of the reporting period. The Minister would then have 15 sitting days within which to table the report in the Parliament. Where the report is not furnished to the Minister within the six -month period a written explanation is required and an extension may be granted. Both the letter of explanation and the reasons for the grant of extension are to be tabled in the Parliament. Those provisions, although not implementing the recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee, are a marked improvement on the present situation. Accordingly, the Government has decided to go ahead with the proposed amendments as an interim measure. Consistent with its election commitment, as part of a wider review of its overall approach to statutory authorities, the Senate Standing Committee recommendations will be further considered by the Government as a matter of priority. The proposed provisions of this Bill specifically exclude the need for compliance with them by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and the Office of National Assessments. The question of the tabling of annual reports by these bodies will be considered in the context of the larger question of the public accountability of the intelligence organisations. I commend the Bill to the Senate and seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the supplementary statement referred to. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) (No.1) 1983 Supplement to Second Reading Speech Acts Interpretation Act 1901 The provisions to amend the Acts Interpretation Act with respect to annual reports have been described in the Second Reading Speech. Similar amendments are proposed to the following Acts: Air Navigation Act 1920 Australian Capital Territory Taxation (Administration) Act 1969 Bank Account Debits Tax Administration Act 1982 Commonwealth Schools Commission Act 1973 Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission Act 1977 Estate Duty Assessment Act 1914 Gift Duty Assessment Act 1941 Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 Parliamentary Counsel Act 1970 Payroll Tax (Territories) Assessment Act 1971 Sales Tax Assessment Act (No. 1) 1930 Stevedoring Industry Charge Assessment Act 1947 Taxation Administration Act 1953 Tobacco Charges Assessment Act 1955 Wool Tax (Administration) Act 1964 The Acts Interpretation Act is also proposed to be amended to enable the term ' foreign country' to be used in legislation to refer to countries other than Australia and its external Territories, including parts of Her Majesty's Dominions. Advisory Council for Intergovernmental Relations Act 1976 The purpose of the amendment is to provide for full membership for the Northern Territory on the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations, on the same basis as accorded each of the six States, namely by the appointment of one member nominated by the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory and a further member nominated by the Australian Council of Local Government Associations. The Council was established in 1976 with the object of improving co-operation between the three spheres of government and has comprised five Commonwealth, six State, six local government and five citizen members. The Northern Territory previously had observer status, but following agreement by all States will now be able to participate as a full member of the Council. Air Navigation Act 1920 The current provision for penalties for breaches of the Act was last amended in 1960. The current level of penalties is inadequate having regard to present day money values and acts as no deterent to breaches of the legislation. The proposed amendment will substantially increase the maximum penalties that may be imposed for breaches of the legislation and return the deterrent factor. Apple and Pear Export Charge Collection Act 1976 The purpose of the amendments is to increase the rate of penalty incurred for the late payment of levies and charges from 10 per cent to 20 per cent. The present 10 per cent per annum penalty is clearly well below current interest rates charged by financial institutions and provides no inducement for levy and charge payers to pay promptly. On the contrary, it is suspected that levy and charge payers are taking advantage of this low penalty rate by delaying payment of levies and charges as long as possible rather than funding the payment at higher commercial interest rates. This forces the Commonwealth into time consuming and expensive recovery action. This tardiness in payment, is, in turn, affecting fund flows to the various statutory industry corporations who are dependent on levy and charge collections as their major source of revenue. The proposed increase is also in line with amendments to taxation legislation which was enacted last year for the same reasons. The same amendment has been proposed to the following Acts: Apple and Pear Levy Collection Act 1976 Barley Research Act 1980 Canned Fruits Levy Collection Act 1979 Cotton Research Act 1982 Dairy Industry Stabilisation Act 1977 Dairy Products (Export Inspection Charge) Collection Act 1982 Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Collection Act 1972 Dried Fruit (Export Inspection Charge) Collection Act 1981 Dried Fruits Levy Collection Act 1971 Edible Oils (Export Inspection Charge) Collection Act 1982 Eggs (Export Inspection Charge) Collection Act 1982 Fish (Export Inspection Charge) Collection Act 1981 Grain (Export Inspection Charge) Collection Act 1979 Honey Export Charge Collection Act 1973 Honey Levy Collection Act 1962 Livestock Export Charge Collection Act 1977 Livestock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Collection Act 1979 Livestock Slaughter Levy Collection Act 1964 Meat Chicken Levy Collection Act 1969 Oilseeds Levy Collection and Research Act 1977 Pig Slaughter Levy Collection Act 1971 Poultry Industry Levy Collection Act 1965 Wine Grapes Levy Collection Act 1979 Ashmore and Cartier Islands Acceptance Act 1933 This Act makes provision for the making of Ordinances to provide the necessary primary legislative framework for these external territories. Ordinances made pursuant to that power are subject to scrutiny by this Parliament. Many of the Ordinances make provision for the making of subordinate legislation . However, the tabling provisions do not extend to such subordinate legislation. This is an obvious defect which can leave unprotected the rights of individuals. These proposed amendments correct that defect by providing for the tabling in the Parliament of regulations made under an Ordinance. Regulations is defined widely to include all forms of subordinate legislation. Amendments to similar effect are also being made to: Christmas Island Act 1958 Australian Antarctic Territory Act 1954 Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act 1955 Coral Sea Islands Act 1969 Heard Island and McDonald Islands Act 1953 Norfolk Islands Act 1979 Commonwealth Schools Commission Act 1973 Section 6 is repealed and substituted by a more elaborate provision dealing with the making by the Minister of acting appointments to fill a vacancy in the position of Chairman of the Commonwealth Schools Commission, in a full or part- time membership position on the Commission. Such appointments may continue for up to 12 months and may be expressed to have effect only in limited circumstances. The occupant has all the powers and shall perform all the functions that go with the position. The position empowers the Minister to determine the terms and conditions of appointment, and to terminate an appointment at any time. The provision also states that anything done by a person so appointed under the section shall not be invalid simply because the occasion for his appointment or for him to act had not arisen, there was a defect in connection with the appointment, or the appointment had ceased to have effect. Similar amendments have been made in relation to acting appointments to senior management positions under: Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission Act 1977 Postal Services Act 1975 Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973 Bank Account Debits Tax Administration Act 1982 During the course of a review of the provisions contained in the Bank Account Debits Tax Administration Act 1982 an inadvertent drafting error was noticed in section 29. The effect of the error is that adequate provision has not been made for the intended application of High Court rules in Supreme Court appeals. That oversight is being corrected. Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 The proposed amendment does no more than extend the current provisions for the preparation of joint rolls for Commonwealth and State elections, even where there are not coterminous subdivisions, and not have electors having to complete separate enrolment cards. The amendment will also extend the provision to the Northern Territory. Crimes (Aircraft) Act 1963 This Act provides for many offences but the penalties provisions of section 18 only applies to individuals because the penalty is a term of imprisonment. Many of the offences can be committed by a corporation and so the section is amended to provide an appropriate pecuniary penalty for breaches by a corporation. Section 22 provides penalties where the conviction occurs in a court of summary jurisdiction. The penalties under the section are being substantially increased and similar provision made for pecuniary penalties for breaches by a corporation . Defence Act 1903 and Naval Defence Act 1910 A number of similar amendments are being made to both of these Acts: the power to extend the period of service of an officer of the Army or Navy appointed for a short service is clarified, as is the power to convert a short service appointment to a permanent appointment. amendment to make it clear that a person whose name is placed on the retired list is not, by reason of that placement, a member of the Army, Navy or the Defence Force; the penalty for breach of regulations is increased from $200 to $500; the exercise of certain powers, mainly dealing with personal matters, must be by way of an instrument in writing; a more general delegation power, covering some of the powers of the Governor- General, the Minister and the Chief of General Staff is provided; a provision is added covering discharge in certain circumstances where more than one ground for the discharge exists-the soldier/sailor may request that the reason for discharge be altered. In addition, the Defence Act 1903 is amended in relation to provisions relating to rifle clubs so that regulations and orders may be made giving effect to the principle that rifle clubs should themselves be responsible for their affairs subject to adequate Government control on the location and safety aspects of rifle ranges, and the possession and use of fire arms in connection with rifle clubs. The power of the Chief of Defence Force Staff to establish joint service units in the Defence Force is clarified. Finally, the amendments to sections 69, 124 (1) (p), (qa), (qaa) and 3 (c) clarify certain aspects of the power to make regulations relating to defence practice areas. Sections 71 and 72 are original sections of the Defence Act 1903 which relate to the power of a member of the Defence Force to stop traffic during artillery or rifle practice (sec. 71) and a prohibition on ships etc. coming or remaining within the prescribed distance of any ship, battery, gun or person during practices by the Defence Force (sec. 72). The terminology of these 2 sections is out of date and the concepts involved (e.g. a prescribed distance of a moving object such as a ship, gun or person) render the sections ineffective. These sections were accordingly repealed by section 38 of the Defence Force Re- organization Act 1975 with a view to up-to-date regulations being made under a revised regulation-making power of the Act. Section 38 has not yet been brought into force pending the drafting of the contemplated regulations. In drafting the proposed regulations, problems have been encountered because of the existence of section 69 of the Defence Act. This section empowers the Governor-General to authorize a part of the Defence Force to enter and survey lands, and to use the lands, for training, manoeuvres, exercises etc. and requires the regulations to make provision for compensation for any loss or damage sustained by the owner or occupier of the lands. Section 69 necessarily overrides anything prescribed in the regulations and results in a division of powers between the Act and the regulations that prevents the drafting of adequate and effective regulations of the kind required to meet the requirements of the 3 arms of the Defence Force. Section 69 is accordingly repealed and provision is made for the matters it deals with to be dealt with by way of regulations under the following new regulation-making powers: Para 124 (1) (qa): Entry and survey of lands; (qaa): Declaration and use of practice areas; Sub-sec. 124 (3C): Regulations made under paras (ga) and (gaa) to include provision for compensation. Domicile Act 1982 The amendment to sub-section 5 (1) of the Domicile Act 1982 will ensure that the amendment by the Domicile (Consequential Provisions) Act 1982 of the special provisions as to domicile in the Family Law Act 1975 and the Marriage Act 1961 will not affect the domicile of a person for the purposes of those two Acts at a time before the amendments took effect. Environment Protection (Alligator River Region) Act 1978 Sub-section 18 (1) (c) of the Environment Protection (Alligator River Region) Act 1978 provides that the Co-ordinating Committee for the Alligator Rivers Region shall consist of inter alia, ''2 members appointed by the Minister on the nomination of the Administrator of the Northern Territory: The Chief Minister of the Northern Territory has advised that only one member is required and so amendment to sub-section 18 (1) (c) is required. Export Control (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 1982 The amendment repeals Part XV of the Export Control (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 1982. The Export Control Act 1982, the Export Control (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 1982 and a number of Bills relating to the imposition of charges for export inspection were introduced into the Parliament at about the same time early in 1982. The Bills relating to charging for export inspection were to commence on 1 July 1982 and the two Acts relating to Export Control matters were to come into operation on a date to be fixed by proclamation, 1 January 1983. As a result the Export Control (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 1982 contained in Part XV amendments to the proposed Honey (Export Inspection Charge) Collection Act to take account of provisions in the Export Control Act 1982. The Government subsequently withdrew the Honey (Export Inspection Charge) Collection Bill and the amendments in Part XV of the Export Control (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 1982 are no longer necessary. Honey Industry Act 1962 The purpose of this amendment is to provide for extension of the functions of the Australian Honey Board by Regulation. The provision would then be used to make a Regulation that would enable the Board to make advances to owners of honey on satisfactory forms of security other than security on the honey itself. Advances can at present only be made on the security of honey, but it has been found that effective security over the honey can only be obtained by quite impractical arrangements. Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act 1976 Division 2 of Part III of the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act 1976 provides for the payment of project grants to encourage companies in specified industries to develop new projects or processes. The Act originally provided that instalments of a grant might be paid in advance of the actual expenditure by the company; an amendment in 1981 required that a company lodge a security against any grant moneys paid in advance (section 24 (1B)). This has proved a disincentive, since many small innovative companies find difficulty in financing research and development. Proposed amendments will therefore delete the requirement that financial securities be provided before advance payments can be made from a project grant. The objective is to provide working capital for companies in the early stages of a project. Judiciary Act 1903 The purpose of the amendments is to enable State and Territory Courts to deal with offences against Commonwealth laws committed outside the normal territorial limits of those courts. The amendments do not extend to trial on indictment because section 80 of the Constitution prevents a person being tried on indictment in any place other than the State in which the offence was committed. Sub-section 85E (2) of the Crimes Act 1914, which was repealed by the Crimes Amendment Act 1982, enabled State and Territory Courts to deal with offences against the Crimes Act where such offences were committed in another State or Territory. Sub-section 85E (2) was repealed in the mistaken belief that it duplicated sub-section 68 (5) of the Judiciary Act; however, the latter provision applies only in relation to offences committed elsewhere than in a State or Territory. As a consequence of the repeal of sub-section 85E (2), the Commonwealth must now extradite a defendant who is to be dealt with summarily for an offence against the Crimes Act alleged to have been committed in a State or Territory other than the one in which he is found. This is causing considerable inconvenience and cost both to defendants and to the Commonwealth. The problem is compounded in the case of multiple offences committed in different jurisdictions. The amendments will not only restore the former position under the Crimes Act but will extend to all offences against Commonwealth Laws. The conferral of jurisdiction on State and Territory Courts to deal with Commonwealth offences committed outside the State or Territory is subject to the safeguard that the court has a discretion to decline to deal with a particular matter if it considers it appropriate to do so. Overseas Telecommunications Act 1946 The financial provisions of the Act are amended to place beyond doubt certain borrowing powers of the Commission. Legal advice is that although these powers already exist in law, there may be reasons to clarify these. A similar amendment was made to the Telecommunications Act in 1976. Parliamentary Allowances Act 1952 The Act provides for the calculation of Parliamentary salaries and allowances by laying down the dates from and to which Senators, Members and certain Parliamentary office-holders may receive salary and allowances. It was substantially amended in the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act (No. 1) 1982 to remove those provisions which had been overtaken by determinations of the Remuneration Tribunal. The definition of ''Parliamentary Allowances'' given in the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1948 was drafted to rely on sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Parliamentary Allowances Act. The latter sections were repealed in 1982 as it was not realised at the time that they had significance for the superannuation legislation, which is the responsibility of the Minister for Finance. It is now proposed to correct this situation by including in the Parliamentary Allowances Act a provision stating that allowances payable to members of the Parliament are as determined by the Remuneration Tribunal in accordance with the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973. This provision would have the same date of effect as the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act (No. 1) 1982. The proposed provision parallels the provision in the Ministers of State Act 1952 and Parliamentary Secretaries Act 1980. Parliamentary Counsel Act 1970 Besides the insertion of provisions to require the Office of Parliamentary Counsel to prepare and furnish periodic returns this Act is being amended to remove from the Office of Parliamentary Counsel the functions of preparing subordinate legislation. There is within the Attorney-General's Department a separate Division for the drafting of subordinate legislation and other instruments. The amendment will leave the Office of Parliamentary Counsel responsible only for the preparation of draft laws, or amendments thereto, for the introduction into the Parliament. Postal Services Act 1975 Although the Postal Services Act 1975 provides severe penalties for any person convicted of sending a bomb through the mails, there has been continuing concern regarding the absence of provisions governing the posting of hoax mail bombs and the sending of letters conveying bomb hoaxes. Apart from the considerable distress caused to recipients of such mail, these hoaxes result in Postal Commission staff, Federal and State police and Army explosive experts being called upon to undertake unnecessary time consuming work. The legislation being introduced strengthens existing provisions by imposing a fine not exceeding $10,000 or a term of imprisonment not exceeding 5 years, or both, on those convicted of such practices. Poultry Industry Assistance Act 1965 To streamline administrative procedures of payments to the States it is proposed to amend the Act to enable a delegated officer to authorise individual payments that can be made in accordance with purposes of legislation. Protection of the Sea (Civil Liability) Act 1981 Section 19 of the Protection of the Sea (Civil Liability) Act 1981 provides jurisdiction for the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to review decisions of the Minister not to issue an insurance certificate in respect of a ship or to cancel an insurance certificate in respect of a ship. The amendment to section 19 provides for the Minister to notify persons affected by such decisions of their rights of review of the decision. However, the failure to notify such rights of review will not affect the validity of the decision. Public Service Act 1922 Section 81ZV of the Public Service Act enables the Board to determine appropriate conditions of employment for staff transferring from State or other Commonwealth employment to employment under the Public Service Act. At present the absence of specific reference to long service leave in the section, read together with section 22 of the Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act 1976, prevents special arrangements being made for the retention of long service leave conditions applicable under State law. The amendment proposed in the Bill inserts a specific reference to 'long service leave and other leave' in sub-section 81ZV (2), to overcome this problem . The deficiency has come to light in the context of the proposed transfer of New South Wales Meat Inspectors to the Department of Primary Industry, but it is desirable that the power to determine long service leave conditions for staff transferring to employment under the Public Service Act be available generally. Section 89 of the Public Service Act permits Ministers and, in practice, departments to determine the amount of and conditions for the payment of rent for the occupation by staff of the whole or part of a building belonging to or occupied by the Commonwealth. The Bill provides for the remaking of section 89 and for the insertion of a related new sub-paragraph 82D (4) (a) (viia) to permit the Board to determine the rent to be paid by staff as a condition of their employment. This amendment will bring the legislation into line with current administrative practice which followed an earlier decision that there should be a standard approach to rental policy replacing the range of inconsistent approaches adopted by individual departments. Special Prosecutors Act 1982 The proposed amendment removes an anomaly in sub-section 16 (4). The existing provision states that a person acting as a Special Prosecutor has and may exercise all the powers and shall perform all the functions of a '' Special Prosecutor''. The functions of a particular Special Prosecutor, as specified by the Attorney-General and gazetted under section 6 of the Act, are, of course, not necessarily the same as those of another Special Prosecutor. The proposed amendment is therefore necessary to make it clear that an acting Special Prosecutor is to exercise and perform the powers and functions of the Special prosecutor in whose place he is acting. States Grants (Schools Assistance) Act 1981 Provisions are reworded to enable the certification of grants where courses in English as a second language were commenced by government and non-government authorities in 1982 but extended beyond that year for completion. The previous wording accommodated the certification of courses carried out entirely in 1982 only. A similar amendment is made in respect of the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Act 1982. Trade Practices Act 1974 Amendment of sections 80, 80AA, 80A and 87. The purposes of the proposed amendment to section 80 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 is to enable the Federal Court to grant an injunction (including a mandatory injunction) in such terms as it thinks fit where the Court is satisfied that the person to whom the injunction is to be directed has contravened the Act or would, but for the granting of the injunction, be likely to contravene the Act. Consequential amendments are also made to sections 80AA, 80A and 87 of the Act. Section 80 of the Act, as it stands now, enables the Federal Court, when it is satisfied that a person is engaged in conduct which contravenes the Act to restrain that person, by injunction from engaging in that conduct. This power is seriously inadequate. First it merely enables the Federal Court to enjoin a person from doing that which he is already under a legal obligation not to do. Secondly, the Federal Court's power effectively to prevent repetition of the conduct is restricted-in proceedings for breach of an injunction it could be necessary to prove all the elements of a contravention (including, where applicable, the effect on competition). Thirdly, the Federal Court is not able to make orders corrective of the results of the contravention (except in the case of corrective advertising provided for section 8 (A). Amendment to section 163A The purpose of the proposed amendment is to exclude Divisions 2A and 3 of Part V of the Act from the operation of paragraph 163A (1) (a) of the Act. So far as is material, paragraph 163A (1) (a) of the Act provides that a person may institute proceedings in the Federal Court seeking a declaration in relation to the operation of any provision of the Act other than Division 2 of Part V of the Act. Division 2 of Part V provides for conditions and warranties in consumer transactions. A consumer having a right against a seller under these provisions is able to bring his claim in State and Territory Courts. When section 163A was inserted in the Act in 1976 matters under Division 2 of Part V were, in my view, quite properly excluded from that section. The procedure under section 163A, providing a declaration of rights only, is quite inappropriate to deal with consumer claims under Division 2. Subsequently, in 1978 when Division 2A of Part V, which provides for rights, ( broadly similar to those contained in Division 2) against manufacturers and importers was inserted, Division 2A was not included in the exception from the operation of section 163A. The result is that actions against manufacturers and importers, but not against sellers, may be brought in the Federal Court. However , such actions may be only for a declaration and not for damages or other relief (which must be obtained in State or Territory Courts). It is inappropriate that the Federal Court should have this particular kind of jurisdiction in such matters. Wool Industry Act 1972 Under the Wool Industry Act 1972, the Australian Wool Corporation is responsible for the overall administration of the Market Support Fund. This is a large and costly activity for woolgrowers, and the purpose of the proposed amendments is to improve the efficiency and administrative operations of the Fund. Currently a refund of tax to a woolgrower is required for each account; a proposed amendment will enable woolgrower accounts to be aggregated and therefore reduce the number of refund calculations legally required. Refunds of tax to woolgrowers are largely made by the Corporation through firms or persons that are registered with the Commissioner of Taxation. An amendment is proposed which will allow the Wool Corporation to make refunds on behalf of a registered person where the registered person seeks the arrangement and the costs to him involved in making the refunds are disproportionate to the amount being refunded. The Wool Corporation has discovered instances of wool tax having been collected from growers but not paid to the Commissioner of Taxation. Nevertheless, such growers are entitled to a refund when the Market Support Fund is revolved even though the tax collected was not paid to the Commissioner of Taxation. The general thrust of the secrecy provisions in the Wool Industry Act 1972, which were inserted at the request of wool traders, will be retained but a modification of these provisions is proposed to permit the Corporation to inform the Commissioner of Taxation of circumstances of apparent contraventions of wool tax legislation. The present constraint on the Corporation was not intended when the Act was drafted. Senator GARETH EVANS —I thank the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Martin) adjourned. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.24) —I move: That Standing Order 242 be suspended to enable the third reading of the Constitution Alteration (Fixed Term Parliaments) Bill 1983, Constitution Alteration (Inter-change of Powers) Bill 1983, Constitution Alteration (Advisory Jurisdiction of High Court) Bill 1983, and Constitution Alteration (Removal of Outmoded and Expended Provisions) Bill 1983, to be passed without a Call of the Senate. I simply make the point, for the benefit of honourable senators, that this is a procedure that has often been accomplished in the past, most recently I think in relation to the referendum in 1977 in which this kind of motion was moved by, I think, Senator Durack and accepted by the Senate, as a convenient procedural way of accomplishing the constitutional criteria that have to be satisfied. Senator Macklin —Mr Deputy President, I just want to raise a point in relation to-- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! There can be no debate on this motion. It was declared formal. It is only in order for the Attorney-General to move his motion formally. I must put the question without debate. Senator Macklin —Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to speak to the motion. Leave granted. Senator Gareth Evans —You are not going to oppose it, are you? Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —I am not going to oppose the motion, but we are to debate two other Constitution Alteration Bills. I wonder whether it might be possible to include them in the motion? The motion mentioned only four. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Those are the four Bills the Attorney-General has named. They are the only ones before the Senate. The Attorney-General might like to speak by leave on that matter. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —by leave-If it is competent for the Senate to accept the inclusion of those additional matters in the motion I have no objection to that course being followed. I seek leave to amend the motion of which I gave notice yesterday. Leave granted. Senator GARETH EVANS —I move: That Standing Order 242 be suspended to enable the third reading of the Constitution Alteration (Fixed Term Parliaments) Bill 1983, Constitution Alteration (Inter-change of Powers) Bill 1983, Constitution Alteration (Advisory Jurisdiction of High Court) Bill 1983, Constitution Alteration (Removal of Outmoded and Expended Provisions) Bill 1983, Constitution Alteration ( Appropriation Bills) Bill 1983, and Constitution Alteration (Electors' Initiative) Bill 1982 [1983], to be passed without a Call of the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill presented by Senator Robertson, for Senator Tate, and-by leave-read a first time. Ordered that the second reading of the Bill be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. Consideration resumed from 17 May 1983. Clause 3 (Interpretation). Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(4.27) —I rise not to speak on the amendments at this stage-I spoke yesterday-but to seek leave of the Senate to have relief from that section of the Senate Standing Orders or interpretation thereof which would prevent me from speaking other than in my place. Leave granted. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.28) —I urge the Committee not to agree to the two amendments. The first that is proposed to this clause is to add a reference to land or interest in land after the reference to property in clause 3 (2) (a). I suggest that the proposed amendment is simply redundant insofar as the concept of land or an interest in land is clearly subsumed under the larger expression 'property' and that it is simply adding verbiage and furthermore diverging from the language of the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, which is perfectly clear and precise in its application. The second amendment proposed by Senator Martin relates to the language of clause 3 (2) (a) (ii) and involves the deletion of the procedure which enables regulations to declare certain cultural heritage or natural heritage property to be identified property. We would argue against this amendment on the ground that it dangerously narrows the ambit of the Bill. Indeed, it seems to demonstrate perhaps some small misunderstanding of the nature of the Bill and the way in which it is endeavouring to pick up and implement domestically Australia's international treaty obligations. Australia not only has an obligation under the world heritage Convention not only in respect of that property which has been nominated and is listed as part of the world heritage and the formal World Heritage List, but also has an international obligation under the treaty to do its best to protect and preserve other property which nonetheless satisfies this description of being cultural heritage or natural heritage-that is to say, property which is of outstanding universal value. To the extent that Australia has an obligation to protect such property to the best of its capacity, there needs to be a procedure whereby Australia, the Commonwealth, can identify that property as coming within the ambit of this particular legislation. That is the reason why there is this provision in clause 3 (2) (a) (ii) to enable that to be done. It would seriously narrow and weaken the scope of the Bill were this particular provision to be removed. For that reason the Government opposes its removal. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(4.30) —May I take up just one point. I agree with the last comments of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). I agree that the inclusion of a reference to land and interest in land, in the words sought by the first Opposition amendment, might be difficult. But in the opinion of the Attorney-General would the words 'including land and interest in land' in any way restrict the scope of the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage? I agree that the legislation has to comply substantially with the Convention and not depart from it in any major way; otherwise it might not come within the constitutional powers of the Commonwealth . I invite the Attorney-General's comment as to whether he would take the same view as he has just expressed if the amendment sought to add the words ' including land and interest in land'. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.31) —I would not take the same view of the words suggested by Senator Missen. I would regard them as not in any way narrowing the scope of the expression 'property' but I would again repeat the view that any such amendment would simply be redundant. It would add absolutely nothing to the substance except some cosmetic attraction of dubious merit. If this were the only amendment to be passed by this chamber in the Committee stage, it seems to me that it would have the most unfortunate effect of delaying the implementation of the Bill, something which I am sure is not a result the honourable senator would wish. If there were to be some substantive advantage achieved by the addition he proposes, so be it, but it seems clear to the Government that there is no such advantage and we would resist even the variation that the honourable senator proposes. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(4.32) —The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has just said that the Government has an obligation to do all within its power. I suppose this is one of the reasons for the introduction of the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill, which is a move to overcome the terms of the Constitution regarding the rights of a State to look after its own properties. Could the Attorney-General explain to me what he understands by Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage? It says very clearly that in countries that have a system of federation the federal government, before introducing legislative measures, shall inform the competent authorities of the State of the provisions of the Convention and recommend their adoption. Article 34 clearly refers to a country such as Australia, which has a federation of States and a Constitution that forbids the Federal Government from interfering in the States' wishes in the methods they should adopt in using their own properties. It provides that the Federal Government may only inform the State authorities what it would like to happen. Can Senator Evans please let me know where in the Article, which applies to countries such as Australia, he finds an obligation to interfere with Tasmania? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.35) —I am afraid that the honourable senator has rather misunderstood the force and effect of both the Australian Constitution and Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. The Australian Constitution does not in any way prohibit the Commonwealth from, as the honourable senator says, interfering with the States. It is a matter for the proper interpretation and construction of what the identified powers of the Commonwealth are. Of course, there are numerous powers-the corporations power, the trade and commerce power and those set out in most of the other placitums of section 51 of the Constitution-which clearly authorise the Commonwealth to do things, which the States might not like all that much, in the larger national interest. One of the powers the Commonwealth has under the Constitution is its power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth-that is, for the whole country-with respect to external affairs matters. Over the years that has been construed by the courts, as the honourable senator will possibly know, as empowering the Commonwealth to pass national laws which may have the effect of doing something the States might not be terrifically happy about in order to implement within Australia an international obligation that Australia, as a nation, has. There are ample precedents for this-for example, in the area of aviation going back to the 1930s. In the lifetime of the previous Government and before there was the Racial Discrimination Act, in regard to which litigation to preserve that reading of the Constitution was supported by the previous Government. So there is ample precedent for the operation of section 51 (xxix) of the Constitution to that effect. It is against that background that the honourable senator and anyone else who is concerned about this matter should read Article 34 of the Convention. Article 34 refers to a Federal State which is a party to this World Heritage Convention and goes on to state: (a) with regard to the provisions of this Convention, the implementation of which comes under the legal jurisdiction of the federal or central legislative power, the obligations of the federal or central government shall be the same as for those-- I interpolate countries which are not federal countries. So in cases where the power is available to the federal unit of government in a federal state, the obligation upon that federal government is the same as that for non-federal countries. The Article goes on to state, as the honourable senator read, that in cases where the implementation of a matter comes under the legal jurisdiction of individual constituent States there is the procedure which the honourable senator outlined. But she should not read Article 34 as excluding in any way the jurisdiction of the Australian Commonwealth Government and Parliament over these matters. By virtue of section 51 (xxix) of the Constitution the Commonwealth does have the same power over these matters of international obligation as does the central government of another unitary country. I appreciate that that is all a bit complicated and perhaps a bit difficult to grasp on the run, but there is power for the Federal Government to act. If there is not, that will be a matter for the High Court of Australia to tell us. Certainly this Government, like preceding governments, has proceeded on the assumption that there is this power to implement an international obligation. To the extent that there is that power to implement an international obligation, Article 34 entitles the Commonwealth Government to act as it is in this Bill. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(4.39) —In addressing my remarks to clause 3, I observe that the debate on the motion for the second reading of this measure was concluded yesterday. Mr Chairman, I do not intend, nor would you permit me, to canvass the reasons for my opposition to this measure. As quickly as possible I would like to raise with the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) a couple of specific matters relating to clause 3 (1). So as not to keep bobbing up and down to ask questions on the one clause, may I at the same time raise matters relating to clause 3 (2). In clause 3 (1) 'cultural heritage' has the same meaning as that which appears in Article 1 of the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage and 'natural heritage' has the same meaning as that which is defined in Article 2 of the Convention. I might remind the Committee that Article 1 of the Convention states: For the purposes of this Convention, the following shall be considered as ' cultural heritage': It goes on to state: monuments: architectural works, works of monumental sculpture and painting, elements or structures of an archaeological nature, inscriptions, cave dwellings and combinations of features, which are of outstanding universal value from the point of view of history, art or science;- It goes on to refer to 'groups of buildings: groups of separate or connected buildings', et cetera. Therefore, this Bill has thrown the net very broadly indeed. The comments I made in December when speaking on the Australian Democrats' Bill apply with equal force to this Bill. Presumably the Government could nominate-to take an example-Luna Park in New South Wales as a property and that would then become an identified property. Quite obviously, in so doing it could usurp the role and function of the State Government of New South Wales. Honourable senators can look at sub-clause (2) in which 'identified property' is delineated. That is a very important aspect of the working of this measure. An identifiable property is property that has been either submitted to the World Heritage Committee or declared by regulation. Let us look at clause 3 (2) (a) (i) which deals with property submitted to the World Heritage Committee. At this stage of the Committee debate I would like to know from the Attorney-General what the word 'submitted' means in that context. Does it cover property that has been submitted to but not necessarily accepted by the World Heritage Committee? That point was raised in the debate on the earlier Bill and I think one of the Attorney-General's colleagues had an opinion in respect of the measure which was brought forward by the Democrats. That colleague said: At the very most, this Bill, if it is relying on the external affairs power, would require a definite action by a multilateral body to build up evidence such as the High Court would require. So it is my belief that at the very least, it is only when listing occurs that any Commonwealth external affairs power might be argued to arise. Senator Gareth Evans —Senator Tate. Senator HARRADINE —Yes. Senator Gareth Evans —We had a difference of opinion, you may recall. Senator HARRADINE —I would be grateful for the Attorney's opinion. I will conclude by pointing out that the Attorney in his second reading speech said: The World Heritage List is not to contain all heritage property within a country, but only heritage property that has outstanding universal value in terms of criteria established by the World Heritage Committee. In the event that the listing is not accepted by that body, who would draw that line and how would it be drawn? Finally, on the question that the Government might nominate very minor objects or properties of cultural and natural heritage in order to take advantage of the provisions of the Bill, what other areas does the Government have in mind in drawing this Bill so broadly if it is not really a direct attempt to override a properly made decision of an elected State Parliament-namely, the Parliament of Tasmania? Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(4.45) —I will follow on from some of the points that Senator Harradine has made and some other points that were made earlier in the debate. It might be convenient for the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) to reply to all of us at once. Senator Harradine referred to Article 1 of the Convention which defines cultural heritage and Article 2 which defines natural heritage and he extracted some parts of it. I seek leave to have them incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- 1. DEFINITIONS OF THE CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE Article 1 For the purposes of this Convention, the following shall be considered as '' cultural heritage'': monuments: architectural works, works of monumental sculpture and painting, elements or structures of an archaeological nature, inscriptions, cave dwellings and combinations of features, which are of outstanding universal value from the point of view of history, art or science; groups of buildings: groups of separate or connected buildings which, because of their architecture, their homogeneity or their place in the landscape, are of outstanding universal value from the point of view of history, art or science; sites: works of man or the combined works of nature and of man, and areas including archaeological sites which are of outstanding universal value from the historical, aesthetic, ethnological or anthropological points of view. Article 2 For the purposes of this Convention, the following shall be considered as '' natural heritage''; natural features consisting of physical and biological formations or groups of such formations, which are of outstanding universal value from the aesthetic or scientific point of view; geological and physiographical formations and precisely delineated areas which constitute the habitat of threatened species of animals and plants of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science or conservation; natural sites or precisely delineated natural areas of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science, conservation or natural beauty. Senator MARTIN —I raise a point which was mentioned by Senator Harradine. Clause (2) of the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill refers to property that the Commonwealth has submitted to the World Heritage Committee, not property that has been accepted and listed by it. It then goes on to mention other property, property that is declared by regulation to form part of the cultural heritage or natural heritage. Senator Harradine pointed out in his speech-I shall not reiterate-how very broad that can be. I take it that this is to apply to property, statues, monuments or anything that comes under Article 2 or Article 3 which have not been submitted to the World Heritage Committee and would have a very broad application. The point which Senator Harradine makes is one which I attempted to make in debate last night. One of the great difficulties of this Bill and the Opposition 's criticism of it is that it is so widely drawn. Senator Evans said in his second reading speech that the purpose of the Bill was to meet some exotic situation. He was referring to compensation in that case and he used the term ' exotic situation' which I take, from reading it in the context of his speech, to be specifically South West Tasmania. It does not seem to me that it has been reconciled at any point in the Bill or since in debate by the Attorney-General whether this Bill is for South West Tasmania or whether it is to have broader application. I reiterate that the Opposition thinks the issue is of such importance that there ought to be Bills that are relevant to individual cases. In trying to meet the individual case of South West Tasmania, without making it a South West Tasmania Bill, we get into very broad difficulties as we do in clause 3 (2) (a) (ii). I do not believe the Attorney-General has addressed himself to why the Bill needs to be that broad. Mr Chairman, I seek your guidance on the matter raised by Senator Missen. Senator Missen suggested that the amendment that I have moved, that is, to add the words 'land or interest in land' after 'property' could be improved by changing it to read 'including land or interest in land'. I am more than happy to take whatever procedural steps are necessary in the Senate to transmit the original amendment that I moved into that form. The CHAIRMAN —Senator Martin, you may amend your amendment by leave. Senator MARTIN —I seek leave accordingly. Leave granted. Senator MARTIN —I move: (1) Page 2, clause 3, paragraph (2) (a), line 15, after 'property' insert ', including land or interest in land'. The Attorney-General said that he did not think there was any substantive point in this amendment. I note that Article 3 of the Convention states: It is for each State Party to this Convention to identify and delineate the different properties situated on its territory mentioned in Articles 1 and 2 above. It is up to Australia to decide how it will define land or property or whatever else. I reiterate the original point that we made on this matter. It could be that people have an interest in land without being the owner of the land. They may wish to be involved in actions that might take place under the Bill. They may feel they have a claim to compensation as a consequence of the Commonwealth Government's actions. We do not feel their interest is protected. I do not think that the Attorney-General has answered that point satisfactorily. Nevertheless, I am open to persuasion on it. The Attorney-General said that he was reluctant to accept Senator Missen's suggestion of an improvement of the amendment, which now becomes the Opposition' s amendment, because reference of the amendment back to the House of Representatives would delay the Bill. The Opposition does not accept that as a basis for rejecting an amendment of merit. The Senate is a House of review and we have the opportunity to improve Bills. In my nine years in the Senate I have seen many occasions on which Bills have been improved in a genuine way between government and opposition on the floor of the Senate. I do not think that such delay would be occasioned. I hope that we will certainly finish the Committee stage of this Bill today in which case a message can be transmitted to the House of Representatives and the passage of the Bill will not, in my opinion, be unduly delayed by virtue of amendment of the Bill. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(4.51) —In introducing the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill the Government appears to rely very heavily on the external affairs power in section 51 (xxix) of the Constitution. As Tasmanians we see this provision being used to attack the rights of the Tasmanian Government to make a decision within its perceived area of its jurisdiction. I mentioned in my speech at the second reading stage of the Bill that I did not think our founding fathers ever envisaged that placitum (xxix) of section 51 of the Constitution was ever intended to interfere with the domestic public works program of a State . In support of this feeling I refer to section 100 of the Constitution, which states: The Commonwealth shall not, by any law or regulation of trade or commerce, abridge the right of a State or of the residents therein to the reasonable use of the waters of rivers for conservation or irrigation. I would like the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) to comment on that. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.52) —Dealing first with Senator Watson's points, section 100 of the Constitution is perceived not to be relevant as a constitutional constraint here insofar as the Act in question will not be properly described as a law with respect to trade or commerce. It is only in relation to a law of trade or commerce that section 100 would appear to operate as a prohibition. As to the point about the founding fathers' expectations, there are undoubtedly lots of things that our founding fathers did not expect would happen in the subsequent construction of the Constitution. For example, the invention of broadcasting is something that they did not anticipate . No doubt they would have had fits in prospect if they had seen what the High Court of Australia did by way of the relevant section 51 (v) of the Constitution which related to matters electronic and the way in which that was extended by a rather adventurous High Court to give the Commonwealth power at the expense of the States' capacity to regulate the air waves. That in itself can never be a good, with respect, sensible ground to argue against the application of some constitutional provision. I turn to the question of what it means now and what it should mean given the larger interests of the nation as construed and interpreted through the Constitution by the High Court. If we are wrong, as Mr Ellicott once said, the High Court will undoubtedly tell us so. As to the point made again by Senator Martin about whether or not the word ' property' should be specifically extended to include interest in land, I make the point again that that is simply redundant. The concept of property includes all the different kinds of interest in property which are just part of the law of property. They include lease interest, licence interest and other sorts of things which are in the nature of interests in land. Were this to be an improvement of the Bill and to make clear its application of course we would have no hesitation about acceding to that improvement and allowing the Bill to wend its way backwards and forwards across King's Hall in order to accommodate it. But given that it is redundant, given that it adds, in my considered view and that of the Parliamentary Counsel and the Government, nothing to the substance of the Bill we do not honestly want to waste time by adding additions of that kind. The two most substantial objections were expressed by Senator Harradine. One of them, about the arguably unnecessary width of the Bill, was picked up and elaborated by Senator Martin. Let me return to Senator Harradine's concerns. He made the point that the expressions 'cultural heritage' and 'natural heritage' are very widely defined in the language of the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, and indeed they are. But there is still , nonetheless, an overriding criterion to be satisfied for them properly to come within the scope of the Convention, and that is that the area, property, or interest in question be of outstanding universal value. Senator Harradine asked: 'Who is to construe that criterion? Who is to determine whether something is of outstanding value? Is it just a matter for the government of the day?' I answer in these terms: Not really; it is much more complex than that. A large number of hurdles have to be overcome before property can in fact come within the ambit of this legislation. So far as that part of clause 3 which provides for submission to the World Heritage Committee as a vehicle for gaining recognition for the property in question is concerned, it is the case that we are talking here about a mere nomination; we are not talking about a stage of acceptance as appropriately part of the World Heritage List having been reached. But there is a real disincentive on any nation submitting a Luna Park, a municipal lavatory or some other bizarre item of purported cultural heritage. I do not want to be taken as suggesting that neither Luna Park nor some appropriately decorated municipal lavatory might not ultimately come within this description. But let us assume the submission of some piece of property that manifestly on any view does not come within that description, here and now at least. There would be a real lack of credibility involved in a nation going through the business of purporting to submit to a very august world body some such piece of property as satisfying this description. Quite an elaborate procedure has to be followed in putting in a submission to the inventory operated by the World Heritage Committee. A series of rules and procedures have to be satisfied. Any nation which did that would simply make a laughing stock of itself in the international community. I suggest to the Committee that that point operates as a real disincentive against that part of the clause being cavalierly misused. As to the possibility of the Commonwealth simply regulating a piece of property into this status unilaterally, again I point to the hurdle that the Commonwealth would have to overcome, that is, the disallowance procedures for any such regulation. Certainly, as the Senate is presently constituted and as, regrettably, is seems likely to be constituted for some considerable time yet, the Commonwealth would have great difficulty, obviously, in again cavalierly misusing the regulation provision in order to identify as a cultural heritage or natural heritage some piece of property which manifestly was not. Again, so far as any means of establishing property as identified property is concerned, it still remains a matter for the High Court, if the external affairs power provisions of this Bill are being relied on, to determine ultimately whether the property in question satisfies the description as being of universal value. Unless it is of universal value and the High Court can be so persuaded by evidence on affidavit and so on, the High Court will say: 'This is just not a genuine exercise of the external affairs power. You are not here meeting an international obligation to protect property of this description. This is a device. This is a sham.' This, of course, is part of the argument that will be conducted before the High Court in the Tasmanian case. I suggest to honourable senators that, although the language is very wide, nonetheless a series of hurdles have to be overcome. I remind honourable senators in this context that, before the Bill actually bites on any State or Territory government to stop it doing something, a series of procedural hurdles have to be satisfied. The property has to be identified as 'identified property' by the various means I have been talking about. Then one has to have a proclamation by the Governor-General-in-Council that the property in question, in the language of the Bill, is being or is likely to be damaged or destroyed. That proclamation is the subject of disallowance in the Parliament if it is cavalierly employed. Then of course one has to have an actual prohibition set in train by the government of the day pursuant to that proclamation. If that prohibition is cavalier and not designed genuinely to protect or to conserve the property in question, under the Bill as it stands all sorts of people have a right of standing to challenge the lawfulness, under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, of the exercise of that power. Again, I am sorry to bore any honourable senators with this detail but it is necessary to appreciate the technical effect of the Bill. I suggest that a discussion of this kind is entirely appropriate for the Committee stage and much to be preferred to some of the more extravagant oratory that we have had in the past. I make no reference to Senator Walters. I saw her lurch to her feet as I uttered that phrase. The final comment I wish to make is an attempt to answer the more general point which both Senator Harradine and Senator Martin made. They argue: 'Okay. Take into account all those points and those hurdles and limitations, but is not the Bill nonetheless still much wider than it needs to be to deal with the situation of South West Tasmania?' In a sense, yes, it is. It is much wider than it needs to be simply to deal with South West Tasmania. But there are two reasons why the Bill is as potentially wide as it is. The first reason is that so far as we are aware there are no items of outstanding international importance, either by way of cultural heritage or natural heritage, that are now immediately under threat. But that is not to say that they will not be under threat at some relatively immediate time in the future. It is wholly desirable to have in place the machinery and mechanism by which such threats can be dealt with, should they arise. Should the Queensland Government, in breach of all its undertakings and so on, decide over the next Christmas recess to embark immediately on some oil drilling exercise on the Great Barrier Reef, it would be very important and useful indeed to have this kind of legislative machinery in place so that the Government could very quickly move into operation to block or to cut off such a potentially devastating threat to that international property. That is the first desire- simply to have machinery in place. The second reason is that it is necessary to have a Bill expressed this widely if we are genuinely to satisfy our international obligations under the international Convention. The international Convention does not commit us simply to an obligation to defend South West Tasmania. The international Convention commits us to the defence of any property in Australia which satisfies the description in the Convention as being of outstanding universal value, either culturally or by way of the natural heritage . That is our international obligation. If we are to satisify that international obligation, we have to legislate in the terms covered by the parameters of the Convention. Of course, the incidental advantage of doing so is not only to be able to hold our head up internationally if challenged on this point but also to ensure-this is the further reason it becomes relevant-the survival of the Bill under constitutional attack in the High Court. It is only by expressing it in general terms and not in narrow, discriminatory terms against South West Tasmania that we believe the chances of the Bill's survival, insofar as it depends upon the external affairs power, can be maximised. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(5.4) —The Government is, as has already been stated, relying heavily on the external affairs power in the legislation. Can the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) tell me whether we are justified in accepting what Dr Klugman, the Australian Labor Party member for Prospect in New South Wales, said in his letter published in most major newspapers throughout Australia-certainly in Tasmania-during the early part of the election? He wrote: Lawyers are arguing whether the High Court would grant the Commonwealth Government power to intervene and prevent construction of the Tasmanian dam under the external affairs power of the Constitution. May I, as one who tends to oppose increased government powers of most kinds, caution those Labor supporters who may approve of the extension of such power in this case. What would prevent an Australian government signing a treaty with South Africa dealing with 'subversion?' Could an Act endorsing such a treaty then give an Australian government unlimited powers, denied to it by the High Court (and a referendum) in the early 1950s. Before endorsing the use of external powers to circumvent the Constitution let us remember that an Australian Government could find a number of foreign governments prepared to sign all kinds of treaties conferring unpleasant powers on our Government. I ask the Attorney-General: Is Dr Klugman able accurately to state the facts in regard to using an external affairs power in this fashion? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(5.5) —The difficulty is that Dr Klugman knows as much about constitutional law as I know about the practice of medicine. I am endeavouring to strike a deal with Dr Klugman. Senator Haines —I always thought you were omniscient. Senator GARETH EVANS —No; I am sorry to disappoint the honourable senator in that respect. My omniscience breaks down when it comes to matters both of medicine and unravelling the complexities of Dr Klugman's mind. Of course, Dr Klugman does express a view which is very commonly held across the political spectrum. It ought to be appreciated that on this matter, like a number of others, the Australian Labor Party's views are by no means monolithic any more than the Liberal Party's views obviously are on this issue. There is a concern about the possibility of the external affairs power being misused, but the point is that the High Court has already made it very clear in the judgments it has already given over the years on the scope and operation of the external affairs power, including in the Koowarta case, that the external affairs power cannot simply be used when we wish; we cannot enter into a treaty and, simply by virtue of having entered into a treaty with South Africa, Ruritania or anywhere else, thereby acquire the power to do something that is otherwise lacking if that treaty is merely a device to acquire that otherwise lacking power. That is the view of all the members of the High Court. Even Mr Justice Murphy, whose views on the external affairs power are known to be pretty robust and far-reaching, has made it clear that a simple bilateral treaty on some wildly implausible subject matter, or something which is not genuinely capable of construction as a matter of international concern, would not give rise to an attraction of power to the Commonwealth such that it could override the States. It is a misconceived concern on the basis of everything all members of the High Court have ever said about the application of this power. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(5.7) —The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) referred, I presume not derogatorily, to Justice Murphy and his far-reaching and radical decisions. Senator Gareth Evans —That is a term of approbation where I come from. Senator WALTERS —It is odd. The Attorney mentioned that we could not make agreements with outside powers that would cover things wildly implausible. Could he explain who is to judge whether they are wildly implausible? In my judgment of this case it is wildly implausible that the Government would have the power to intervene in our State's legal, democratically elected Government's decisions . It is wildly implausible to me that the Commonwealth could intervene. Yet the Commonwealth Government seems to think that it is quite genuine and all right. I would be grateful if the Attorney could explain who comes to the conclusion as to what agreements with other countries could be considered wildly implausible. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(5.8) —The answer, very simply, is the members of the High Court. Regrettably, for all the undoubted contribution that Senator Walters would make if ever elevated to that station, she does not now occupy it and nor do I. Our judgment of these matters is essentially irrelevant. What counts is what will persuade the justices of the High Court. The World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill is framed on the basis of what those judges have said in the Koowarta case and other cases on this subject matter, in all of which they made it clear that if the international agreement, arrangement or purported obligation in question is a mere sham, a mere device designed explicitly to attract a power which otherwise would be lacking, then it would not count as a legitimate implementation of an international obligation such as would be justified by the Constitution's section 51 (xxix) external affairs power. I suggest that unless Senator Walters has something new to add to the debate the Committee move to the next clause. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(5.9) —I imagine I have the best idea as to whether I have anything new to add to the debate. I presume that the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans) means that every time we make an international agreement it must go to the High Court before it is decided whether it is wildly implausible. He mentioned that there were other judgments-he used the plural-and he referred to the Koowarta case. That was different in that the matter had already been put to a referendum. The people of this country gave the Commonwealth powers over Aboriginal affairs. I believe that the Koowarta case, for that reason-- Senator Macklin —It was not based on that. Read the judgment, for goodness sake. Senator WALTERS —What about leaving the Attorney-General to answer the question? Would the honourable senator like to take over the Attorney-General's position? The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Coleman) —Senator Walters, before you continue, I draw your attention to the fact that what you are debating now really relates to clause 6 of the Bill. I am not suggesting that we want to go through the same exercise when we do get to clause 6 but I just draw your attention to the fact that at the moment we are debating clause 3. Senator WALTERS —I am well aware of that, Madam Chairman, and I was surprised that the Attorney-General brought up the Koowarta case. As he did, I am asking whether he believes the Koowarta case is different because of the referendum I spoke of. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(5.11) —No, I am afraid the Koowarta case is not about the meaning and application of section 51 (xxvi) of the Constitution, which was the section amended in 1967. The Koowarta case is all about the meaning, extent and application of the section 51 (xxix) external affairs power, on which the Racial Discrimination Act there being litigated was primarily based. It is true that the Racial Discrimination Act attracted some additional constitutional support from the race power as adopted in the referendum of 1967, but it is simply not the case that the race power was enough to sustain the whole legislation. It was simply not the case that the High Court based any part of its judgment on that. Senator Walters —That is a matter of opinion, too. Senator GARETH EVANS —With the utmost respect, it is not merely a matter of opinion; it is a matter of fact that that is what that case was all about. Amendment negatived. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(5.13) —I move: Page 2, clause 3, after sub-clause (4), insert the following new sub-clause: '(5) For the purposes of the application of this Act in relation to the Northern Territory- (a) a reference in this Act to a State shall be read as including a reference to the Northern Territory; (b) a reference in this Act to a Territory shall be read as not including a reference to the Northern Territory; and (c) a reference in this Act to the Premier of a State shall be read as including a reference to the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory.' For the greater part I think the amendment is self-explanatory. However, the points made in the amendment were not raised in the House of Representatives. It was raised by Paul Everingham, the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, after debate on this Bill in the House. He sent a telex to the Prime Minister ( Mr Hawke) and copies to other people asking that this amendment be made to the Bill. The Bill will be applicable in the Northern Territory whether it is in the end applicable in the States. The question of the constitutionality of this Bill has to be determined by the High Court. Even if the High Court rules against its application in the States, constitutionally it could still apply in the Northern Territory. The previous Government pursued a practice of dealing with the Northern Territory and negotiating with it on the basis of equality with the States. Of course, the Northern Territory is not a State but it does have self- government and to take a step backwards on this issue would be a major step backwards for the Northern Territory. If the Government is not prepared to accept this amendment I think the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) should state whether this new Government will have a different approach to the Northern Territory from that followed by previous Liberal governments in that it is not going to consider in these sorts of matters that the Northern Territory ought to receive the same sort of treatment as the States. We cannot by legislation turn the Northern Territory into a State and I do not suggest that that is desirable at the moment, for a range of reasons. However, to protect that position that the Northern Territory and its Government have earned I have moved my amendment. The second aspect of the amendment is that under the compensation provisions, if they stand as printed, the Premiers of States have certain rights to appoint members to commissions determining compensation, and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, if there is an issue in relation to compensation in the Territory, does not have the right to appoint people to such commissions. The effect of the amendment would be to ensure that the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory has the same rights and privileges under those circumstances as would a Premier of a State. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(5.16) —The Government rejects this amendment not out of any lack of sympathy towards the Northern Territory or its aspirations to be treated as a State for the purposes of Commonwealth legislation generally. That is an aspiration which we understand and, indeed, to which we are entirely sympathetic. Insofar as some parts of the Bill do, in a sense, discriminate against the Northern Territory we would be prepared at an appropriate time to formulate an amendment to cover that situation. I refer in particular to the later provisions, which we have not yet reached, about the commissions of inquiry and so on in which, as Senator Martin said, the Northern Territory is denied, by the way in which the Bill is framed at the moment, the capacity to appoint someone to a commission of inquiry in a way that the States are not. We do not want to amend the Bill at this stage, as I indicated earlier, because we do not want to delay its passage. The Bill is not intended to have any immediate application to the Northern Territory. In the event that it became necessary for it to have an application before the Parliament resumed for the Budget session, I give here and now an undertaking that the Northern Territory would be treated in the same way as a State for the purpose of the appointment of an appropriate member to a commission of inquiry. What I have in mind is that the Bill would be amended by a miscellaneous amendments provision in the latter part of this year to accommodate that contingency. In the event that the legislation had not gone through we would deal with the matter at Executive level in the way I have indicated. I give such an undertaking on behalf of the Government. We are not keen to amend the Bill at all, but we are certainly not keen on the amendment to clause 3 that is proposed by Senator Martin. That would have a much more wide-reaching set of implications than simply ensuring that the Territory was treated in the same way as a State for the purposes of the procedures of the Bill and the appointment of members to a commission of inquiry. What would be involved would be a concession by the Commonwealth that we are no longer in the business of utilising section 122 of the Constitution, the external affairs power, in order to put absolutely beyond doubt the application of Commonwealth legislation to the Northern Territory. What is being proposed here is that the Territory be treated in exactly the same way as a State for the purposes of the operation of all the clauses of this Bill, including clause 6 (2), which rely upon and pick up the external affairs power and use that as the foundation for the Bill's application to the States. Of couse, there is some degree of doubt about whether or not the Act will finally prove triumphant in its application to the States in this respect. As we were discussing earlier, that is a matter for the High Court of Australia finally to determine. What is being asked of us in this amendment is that the Northern Territory be treated in the same way as a State and that equally to the extent that the Bill turns out not to have an application to the State under clause 6 (2) by virtue of the operation of the external affairs power, the Bill have no application to the Northern Territory. That is clearly implicit in the terms of the amendment. That is no doubt one of the reasons why Mr Everingham is so keen to get us to accept it. As the Bill is constructed at the moment clause 6 (1) states: A Proclamation may be made under sub-section (3) in relation to identified property that is not in any State. Clause 6 (1) stands alone so far as the Territories are concerned. It is based explicitly on section 122 of the Constitution, the external affairs power. Clause 6 (2), which refers to property in a State, is, of course, based on the external affairs power and sub-paragraph (e) is based on the so-called nationhood power. No Commonwealth Government, whether of our colour or of Senator Martin's colour, would readily abdicate the potential operation of the external affairs power in an area of constitutional doubt or uncertainty. It would be different if we were talking about companies legislation, health legislation or something of that kind about which there is absolutely no about about the Commonwealth's capacity to legislate. In those circumstances, these days there would be no good reason for treating the Northern Territory differently from the States, and this Bill does not foreshadow any such endeavour on our part. But here, where the very survival of the legislation is to some small extent in doubt and will need to be determined by the High Court, we do not want it to be in doubt in its application to the Northern Territory. We want the constitutional force and effect that section 122 has through clause 6 (1) to apply. I am afraid we are not prepared in those circumstances to accept the amendment that has been proposed. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(5.21) —I note the undertakings of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) that the Government will reject the amendments that have been proposed by Senator Martin, who is the shadow Minister for Home Affairs and Environment. The Attorney-General must realise, of course, that the Territory is very concerned about the attitude of the Commonwealth Government. As he would realise, it was the practice of the previous Commonwealth Government, after the advent of self-government for the Northern Territory, to treat the Territory on an equal basis with the States in Commonwealth legislation with respect to transferred powers; that is, matters for which Territory Ministers have Executive authority under section 35 of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act. In fact, this convention has grown over the years since the advent of responsible self-government. Of course, one sees with this legislation that has been introduced by the Federal Government, and the Government's opposition to the proposed amendment, that the Government is extremely wary of the future and perhaps the precedent that this Bill will set. The Attorney-General has given some assurances to the effect that the Federal Government will take some action in the future but it seems to me that the amendments that he has forecast surely could have been anticipated, given that notice of the objections of the Northern Territory Government has been given to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and various Ministers in the past. As Senator Martin said, a letter was sent to the Prime Minister from the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory expressing concern about the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill, which at that stage passed through the House of Representatives. He said that his Government had no difficulty with the central provisions of the Bill relating to the proclamation of identified property and the things which may not be done to that identified property without the written consent of the Minister. That is covered in clauses 6 to 11 of the Bill. He went on to say that his Government was strongly of the opinion that the legislation should provide that an area which is under State of Territory jurisdiction may not become identified property without reference to and the agreement of the State or Territory concerned. Surely the Attorney-General would agree with that type of request. The Chief Minister went on to say that while his Government appreciated that the legislation was proposed on the basis of the Commonwealth external affairs power under the Constitution it should recognise the jurisdictional rights that States and Territories have under the Crown. He urged the Governments to recognise the implications. In summary, the practical effect of the Bill is to ensure that the legislation will be valid in its application to the Northern Territory. Its validity or lack of it in its application to the States is at least arguable in some respects. It enlarges the range of Northern Territory property, as compared with the States, which could be the subject of a proclamation by the Governor-General under clause 6 (3) and, it denies any right of the Chief Minister to nominate a member of a commission of inquiry established to assess compensation in excess of $5m where operation of the Act amounts to an acquisition of property. This is the matter to which Senator Martin referred. Apart from those effects, it is perhaps even more significant that the Bill departs from the established practice to treat the Territory on a basis of equality with the States. I heard what the Attorney-General had to say. Nevertheless, in order to place the Northern Territory on the same basis as the States with respect to the application of the proposed legislation, Senator Martin has put forward her amendments. As I have implied, the Bill is very offensive to the Northern Territory because it fails to treat the Northern Territory on an equal basis with the States. This convention, as has happened previously in Commonwealth legislation with respect to transfer powers, will be introduced and will remain in place. The Territory's situation would be recognised. The Attorney-General must realise that over a few years the Territory has been struggling for recognition and that it has been a hard trail. Much was achieved when the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act was passed by the Parliament. Since then, development in the Northern Territory has been unprecedented. Once again I repeat that this Bill is a slap in the face to the Territory. The people of the Northern Territory believe that the way the legislation is being enacted undermines the authority of the Northern Territory Government by giving- I believe they have every reason to believe this-unqualified power to the Federal Government. For many years the Northern Territory came under the complete control of the Federal Government. The people of the Northern Territory have looked upon Federal governments, including Labor Federal governments, as governments that exercise centralist control. It is their fear now that with this piece of legislation that will be enacted by the Federal Government, it is once again showing its hand in respect of these centralist powers. For all those reasons I ask that the Commonwealth Government take note of the objections of the Northern Territory Government and the request of the Chief Minister, Paul Everingham. The Attorney-General has perhaps spiked my guns to some degree by the assurances he has given in respect of my request. Senator Gareth Evans —I hope so. Senator KILGARIFF —I hope so too. This remains to be seen. As I said before, the Government has had time to bring into this place the amendments that would be necessary to overcome the problem. For that reason, I cannot accept the assurances of the Government that action will be taken. I believe that there has been time to take the action that has been proposed in these amendments. It is my intention, as a senator from the Northern Territory, to support the amendments that have been moved. I say to the Australian Democrats, who say that they champion the underdog, that in this case the Northern Territoy is the underdog. I ask the Democrats now- Senator Haines —I thought it was top dog, Senator. Senator KILGARIFF —It may be a joke to Senator Haines, but if she travels to the Territory she will see that the rights of the individual and the rights of the Northern Territory are fiercely protected. I ask the Democrats to join Opposition senators in supporting the amendments. I also appeal to Senator Harradine, the Independent senator from Tasmania who has shown on many occasions considerable sympathy for democracy and the rights of the underdog in Australia, also to show sympathy for a Territory that is building its way to statehood. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(5.31) —I make a point to the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans) in relation to his response to me. The Opposition intends to pursue these amendments. I am sure the Attorney-General means well. But we all know the pitfalls contained in that course of action. I say to the Attorney- General, with my slightly longer experience of these matters, that there have been many occasions in the last nine years when I have heard Ministers say: ' That sounds like a good idea'. Senator Gareth Evans —Not at the time. Senator MARTIN —Even at the time. Ministers have said: 'I assure you that we will consider this and in a few months' time we will be doing something about it '. However, the Bill must be passed today. It is urgent and necessary. The Attorney-General did not actually say that the Bill must be passed today. He has not yet said that. Senator Gareth Evans —We are working on it. Senator MARTIN —I would like it to happen, too, but only, of course, after a full and thorough debate of all the points that I wish to raise. As I said earlier, there is no reason to consider that there be an undue delay. The House of Representatives is sitting tonight. It will sit tomorrow, tomorrow night and next week. I hope that we will finish debating this Bill fairly expeditiously this evening. It may not happen. That is in the Committee's hands. But in any event the normal course of handling amendments would allow them to be presented to the House of Representatives for its assent quite expeditiously at the Committee's request. I am not aware-the Attorney-General certainly has not outlined it and I suspect it would not be the case-that a very minor delay which may entail only a few hours would in any way upset the Government's case, its course or proceedings. I reiterate briefly that I accept all of Senator Kilgariff's and Mr Everingham's points. This matter is important. The Northern Territory is disadvantaged, albeit inadvertently, and no doubt the Attorney- General has the best of intentions. But life is full of little accidents, and whilst the Attorney-General means well and has the best intention in the world, the Opposition nevertheless intends to press the matter and will test the Committee's will on these amendments. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(5.33) —While I fully understand Senator Kilgariff speaking to his constituency in the way that he did, I am not sure that he fully took on board the reason why the Northern Territory is being treated as it is in clause 6. It is not merely being treated equally; in a sense , it is being treated more equally. It has a whole clause to itself, a whole guaranteed head of power. Senator Martin —There are other Territories. Senator GARETH EVANS —But his concern in relation to the Northern Territory is met by the fact that the Bill-and the Act-will stand unsullied by any possible limitation elsewhere in its operation in the Northern Territory. Senator Martin —Clause 6 (1) does not apply only to the Northern Territory. Senator GARETH EVANS —No, but it applies to the Territories as distinct from the States. That is accepted. I make two other points. I ask honourable senators to refer to clause 13 of the Bill. It will be seen that in relation to the very important question of giving of consent to the doing of various things, there is an obligation to consult the Northern Territory Government just as much as the Government of the appropriate State. There is certainly no discrimination in that clause. The only area in which there appears to be any discrimination on the face of the Bill is in relation to clause 17, which contains the compensation provisions and the composition of the commission of inquiry. Those are the provisions, incidentally, which the Government wants to remove from the Bill, I understand, by way of a later amendment. So it may be that this debate will be wholly academic. I simply repeat the undertaking I gave that should this become of practical significance- Senator Harradine —The Government wants to remove clause 17? Senator GARETH EVANS —No, the Government does not want to. I am sorry; I am still slipping into my bad linguistic habits. The Opposition wants to remove bits of clause 17 relating to compensation procedures. Senator Walters —Was that a Freudian slip? Senator GARETH EVANS —No, I do not think Freud had much to do with this one. I know that Senator Walters's mind is constantly preoccupied with the dark mysteries of Freud but not on this occasion, I think, does he have any relevance . Senator Martin —Would you mind starting again? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am trying to reduce the length of this debate as much as possible. Apart from the reference in clause 6, the exotic constitutional argument about the foundations of this whole legislation which we have dealt with, the only two references which the Territory could possibly be concerned about insofar as discriminatory treatment is concerned, seem to be clause 13 relating to consents and clause 17 relating to procedures for compensation at a commission of inquiry. As to clause 13, the Territory is dealt with in exactly the same way as the States. So there is no point in issue there. As to clause 17 , I have indicated that should this become practically relevant before we have had time to amend the Bill later in the year, I undertake that the Government will treat the Territory in the same way. If there is any doubt about the quality of that undertaking or the undertaking later in the year in a miscellaneous amendments Bill to amend the text of the legislation itself in this respect, all I can say is that I not only give the undertaking but also cross my heart and hope to die and, if that is not good enough for Senator Martin and Senator Walters, I take mother's dying oath. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(5.37) —I seek the guidance of the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans) on how this would affect the operation of clause 15 which requires copies of proclamations to be laid before Parliament and relates to certain parliamentary activities. I expect that the amendment would have the effect of including the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly as one of the Houses of Parliament, and I would think that is a very significant matter for the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. Question put: That the words proposed to be inserted (Senator Martin's amendment) be inserted . The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman-Senator Haines) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 31 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 4 —— Baume, Peter Lajovic, M. E. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lewis, A. W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. MacGibbon, D. J. Carrick, Sir John Martin, K. J. Chaney, F. M. Messner, A. J. Collard, S. J. Missen, A. J. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E. Durack, P. D. Scott, D. B. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Haines, J. Townley, M. Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S. Harradine, B. Watson, J. O. W. Jessop, D. S. Withers, R. G. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Bolkus, N. McClelland, DouglasButton, J. N. McIntosh, G. D. Childs, B. K. Macklin, M. J. Chipp, D. L. Maguire, G. R. Coates, J. Mason, C. V. J. Coleman, R. N. Primmer, C. J. Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Reynolds, M. Elstob, R. C. Richardson, G. F. Evans, Gareth Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Evans, Jack Ryan, S. M. Foreman, D. J. Sibraa, K. W. Georges, G. Tate, M. C. Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A. Grimes, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Hearn, J. M. Archer, B. R. Jones, G. N. Rae, Peter Colston, M. A. Hill, R. Giles, P. J. Question so resolved in the negative. Clause 3 agreed to. Clauses 4 and 5-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 6 (Property to which section 9 applies). Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(5.46) —I move: (4) Page 3, clause 6, sub-clause (2), lines 1 to 34, leave out the sub-clause, insert the following sub-clause: '(2) A proclamation may also be made under sub- section (3) in relation to identified property that is in a State if the property, after the commencement of this Act, has been included in the World Heritage List by the World Heritage Committee, pursuant to Article 11 of the Convention and the Parliament of the State and the Commonwealth have consented to that inclusion.'. Clause 6 is, of course, the crux of this Bill. The issue is not whether there should be a dam in South West Tasmania; it is whether we are to have the usage of the external affairs power of the Constitution in such a way that we might as well forget about Federation. During the debate a number of-- Senator Gareth Evans —You don't mean that; come on! Senator MARTIN —Senator, you have lots of turns. I am familiar with your point of view. That is not going to stop you expressing it. You may be familiar with mine. I am going to express it. Senator Georges —Well, why don't you give your own view and not someone else's? Senator MARTIN —I am sorry I called a division, Madam Chairman. It seems to have brought into the chamber all sorts of people who are not really interested in the Bill. Section 51 of the Constitution allows the Parliament, subject to the Constitution, to have power to make laws for the 'peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth' with respect to external affairs; and other powers are delineated. This clause of the Bill reaches out to take in all the powers of the Constitution that this Government has been able to think of to make this Bill legitimate. Of course, the High Court will determine whether the Bill is legitimate in the end. But I say to the Government that it has succumbed to a temptation which it may well regret in the end. I also say to the Government that I am sure it is aware that it is not the first government that has had that temptation. It is just the first to have grabbed at the opportunity as fully as this clause and the provisions of this Bill provide. Sub-section (2) of the Bill which the Opposition would have deleted and replaced provides a number of heads of power under which the Commonwealth is proceeding or attempting to proceed, not the least significant of which is that in paragraph (e), that is, the nationhood power. The appeal to heritage that is distinctive of the Australian nation has nothing to do with the World Heritage Convention and nothing to do with what the Government says are our obligations under international agreements, controversial as those agreements are or as the Government's interpretation of our obligations under those agreements are. Clause 6, sub-section (2) states that proclamations may be made in relation to certain property on the basis of an international obligation, whether by reason of the Convention or otherwise. A little while ago Senator Walters referred to a view that has been expressed by Dr Klugman, a member of the Government, a view that was referred to in the second reading debate here and in the other place. The dangers of basing on this what is really domestic policy should be very obvious. The dangers should be obvious to the Australian Labor Party whether in Government or in Opposition. I agree that the matter whether a dam is built in South West Tasmania is a very serious one. The Fraser Government went to quite extraordinary lengths to try to persuade the Tasmanian Government not to go ahead with the construction of that dam. What we were not prepared to do in Government was to move on the external affairs power so that a State government could be told whether it could build a dam and how it was to generate its power. Distressing as the issue is, it is a matter that should have been negotiated, and negotiated fully. I am not going to traverse the entire argument of what the Hawke Government did or did not do. However, I assert that its record on this matter is very poor indeed. I do not think anyone is satisfied that the Hawke Government really tried to negotiate with the Tasmanian Government. On the contrary, after coming to government the Australian Labor Party moved very quickly to do anything but negotiate and to take a confrontationist attitude. The Opposition claims that Australia has certain responsibilities under its international agreements. I say to the Government that, in a democracy, its first responsibility is to the nation within its borders. The Government has the responsibility to the Constitution, and to constitutional arrangements of powers and to what people's expectations are under the Constitution. The laws should not be made by the High Court. The fact is that the High Court interprets the law from time to time. That has resulted in the Commonwealth being ruled to have certain powers that some people may have believed it did not have. But they are trivial in comparison with the attempt that the Government makes on this occasion. If that attempt is successful, frankly, the sky is the limit in relation to Commonwealth Government powers-the Government is attempting, through writing a Bill very persuasively, to bring the High Court to the point of view that it ought to take this action in relation to something that has always been regarded as a State power and responsibility. The fact is that nobody would have thought until very recently that a Commonwealth government would have attempted to legislate on the matter of the building of a dam or the generation of power under this head of power in the Constitution. It may be that the High Court will rule in the Government's favour on this case but if it does the Government will know that it has achieved that power through a device of wording in this clause which has nothing whatsoever to do with what the people of Australia want to see happen to their Constitution, and it is their Constitution. Power in Australia does not belong to the Commonwealth Government or the State governments. Power belongs to the people of Australia because they determine what power a Commonwealth or a State government will have. The people approved a Constitution. They have had several opportunities to change the Constitution. Sometimes they have agreed to a changing of the Constitution, but sometimes they have said: 'No, that is your suggestion, but this is our decision'. They have reasserted that the distribution of power and who may exercise it belongs to them. So, the Constitution belongs to the people, not to the High Court, not to the Attorneys-General, not to lawyers with their fancy arguments that can go on for hours and not, indeed, to the politicians with their fancy arguments that can also go on for hours on occasions-but only when the occasion merits, of course. The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), the Government and, I think , the High Court, would know that, if a proposal was put to the people of Australia that power be so rearranged under section 51 of the Constitution that a Commonwealth Government was to have the power to decide who was to build dams and generate power, if it was going to decide whether on a piece of land in a State a tree could be cut down, I am sure that all of the powers and other aspects that are detailed under this Bill would not be agreed to by the people. In the second reading debate, I made reference to an editorial in the Australian Financial Review. That editorial and my argument on it were picked up by Senator Coates and presented quite wrongly. The argument in that editorial- the point which I put to the Government now-was that for all the Government's bleating on certain matters after the Constitutional Convention, this Bill, which raises one of the strongest points at issue under our Constitution since Federation, was not put to the Constitutional Convention. Indeed the power transfer that this Bill represents was not put by the Government to the Constitutional Convention. The Government could have sought an opinion, but it knows very well that it would not even have had its Labor Caucus operating in that Constitutional Convention if it had sought to take to the central Government the sort of power that this Bill and this clause in particular seek to take to the central Government. The Attorney-General ought to address himself to the point that has been raised again and again, from within his party and outside his party. What is the limit of those international conventions and treaties if this provision is to be acted upon? We are signatories and have been signatories in good faith to a number of United Nations international conventions. I, along with other members of the Opposition, am urging the ratification of another convention. But it is not my intention that, in so doing, certain powers be taken away from State governments , which is a potential if the Attorney means to proceed in this way. I ask the Attorney: What is his intention? What is his Government's intention in relation to those international conventions of the same kind as this to which we have been signatories? Does he intend to use them, or would he use them in such a way in the future to override what have been considered to be the powers of the States in the past if a State government did something that this Government did not like, or if a State government did something that some pressure group did not like and that pressure group was in a position to bring some sort of pressure to bear on the Government? What is his intention in relation to those conventions? Is this the first step? If it is not, and this is a once-off measure, I ask: Why? What is so different about the arguments that can be advanced for this specific case and the just as persuasive, just as emotive and just as worthy arguments that can be advanced in other cases under other conventions? I would like to know the criteria that this Government applies and the criteria that the Attorney-General will apply and recommend to his Government in the future. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Haines) —Mr Attorney, I understand that a number of other people wish to speak to this clause. Do you want to answer Senator Martin now or do you wish to answer the lot together? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(5.57) —I would like to answer the general point at this stage. If there are any matters of detail-I am sure Senator Walters will confine herself to matters of detail; the general arguments having been put so forcefully by Senator Martin-I will be happy to accommodate her. Senator Walters —Madam Temporary Chairman, do you not think it is a waste of time if a number of honourable senators wish to ask questions? The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —If the Attorney-General wants to answer the general point I think he is entitled to do so. Senator GARETH EVANS —I simply put on record at the outset that it will come as no surprise to anybody that the Government rejects this amendment which would completely denude the Bill of its reliance on the external affairs power and, to that extent, make it possible for the Commonwealth to meet its international obligations under the World Heritage Convention in circumstances where the States were not acting to protect cultural and natural heritage property. That, after all, is what the Bill is all about. Senator Martin asked what were the limits of our reliance on the external affairs power. The simple answer is: We will rely on the external affairs power in those cases where we believe it to be necessary to do so in order to ensure that we can meet Australia's international obligations. We cannot be sure that we can meet those obligations simply by leaving it to the States. The proof of the pudding is in South West Tasmania, if nowhere else. The main point I want to make briefly is that in all the rhetoric that is traded on this issue-fine popular rhetoric it was from Senator Martin on this occasion-there is an extraordinarily selective quality about the Opposition's indignation as far as the use of the external affairs power is concerned. Might I remind her and other Opposition senators that the external affairs power has supported Commonwealth regulation of intrastate aviation since the 1930s without a squeak of protest from anyone on the other side. Senator Martin —Or, indeed, from anyone outside the Parliament. Senator GARETH EVANS —Indeed. But if there were something wrong in principle about the use of the external affairs power to regulate internal matters then presumably there would be squeaks of protest, or roars of protest as the case may be, about the aviation matter. Senator Martin —That is not controversial. Senator GARETH EVANS —Let me make the point, if there were something intrinsically wrong-that is the claim that is being made by at least some of the people on the other side-about the external affairs power being utilised by the Commonwealth to exercise its authority in areas where it otherwise would not have the authority, why then did the Fraser Government rely on the external affairs power, at least in part, to support its amendment to the Atomic Energy Act? Why then did the Fraser Government-Senator Martin might listen to this-rely , at least in part, on the external affairs power and only the external affairs power to support the Environment Protection (Nuclear Codes) Act? Why then did the Fraser Government rely on the external affairs power, at least in part, to support its legislation establishing the Institute of Multicultural Affairs if there were something so intrinsically wrong in principle about the Commonwealth acquiring power by this means to do things which it would otherwise lack the power to do? If there is something fundamentally incompatible with the Federal compact for this power to be used as a support for Commonwealth legislation how on earth does one justify that legislation? Senator Martin, by way of interjection, gave us one clue as to how the Government might justify the use of these powers-she said that they were uncontroversial. She distinguished uncontroversial cases, such as intrastate aviation, from what is manifestly controversial, that is, the utilisation of the external affairs power by the Commonwealth in the context of the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill. Senator Lewis —There is also an external element. Senator GARETH EVANS —If that is the distinction-let me finish on this point-if it is the degree of controversy that is a determining characteristic in establishing whether it is appropriate enough for the exteral powers to be employed what then does Senator Martin say about the Fraser Government's action in defence of the Racial Discrimination Act in the Koowarta case where we had in issue one of the most vitriolic controversies involving so-called federal principles that it would be possible to imagine in Queensland's challenge to the Racial Discrimination Act squarely based on the external affairs power with every claim that is being made in the context of the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill being made a dozen times louder in terms of this dreadful Commonwealth legislation impacting on the States? But we had, very properly, the Fraser Government going to the barricades over at the High Court of Australia in defence of the application of the external affairs power to protect this argument. I am simply saying that on the other side of this chamber there is a gross inconsistency and a gross selectivity in the utilisation of these arguments against the external affairs power. Since this has been an amicable debate-we all want to keep it that way-I will not go so far as to accuse anyone of hypocrisy or any of those sordid things that might be appropriate. We are having a perfectly reasonable discussion on the appropriate limits of Commonwealth power and the technical way in which that power can be exercised. Let us try to keep it that way. But, at the same time, let us please not have double talk of the kind that is so obviously involved in so much of the Opposition's attack on the utilisation of the external affairs power. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(6.4) —I have listened to the answer given by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) to the general case put by Senator Martin on behalf of the Opposition. I cede that it is a legal argument. We could go on with that general debate. I want to particularise my support of the arguments put by Senator Martin and to note that I am not convinced by the general arguments which the Attorney quite eloquently put. I preface my remarks by saying that I did not speak during the second reading debate on the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill 1983. By agreement in this chamber we cut short that second reading debate. Senator Georges —If you are making a second reading speech now, you are out of order. Senator TEAGUE —I will not be making a second reading speech but I want to make a few introductory remarks. I am opposed to the dam in South West Tasmania. I am a Liberal senator from South Australia and I am opposed to the dam. Arguments have been put at great length and often enough by other honourable senators. I identify myself with the remarks by my colleagues from South Australia, Senator Hill and Mr Wilson, the honourable member for Sturt. However, I am also opposed to any intervention by law of this Commonwealth interfering with the rightful decision of a State. However, I am also opposed to any intervention by law of this Commonwealth interfering with the rightful decision of a State parliament and in this case even a decision by the State Parliament of Tasmania with which I disagree. I believe that the crux of this Bill is clause 6. I am opposed to it for five reasons. The first reason has already been given; that is, the use of the external affairs power. It may be that the Attorney-General can say that this is then to be determined by the High Court of Australia. I want to put it on record that, as an Opposition senator, I will not use that weapon to win an outcome in the short term-in this case stopping the dam in South West Tasmania- however good that outcome may be and however much I may support that outcome. The implications of using the external affairs power do not relate so much to paragraphs (a) (b) (c) and (d) of sub-clause (2), all of which do have some international connotation. But I draw attention to clause (6) (2) (e) (i), which does not relate to an international treaty or convention, or to an international concern or obligation, or to the World Heritage List. Senator Gareth Evans —It has nothing to do with the foreign affairs power. That is why. It is well known. Senator TEAGUE —Yes. That is right. We are on the same wavelength. How can it be right to include paragraph (e) when the honourable senator's general compass of remarks about clause 6 related entirely to the use of the external affairs power ? I am saying that this is outside the ambit and it is objectionable in clause 6 . I support the Opposition's amendment, that would have paragraph (e) of clause 6 entirely deleted. The second reason for my opposing clause 6 is that it directly trespasses upon State decisions. The amendment that we are putting forward would say that it is necessary for the consent of a State parliament for an inclusion of a property within the compass of this Bill. In principle, many of us in the Opposition will support a measure that purports to protect environmentally significant properties in a State or in a part of Australia that is not a State. But let it be so confined that it is not under paragraph (b) (c) or (d) or (e) but only paragraph (a) and applies only to those properties that are listed on the World Heritage List and that gain the consent of a State parliament. If the Government wishes to have the support of the Opposition, indeed a consensus in the whole Parliament, to gain this protection for the matter that is most at issue-that is , the items of property on the World Heritage List-it can have that protection with the support of almost all honourable senators if it accepts the amendment put forward by the Opposition. The amendment rejects this wider ambit. Does the public realise the extraordinary width of these paragraphs of clause 6 ? Earlier on when we were talking about the definition of an identified property under clause 3 the Attorney-General mentioned Luna Park and a municipal lavatory . He said perhaps these items could become identified property and could be seen to have some aesthetic, historic, scientific or social significance. He did not dismiss those two examples as coming within the ambit of clause 6, when clause 3 and clause 6 are taken together. I would be a little more serious and a little more plausible and say: What about the Rocks area of Sydney Harbour, that magnificent old colonial area opposite the Opera House at the southern end of the Sydney Harbour Bridge? It can very well be argued that that is an area of historic, social and aesthetic significance to Australians. Let us say that the Australian Labor Government in power in New South Wales can convince itself that the area, although not on the World Heritage List, is an identified property under clause 3 (2) sub-paragraph (ii) and also comes under clause 6 (e). All of a sudden the individuals who own a house in the Rocks area cannot kick a pebble, cannot take a leaf off a tree, cannot replace a window or cannot sell the property. I do not believe that the right of individuals, local government or State Parliaments to make decisions ought to be trespassed upon by such a wide ambit in this Bill. That is why we want to restrict clause 6 to strictly world heritage listed properties and such properties that are under consideration because of the consent of a State parliament and this Commonwealth Parliament. Also affected could be my parish church in Adelaide. A subset of items under the National Trust or on the Australian heritage list could all of a sudden be declared by this Commonwealth Parliament as identified property of aesthetic value and so protected by this legislation. Senator Gareth Evans —You are not pretending that the present Tasmanian situation is covered by this amending clause? Senator TEAGUE —I am saying that clause 6 has such a wide ambit that it could include a series of parish churches or local government buildings of truly historic significance in my State of South Australia. I do not wish them to be so included. What about the lower tributaries of the Murray River? It is a matter for local government decision and planning as to its use by local farmers , by persons involved in recreational activities, and rightly so. But why should it be the right of this Commonwealth Parliament? I have not gained any assurance that under clause 6 such a property is excluded. I believe it does come within the ambit of this clause, and it is totally inappropriate for it to be so included. Let us take another controversial case, the Noonkanbah case in Western Australia of an Aboriginal sacred site being defined by the Aboriginal people of Noonkanbah and by the Western Australian museum. Oil had been found in the area and a drilling rig was installed in order to extract it. What is to stop a majority in the Parliament of this Commonwealth declaring Noonkanbah- The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(6.14) —I cannot support the Opposition's amendment to this clause. It clearly would eliminate a great deal of the strength of this Bill if these provisions were taken from it. It would certainly greatly weaken the reliance upon the external affairs power. Paragraph (2) (d) states: . . . the protection or conservation of the property by Australia is a matter of international concern (whether or not it is also a matter of domestic concern ) . . . Those words are significant to the statements in the Koowarta case and other statements by the High Court of Australia that it can be of concern both domestically and internationally and still come within the external affairs power. Therefore, I think there is a considerable significance in the language that is used in that clause. As I understand paragraph (e), to which Senator Teague has been referring, it is mainly dependent upon the nationhood power-the incidental power and not the external affairs power. I think, although it might be said that the Government has gone fairly wide in its ambit in this area, that it is important, if there is threatened destruction of important areas of Australia, that the Government should be able to act in this way. What Senator Teague ignored entirely is the fact that if proclamations are made in this way they are disallowable by either House of this Parliament. We know that. We know the powers the Senate has. I am afraid that the Opposition is choosing to ignore that for the moment. Indeed, we know that if the Government goes too far in regard to items, either House of the Parliament will be in a position to disallow any such proclamation and it will lapse. In fact, Senator Martin said that power belongs to the people and that somehow the external affairs power should not be taken further. Senator Evans has answered that. It is clear that we on this side of the chamber have, over the years, relied extensively on the external affairs power. We cannot ignore that fact. That has been most desirable. It has been done by our late Government in regard to environmental matters. I will not repeat what I said in my second reading speech last night in which I made it clear that I applaud the use that has been made of the external affairs power by Commonwealth governments, including non-Labor governments, in recent years. In fact, that power does not remain static and unchangeable. I quoted last night from judgments of Mr Justice Mason and Mr Justice Stephen in the Koowarta case in which they indicated the wide extension of the external affairs power since the War. What is important is that in situations in which the Commonwealth has the power this Commonwealth Government is duty bound. It has a responsibility to use that power when matters of great importance and matters for which it has international obligations are involved and properties are threatened with destruction. I disagree with this amendment. I disagree not only with taking out the clause, which I think is vital to the Bill, but also with inserting and rigidifying in this clause the idea that we must get the consent of both the State and Commonwealth parliaments for the inclusion of any future item. Whilst I would hope that such discussions and consents would be obtained, there may be occasions when the duty of the Commonwealth is to protect items in cases where a State flagrantly sets about the destruction of some matter which is of national significance and international value. Consequently, this amendment would be disastrous if it were successful and I cannot in any way support it. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(6.18) —As has already been said, clause 6 is the crux of the whole Bill. I ask Senator Evans to let us know the aim of the Government. The aim of the Government is not, as has been put to the people of Australia, just to stop the building of the dam in South West Tasmania. That is not the aim . There would be no need for all the additional sub-clauses if that were the case. There is no need for the breadth of the provisions of this Bill if the Government's aim is to stop the building of the dam in the South West. So what is the aim of the Government? I am attempting to alert the Australian population to the aim of this Government, to the aim of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) who, in his Boyer lectures, assured the Australian people that he saw no use for State governments, that he thought they were quite superfluous and that he believed in one central government. Senator Gareth Evans —Is this relevant to the clause, Mr Chairman? Senator WALTERS —Mr Chairman, as I have said, I believe this is the crux of the Bill. If I cannot speak about the intention of the Government in including clause 6 in this tremendously broad fashion to cover what I believe is the aim of the Government, I think Senator Evans is only trying to stifle debate with that interjection. The CHAIRMAN —Please, Senator Walters, you have not been restrained yet. Senator WALTERS —No, but Senator Evans is attempting to have that happen. I have already said that I believe the Prime Minister's comments in the Boyer lectures have made it very clear to the Australian people what this Bill is all about. It is now a matter of getting that fact across to the Australian people and alerting them to the fact that this Bill is not, as the Government says, just about the South West. As has been said in this Committee, we have the use of four heads of power. We are not just relying on the external affairs power but also on the Aboriginal affairs power, the corporate affairs power and the national power. I wish that the Government would be honest and express its aim to the people. It should go to the people in the referendum that is to be held in August or whenever it will be. I do not know when the referendum will be held but we will have one this year. The Government should add this question to those being asked in the referendum and say to the people: 'We are a centralist government. We want the power to reside in the central government. We think the States are unnecessary and we want you to give us that power'. The Government should go to the people honestly instead of trying to circumvent the Constitution by the back door methods which are associated with this Bill. In the Koowarta case in which the external affairs power was used, the Chief Justice, when referring to the possible interpretations of that external affairs power, pointed out that it was impossible to envisage any area of power which could not become the subject of Commonwealth legislation if the Commonwealth became a party to an appropriate international agreement. We asked the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) earlier how far he was prepared to go in using the external affairs power and he said that he would use it in any case or in any convention in which he could not trust the States to use the power. I believe the words he used were: 'If we cannot leave it to the States to implement it'. Senator Martin referred to the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. I believe the Government is going to ratify that Convention soon. Are all States in agreement with that Convention? Are all Attorneys-General in favour of it? Senator Evans is nodding: I have my doubts about whether that is accurate. Not all States have passed anti-discrimination legislation. Will the Government force the States to do so by ratifying that Convention? How far is the Government intending to go? Senator Evans has referred to the external affairs power in relation to aviation and he mentioned a few other areas. Senator Watson —They are all new areas. Senator WALTERS —As Senator Watson says, broadcasting and aviation are new areas . But there has never been any controversy about that. For Senator Evans to say that just because there is no controversy about a matter does not mean that the ability to use the external affairs power is taken away is just deliberate nonsense on his part. If a State were in full agreement with the Government doing that and if Tasmania were in full agreement to handing over to the Commonwealth its powers in relation to the South West I would not be arguing that at all. The fact is that my State says that they are our powers and the Commonwealth Government is using the external affairs powers to overcome the Constitution and the decision of the democratically elected Government of my State. As much as the Commonwealth Government wants to take away the traditional powers of my State and do away with my State Government, as its Prime Minister has made very clear, the situation is that that can be done only through a referendum. I ask the Attorney-General to go to the people and be honest about this matter. He should go to the people and ask them whether they want to give the Commonwealth those additional powers. The Government should not seek to do that through this back door method. We were told during the election campaign that the Government would conciliate and consult. The Prime Minister in his speech on election night mentioned the words consultation and consensus but said 'Tasmania will not build its dam'. In his acceptance speech of the power that the people had given him he said: 'There will be no dam. I will not even hand the matter over to another Minister; I will deal with it myself. I will make sure that the Tasmanian Government succumbs to the will of my Government'. This is exactly what the Prime Minister is attempting to do. However that is not all he is trying to do. Senator McIntosh —Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order. I think you should draw the honourable senator's attention to the clause she is supposed to be discussing. The CHAIRMAN —I have been listening to Senator Walters. In her opening remarks she claimed that this matter is the kernel of the argument, and I am prepared to accept her remarks on that basis. But I ask Senator Walters to confine her remarks as closely as possible to the matters concerned in clause 6. Senator WALTERS —Mr Chairman, I agree with you, but I do not see how I have overstepped the bounds of clause 6. It is the crux of the whole Bill. I have pointed out the use of the external affairs power. I have spoken about the Aboriginal power, the corporate affairs power and the national power, and I have explained in detail how the whole of clause 6 applies to them. We have been told earlier by Senator Gareth Evans that if only trivial treaties were entered into by Australia they could all be proved at the High Court of Australia. I point out that there are 16,000 treaties and conventions throughout the world. I am quite sure that if this Government, which likes to centralise its power in Canberra, wishes to interfere in any one area of the States' legitimate powers it will find some treaty or convention to sign and use the external affairs power. It is not up to the High Court to say whether or not that treaty is frivolous. It is up to the High Court to say only whether the treaty is binding on the Commonwealth. Senator Gareth Evans —Learn some law before you misstate the position. Senator WALTERS —Senator Evans, please do not be so patronising. You might consider yourself a wonderful lawyer but you are an academic and you have never entered the practical field of law. I think that a little practical experience might do you the world of good. The CHAIRMAN —Senator Walters, would you address your remarks through the Chair rather than directly to Senator Evans. Senator Gareth Evans —Will you correct the inaccuracy? I was full time at the Bar for two years. Senator WALTERS —If Senator Evans interjects it is almost incumbent on me to answer him. Mr Chairman, if you ask Senator Evans to direct any statements he may have through the Chair it may be a good idea. I seem to have covered most of the areas that I wish to talk about, but, for the sake of the people who are listening tonight, I refer to clause 6 (2) (d) because I believe it is the worst clause. It sets out very clearly that a proclamation can be made about any area that the Commonwealth may think has natural or cultural meaning to Australia, that is, any area that is of international concern, regardless of whether it be of domestic concern. In other words Australia may not consider a particular area is of natural or cultural heritage. However, a group of people from any country could say 'We would like you to conserve that area' and because the Government may consider that for international purposes it would like to conserve it we could find the Commonwealth stepping in and saying: 'We believe that area ought to be proclaimed. We believe that because countries XYZ say they think we ought to proclaim it then we will proclaim it'. It does not matter what Australians think about it. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. The CHAIRMAN —Before I call Senator Walters, who wishes to complete her speech, I think I should say that, although I have allowed the debate so far to be fairly wide-ranging, and senators are undoubtedly entitled to question the constitutionality of any provision, debate on the broader constitutional issues was really a matter for the second reading stage and they were adequately canvassed there. I would like honourable senators, if they could, to confine their remarks more precisely to the provisions and to their constitutional bases . Senator WALTERS —There are only two further questions that I would like to ask Senator Gareth Evans. Is he in the chamber? I would like the Attorney-General to be present in the chamber when I wish to address questions to him. The CHAIRMAN —I cannot enforce the attendance of the Attorney-General. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(8.1) —I wish to put one question regarding this matter and it concerns clause 6 (2) which, in part, states: A Proclamation may also be made under sub-section (3) in relation to identified property that is in a State and is property to which one or more of the following paragraphs applies or apply . . . Subclause (2) (d) states: The protection or conservation of the property by Australia is a matter of international concern . . . My specific question is this: What constitutes international concern? Does international concern mean a solitary English professor, bearded or not bearded, appearing on television in London? Does it mean the President of the United States writing to the Prime Minister of Australia? In other words, I think that international concern is not defined. I think it is something that the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) should define very well, otherwise it would be quite stupid of the Committee to allow such a statute to go on the books. We do not want a few people in other areas of the world to decide what shall happen, particularly in the State of Tasmania. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(8.3) —I have a few specific questions for the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) in relation to clause 6. I wish to speak in support of the amendments moved by Senator Martin because it is most important that they are carried. Before I turn to those specific points, I wish to address a matter raised by the Attorney-General before the suspension of the sitting for dinner. He spoke about the use of the reserve powers in relation to aviation and air navigation in Australia. Either the Attorney-General does not know or it has slipped his memory that the reason why those powers came about was that the States sought them. The provision resulted from the full co- operation of the several State governments of Australia, in concert with the Federal Government. That is why it came about in the way that it did. If the Attorney-General is not aware that there is a great deal of controversy about the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill, he should leave his ivory tower and go out into the streets and talk to some ordinary people along the length and breadth of Australia. As Senator Martin said, this is the most dangerous clause in the Bill because it is a move to outflank the constitutional State governments. Quite clearly, it threatens the freedoms of ordinary Australian citizens and the basis of the Federation of Australia. I have great concerns about the Federal Government being a signatory to international bodies because, as Senator Walters mentioned, there are over 16,000 agreements in this category. Most of the 72 member countries of the World Heritage Committee do not have democratic governments. Neither the United Kingdom nor New Zealand are members of this organisation, and they are probably the two countries which are closest to our cultural pattern. Japan, probably the most conservation-minded country in the world, will not be a member of this body. We have a non-elected body outflanking the elected governments of Australia. It is a way of reducing the sovereignty of our governments. We fought for generations for our freedom and we now sign it away on a piece of paper. Frankly, I do not support that action in any way at all. As previous speakers to the amendments to this clause have noted, the fundamental objection is that it is so wide-reaching. I understand what the Attorney-General is trying to achieve with this legislation. I think he has gone for massive overkill. Whilst I cannot accept in any way at all the objectives he is striving for, he can obtain those objectives sanely and safely if he accepts the amendments that we propose. I should like the Attorney-General to answer the following questions in relation to clause 6 (2) (b) which states: the protection or conservation of the property by Australia is a matter of international obligation, whether by reason of the Convention or otherwise; Will the Attorney-General advise the Senate what the word 'otherwise' means in that context? Will he give us an example of the circumstances in which that clause or the word 'otherwise' could be implemented? As Senator Townley said, clause 6 (2) (d) states: the protection or conservation of the property by Australia is a matter of international concern . . . Could the Committee have a definition in an unambiguous way of 'international concern'? Frankly, I cannot define 'international concern'. How is it measured? Is it measured by a poll of all the nations of the world? Are they free nations? Are they democratic nations? Is it a matter of whether our most powerful allies are concerned, or-I am quite serious about this-is it a matter of whether our most powerful potential enemies are concerned? Quite frankly, I do not understand what that word means in that context. I now turn to clause 6 (2) (e) which, in part, states: the property is part of the heritage distinctive of the Australian nation- (i) by reason of its aesthetic, historic, scientific or social significance . . . Who is to be the arbiter of what is aesthetic in this country? It is an indefinable term. But the law must have precision, particularly for lawyers because they believe in blacks and whites. To enact a Bill such as this, the Attorney-General must know very clearly what an aesthetic property is in Australia. I wish he would inform the Committee. What is of social significance? These are variable matters which change from beholder to beholder, from judge to judge. They change from time to time within the one person judging them, and they change also within the various ages and customs of a society. I believe that clause 6 is so wide as to be very dangerous for the whole of Australia. I know what the Attorney-General is trying to do. Why can he not do it in a sane and responsible way and accept the amendments? Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(8.9) —Now that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has come into the chamber, I will address my additional two questions to him. The first question concerns clause 6 (2) (a). I gather that that clause is retrospective to pick up the Tasmanian dam issue. Has the Attorney-General any idea of what else it would pick up, being retrospective as it is? My second question concerns clause 6 (2) (e) (ii) which states: by reason of its international or national renown, I gather that the Commonwealth makes the decision whether it is international or national renown, and not the State concerned. Is it a fact that the Commonwealth will decide whether an area in a State is of international or national renown, or is the State to be allowed to make its own decision in this area? Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(8.10) —Further to my earlier remarks I note the consolations that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) offered to the Opposition, which is opposing clause 6 as it presently stands of the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill. He said that although it has a wide ambit and goes far beyond properties on the World Heritage List, and although it does interfere with and may be contrary to State parliamentary decisions or the decisions of other legitimate decision-making bodies in Australia, there is of course the consolation that there can be a disallowance of a proclamation made under the Act. That is no consolation, because this Bill provides for a strict and severe form of disallowance. It requires that both Houses of the Parliament have to agree on that disallowance, not just one House. It is very difficult indeed to get both Houses to agree on a disallowance. Senator Gareth Evans —Read 15 (3), you dolt, before you shoot your mouth off. Senator TEAGUE —I have read the Bill. The CHAIRMAN —Senator Evans, restrain your remarks. Senator Martin —Mr Chairman, I take a point of order. The CHAIRMAN —I understand the point. Senator Evans must restrain himself. Senator Gareth Evans —I am afraid Senator Evans is a perfect gentleman but he is not going to put up with ignorance. Senator Martin —With respect, I do not think Senator Teague has to put up with being called a dolt. Senator Evans should be asked to withdraw. The CHAIRMAN —Senator Evans, you will withdraw that remark. Senator Gareth Evans —I am indebted to Senator Martin for reminding me that I have been behaving like a gentleman all afternoon and I think I ought to go on behaving that way. Accordingly, I withdraw. Senator TEAGUE —I thank the Attorney-General for that gracious withdrawal. I have in my hand a Bill which originated in the House of Representatives and which was passed on 5 May. Sub-clause 16 (3) on page 10 of the Bill states: A proclamation shall not be made pursuant to sub-section (1) or (2) except in accordance with a resolution passed by each House of the Parliament . . . I interpret the phrase 'each House of the Parliament' to mean that both houses of the Parliament need to disallow the proclamation. Senator Gareth Evans —That is the revocation exercise. Senator TEAGUE —I would be assisted if the honourable senator could clarify that in his answer. My understanding is that the width of the ambit, the over- extension of the terms of the Bill, is such that the consolation is that the Bill can be relatively easily disallowed by a simple majority in one House of the Parliament. The other consolation put forward by the Attorney-General is that it is possible for the validity of the Act, or of a particular proclamation based on the external affairs power, to be taken to the High Court. He must know that that is an expensive, long and complicated process, and I would not want to offer that to any constituent of mine as a consolation or remedy should the Commonwealth exceed its powers under clause 6 of this Bill. Following remarks made by Senator Townley from Tasmania and Senator MacGibbon from Queensland, and because of views put to me by my own constituents in South Australia, I urge the Attorney-General to accept the burden of the argument from the Opposition that clause 6 of the Bill is inappropriate and that the amendment put by the Opposition be adopted. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(8.15) —I direct my remarks to clause 6 and suggest that it is not only retrospective in nature but also contrary to the principles of democratic government in Australia. In suggesting that it is retrospective in nature, I refer to sub-clause (2) which, in part, states: A Proclamation may also be made under sub-section (3) in relation to identified property that is in a State and is property to which one or more of the following paragraphs applies or apply: (a) the Commonwealth has, pursuant to a request by the state, submitted to the World Heritage Committee under Article 11 of the Convention that the property is suitable for inclusion in the World Heritage List provided for in paragraph 2 of that Article, whether the request by the State was made before or after the commencement of this Act and whether or not the property was identified property at the time when the request was made; Clearly that is retrospective legislation. At the time the request was made by the Premier of the State of Tasmania there was no indication that a measure such as this, reliant as it is on the external affairs power, would be adopted by the Commonwealth Parliament. So the Premier of the day put forward the nomination of the western Tasmanian wilderness national parks area for inclusion on the World Heritage List on the basis that no legislation such as this existed. The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), in his second reading speech, indicated that other areas were nominated. He said: In all, five Australian sites have been nominated by Australia and found to satisfy the tests for inclusion in the World Heritage List. These are as follows . . . The areas are the Great Barrier Reef, the Kakadu National Park, the Willandra Lakes region, the Lord Howe Island group and the western Tasmanian wilderness national parks. I ask the Minister: Is it not a fact that the five areas, with the exception of the western Tasmanian wilderness national parks, were nominated with the full approval and cognisance of the parliaments responsible for those areas or, in the case of the Kakadu National Park, by the national Parliament? At the time it passed the appropriate legislation because it had the responsibilty so to do. At that stage the Northern Territory did not have the responsibility. In regard to the Great Barrier Reef, the national Parliament had a say on that matter because it adopted the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act which contained the principle that there be a plan of management jointly operated by the Commonwealth and the State. Therefore the concurrence of the Queensland Government was obtained on the operation of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act. The Willandra Lakes region and the Lord Howe Island group are not matters of issue which have been objected to by the State of New South Wales . Therefore, the only area upon which this legislation seeks to impose retrospective operation is the western Tasmanian wilderness national parks area. That area was nominated by the Premier of the day, or the government of the day, but without the knowledge that such a piece of legislation as this would come before, much less be passed by, the Parliament of the Commonwealth. Furthermore, the nomination of the area proceeded against the express wish of the Tasmanian Government of the day. I refer the Committee to the fact that the Tasmanian Government, by telex dated 28 June 1982, before the area was accepted by the World Heritage Committee, formally requested that the nomination of the western Tasmanian wilderness national parks to the secretariat of the World Heritage Committee be withdrawn for the reasons that were set out in a telex. Then, in a letter dated 30 July 1982, the Prime Minister of Australia refused the request of the Premier of Tasmania contained in the telex dated 28 June 1982. In a letter dated 16 August 1982 the Premier of Tasmania renewed the request but the nomination was not withdrawn. So we have a situation in which the body of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation or the World Heritage Committee approved a nomination against the wishes of the Tasmanian Government, and indeed of the Tasmanian Parliament. The people of Tasmania, therefore, had no say whatsoever as to whether this area would be listed on the World Heritage List. Honourable senators might say: 'So what?' that provided the trigger which will operate the draconian measures under this legislation. That is why it is so important. I, as a citizen of Tasmania, a citizen of Australia and, indeed, as a senator of the Commonwealth Parliament had no say whatsoever as to whether this area of my State should be included on the World Heritage List. Yet the representatives of such great democracies as Iraq, and various other groups-- Senator Gareth Evans —The United States of America, Canada, Switzerland, Norway, West Germany, France-- Senator HARRADINE —Read out the others. Senator Gareth Evans —There are a few loonies. You have read them out. I am reading out the others. Senator HARRADINE —This group is not noted for its democratic principles. Indeed , thirty of the representatives of the 158 nations who occupy chairs at UNESCO sessions are free to write and say what they like about other countries. The rest are from non-democratic countries and they do not know what is going on. So here we have a situation in which the Commonwealth Government is attempting to impose upon us and to deny us the right of expression in this area. That is why I am prepared to support the amendment to clause 6 which has been proposed by the Opposition. Why should not a parliament of the State concerned, the elected representatives of the people, have a say as to whether an area should be nominated for inclusion on the World Heritage List? Indeed, I feel that the amendment does not go far enough. If the amendment is defeated, I intend to vote against the clause. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(8.25) —I wish briefly to correct a couple of things that have been said during this stage of the debate. It seems quite apparent to those of us who look at the proposed amendment objectively that it has one purpose only. In the minds of the movers and supporters it is to save the dam in Tasmania. In the minds of those who oppose it it is to ensure the destruction of the Franklin River and the surrounding area. It serves no useful purpose other than that. I think we need to bring out quite clearly that that would be the result if we were to pass this proposed amendment. I think it is essential for the Senate to recognise that this is a last-ditch stand by the troglodytes who support the Tasmanian Government, which is hell-bent on destroying one of the few remaining genuine wilderness areas in the world and in this country. When I refer to this country I mean the country of Australia, not one little segment of it. Senator Lewis —I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. Why should we put up with this word 'troglodytes' all the time? Everyone who is opposed to anything supported by Senator Gareth Evans and the Democrats is described as a troglodyte . I do not understand why this chamber should have to put up with this word being used constantly. I take strong objection to it on my own behalf. The CHAIRMAN —There is no point of order. Senator MacGibbon, do you wish to speak to the same point of order? Senator MacGibbon —Yes, I have a point of order, Mr Chairman. I object to being called a troglodyte. I object to being ridiculed when I put a point of view that is contrary to the views of the Democrats and the Labor Party. The CHAIRMAN —I understood that Senator Jack Evans was not applying the word ' troglodyte' to any particular member of this chamber. Therefore there is no point of order. Senator Walters —Mr Chairman, I take a point of order. Actually, Senator Jack Evans was referring to the Tasmanians. I object very strongly on behalf of all the Tasmanians to being called troglodytes just because we happen to disagree with Senator Jack Evans, who is a newcomer to this place and really has not followed the debate in any way. He has just done a bit of campaigning on it, nothing more. The CHAIRMAN —I thank Senator Walters for the commentary on my ruling. Senator Evans, you may continue. I think you would be wise and that we would get on faster if you refrain from making remarks like that, but you are not out of order. Senator JACK EVANS —Thank you, Mr Chairman. If honourable senators prefer it I will refer to them as conservatives, which is an even more derogatory term, I am sure. I wish to respond briefly to Senator Walters's interjection that I have entered this debate only recently. In fact I have been a participant in the debate for quite some years since I personally rafted the Franklin River and discovered its great beauties and joys. I have a very good and personal reason for endeavouring to preserve it. Senator MacGibbon —Selfish. Senator JACK EVANS —Indeed, it is selfish but not so much for myself as for the future generations who will be denied the river if this clause is accepted tonight. One of the great aspects of this Bill in its original form was that it was going to represent to the people across Australia the views of this Parliament, which in turn are represented right around the nation, with the possible exception of a few small pockets of groups of people who are very noisy and who have been able to get their point of view across through some vociferous members and senators. As a result of that noise we have had brought to us a Bill of principle which will not only save South West Tasmania but also ensure that other similar areas are saved. The clause that we are debating at the moment sets the pattern. We may be able to save South West Tasmania as a result of action by this Parliament taking its responsibility as it should and not taking direction, as has been implied by honourable senators in this chamber, from an external body. It is absolutely and totally wrong and misleading to suggest that this Government-this Parliament-will be directed by any external body. This Parliament-this Government-will make its own decision. It is doing so with the wholehearted support of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, the international body which represents the responsible views of nations around the world, irrespective of the fact that some of those nations might not be of the same political colour as some of the honourable senators who have spoken earlier this evening. The amendment, if it is passed, is an underhand means of destroying the Franklin River. It is essential that it be rejected. It is essential that those who are supporting it take a message to Tasmania that the people of Australia are very concerned at these tactics, are not willing to accept them, and that this Parliament, representing all of the people of Australia, will save the Franklin River. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(8.32) —I respond, a little sooner than I meant to, to Senator Jack Evans's gratuitous comments and to make very clear what this amendment contains. Senator Jack Evans has not been in the chamber during all of the debate on this amendment. I have been in the chamber during all of the debate on this amendment. I point out to him and to other honourable senators who have not been here what the amendment says. Senator Jack Evans —I have read it. Senator MARTIN —Well, the honourable senator has not understood it. It states that these words should be inserted: A proclamation may also be made under sub-section (3) in relation to identified property that is in a State if the property, after the commencement of this Act, has been included in the World Heritage List by the World Heritage Committee, pursuant to Article 11 of the Convention and the Parliament of the State and the Commonwealth have consented to that inclusion. Senator Jack Evans cannot take exception to one word in that amendment. All he can do is heap personal abuse on honourable senators who hold very sincere views . A number of honourable senators on this side of the chamber have spoken in this debate and expressed very sincere views on South West Tasmania, about which Senator Jack Evans could not feel very superior. For him to heap that sort of abuse on them is without precedent. I do not really care whether he used the word 'troglodyte'. It is a matter of if the cap fits, wear it. That is absolute nonsense, if he had taken notice of the speeches made by Opposition senators this evening. I ask Senator Jack Evans how he voted in the division relating to the Northern Territory amendment. Our amendment would have protected the rights of Northern Territorians and they would have been treated as they have been by Liberal governments. For all his concern about the effect of this amendment, which is not anti-South West Tasmania at all, he voted against an amendment which would have ensured for the Northern Territory some rights and privileges that it has enjoyed for years under self-government. He voted to keep that amendment explicitly out of this Bill. I would like to hear Senator Jack Evans extend his views on that subject. He was silent on that amendment. He voted, but he did not have a view put forward. His name is in Hansard as voting for a measure which disadvantages the Northern Territory, which means that the Chief Minister of that Territory does not have rights that Premiers of States have. Senator Jack Evans —I raise a point order. Mr Chairman, are we still discussing the original clause, or are we discussing clause 6? The CHAIRMAN —We are discussing clause 6. I must rule that we may not have discussion of a previous clause that has been passed by the committee. Senator Martin will direct herself to the point made by Senator Jack Evans. Senator MARTIN —I bow to your ruling, Mr Chairman. I shall say no more about the Northern Territory. I say to Senator Jack Evans that if he wanted to reopen-- Senator Macklin —You are scared of the ruling of the Chair. Senator MARTIN —No, I am not. Senator Macklin —I was talking to a senator at the back of the chamber. Senator MARTIN —The honourable senator is being very noisy. I do not know whether it was meant to reach me. The CHAIRMAN —Order! There are too many interjections. Senator Martin has the call. Senator MARTIN —Senator Jack Evans wants to reopen the second reading debate on the Opposition's attitude towards South West Tasmania. In speaking to a specific amendment that he did not refer to, a very specific debate on foreign affairs power-it was not mentioned in his speech at all-he made general comments and he must expect an answer. I want to reply to a matter raised earlier by Senator Gareth Evans, in which he took it upon himself to interpret and extend a point of view that I had put on the matter of the foreign affairs power and the use of it by the Commonwealth. He instanced the case of intra-state aviation. I am grateful to Senator MacGibbon for giving detail on how that came about. While Senator Gareth Evans was going through a list of cases where the foreign affairs power has been used by the Commonwealth-he mentioned such other matters as nuclear codes and the Institute of Multicultural Affairs-I interjected that they were non- controversial. Senator Gareth Evans, of course, was not interested in the rest of my explanation at that stage, so I will give it now. It has been necessary since Federation to find a way for the Commonwealth Government to legislate in areas which are not covered by the Constitution. Senator Gareth Evans is surely not suggesting that the building of dams and the generation of power has not gone on under the Constitution under the powers of the State for some time. That is what this debate is about. It has never been in dispute and, as Senator MacGibbon pointed out, that power was used by the Commonwealth because there was a need that was not provided for in the Constitution because there were not-- Senator Gareth Evans —Come on! Get on with it. Senator MARTIN —I would like to, Attorney. Senator Missen —The noise is over here. Senator MARTIN —The noise that was distracting me was over there. Mr Chairman, I welcome the informality that has prevailed in the chamber today. But it is degenerating to something less than informality now. Perhaps one of the reasons is because it is after the dinner break. I am trying to make a point, on behalf of the Opposition in relation to the use of the external affairs power, which was misconstrued and misextended earlier by the Attorney-General. The use of the power in those cases was to meet issues that did not exist at the time of Federation. They were non-controversial in their application. Senator Gareth Evans went on to refer to the Racial Discrimination Act, the Koowarta case and so on. There are a number of grounds on which the High Court ruled. I do not intend to canvass them. I point out that there was a referendum in 1967 in which the people voted that they believed the Commonwealth should have the power to legislate in relation to Aborigines. That was a very clearly demonstrated opinion of the majority of Australian people. I reiterate to Senator Gareth Evans that if the Commonwealth feels a need for power to undertake this exercise in South West Tasmania, it has a way open to it -that is, to find out whether Australians really want to open the Pandora's Box that he opens with this clause. He used the nationhood power as a way of propping up the case that the Commonwealth Government has taken to the High Court. Sub-clause (2) of clause 6 is a brief for the Commonwealth Government's case in the High Court. It includes a number of heads under which the Commonwealth Government wants to pursue and ensure its case. I suppose it is entitled to try it, but we are entitled to take exception to it, too, because it puts a new slant on the Constitution which I do not believe the people want. I make it very clear to Senator Jack Evans that the Fraser Government attempted within the Constitution very vigorously to dissuade the Gray Government from building the dam. It explored the constitutional and financial possibilities that it had, and they were rejected. So the honourable senator should not suggest, when we object to this extraordinary extension of Commonwealth power through a device which was never meant to be, that we have views on the subject of the dam that he does not like. He is not entitled to do so. That is why I said to Senator Jack Evans that, had he been listening to the debate and to the contributions made by a number of Opposition senators on this amendment, he could not truthfully have said that. The simple point is that on those other issues, the issues that Senator Gareth Evans referred to, there was either no controversy or there was a clear indication of the will of the people, which is not so in this case. In this case there is no deficiency in the Constitution which is being remedied by agreement. There is no deficiency of some situation unforeseen at the time of Federation. There is an attempt to circumvent the deliberate provisions of the Constitution. It is on those grounds that we have opposed that use of the external affairs power and that we have moved our amendment. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(8.41) —Maybe I can now make a boring legal speech and get us back to where we were before dinner time, which is a detailed Committee consideration of this Bill. Might I deal, first of all, with Senator Teague's quarrels with the legislation. I think he has now appreciated the error of his ways, having read the legislation a little more carefully. Clause 15 (3) of the legislation makes it clear that if either House of the Parliament, pursuant to a motion of which notice has been given, passes a resolution disapproving of the declaration in the proclamation, then the proclamation ceases to be in force. That is clear and unequivocal. Senator Teague was getting mixed up with the provision in clause 16 which deals not with the original proclamation but with a revocation of the proclamation. It is proposed that if a proclamation is once made and a subsequent government seeks to revoke it, then that revocation can take place only when both Houses of the Parliament agree. I hope that that clears up what otherwise is a fairly serious misunderstanding of a central provision of the Bill. I return to the fundamental issue of the external affairs power and the way in which it is being utilised in clause 6. Let me make a few comments to pick up the substantial points that have been made. At the outset let me say that this is not an endeavour to support either an extended or an unjustifiable use of Commonwealth power, nor is it in any way the implementation potentially of a device by the Commonwealth. The reality of the matter is that the High Court simply will not put up with any attempt by the Commonwealth Government to misuse the external affairs power in that way. It has made it abundantly clear in a number of High Court cases, the Burgess case in the 1930s and the Koowarta case very recently being the two best known, that the external affairs power, whatever else it extends to, does not extend to the implementation domestically of some treaty simply because it is a treaty that has been entered into for sham or artificial purposes by the Commonwealth. That really tears away an awful lot of the edifice of fear, doubt and loathing that seems to have been erected by Opposition senators who have contributed to this debate. The aim of this Government in drafting the clause in this way, in relying on the external affairs power and indeed in seeking to pass this entire legislation , is simply to protect that part of Australia's heritage which is of outstanding universal value. The touchstone of this entire piece of legislation is to protect that part of Australia's heritage which can satisfy the description of being of outstanding universal value. Senator Townley —Who decides that? Senator GARETH EVANS —Had the honourable senator been here in the chamber earlier-- Senator Townley —I was here at 8 o'clock-before you got here. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am talking about earlier in the day. I know that Senator Townley is something of a night owl and that his day begins around 8 p.m., but for most of us this debate commenced rather earlier in the day. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The Attorney-General will address his remarks through the Chair. Senator Crichton-Browne —We should get the George Medal for being here when you are speaking. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am quite happy for the honourable senator to leave; I really am. I would be absolutely delighted. The CHAIRMAN —Order! There are too many interjections. Senator GARETH EVANS —This has been a reasonably serious debate, particularly up until dinner time. Honourable senators have been trying to come to grips with the complexities of this legislation-even Senator Walters in her fashion. I think it is a pity that Senator Crichton-Browne should come into the chamber for the first time and intrude that kind of comment. It is not helpful to a constructive and gentlemanly debate on an important piece of legislation. I return to the text of the legislation. I remind the Senate, because it keeps on being forgotten, that quite a number of hurdles have to be overcome before this legislation bites on any individual or succeeds in operating perhaps against the will of any State. First of all, the land or property in question has to satisfy the description of 'identified property'. To satisfy the description of 'identified property', it cannot be just any old property; it has to be property which fits the description of being of outstanding universal value within the meaning of the language of that international convention and which is identified as such either by Commonwealth regulation, which is subject to disallowance, or by being nominated through the international procedure, which is a very complex procedure and in which the credibility of a country is at risk if it does otherwise than nominate property which properly satisfies that description. That is the first thing. There has to be identified property and it has to satisfy those criteria. The second thing that has to happen is that there has to be a proclamation by the Governor-General that the property in question is at risk in some way, is in danger of being destroyed or damaged by virtue obviously of the inability or unwillingness of the State or Territory in question to move for the defence of the area. That is the precondition, and the only precondition, on which such a proclamation can operate; and that proclamation as we have seen is subject to disallowance by either House of the Parliament. Even then nothing happens until such time as the Government of the day further moves specifically under a further clause to actually prohibit something being done. If that prohibition is undertaken for the wrong sorts of reasons which do not have relevance to the protection or conservation of the property, then all sorts of people and organisations have standing under the operation of this legislation to challenge the exercise of that power. Despite all the repetition of the notion that this is wide-ranging and sweeping legislation which enables the Commonwealth to move in, to pick and choose and to interfere with the States in any area it wants to from a municipal lavatory in Dubbo to Luna Park in St Kilda, that is simply not the case. The legislation needs to be wide to satisfy our international obligations under the Convention, not to mention our obligations to the Australian people and future generations of Australians. Despite its potentially wide reach, it has to satisfy in practice a whole series of hurdles before it actually bites or interferes with anybody. It operates against the wishes of a State only in those circumstances in which the Commonwealth can satisfy the ultimate tribunal, the High Court, that the property in question is in jeopardy. I think that has to be appreciated. This is the context in which we are talking. It is not that wide-ranging. Senator Townley —Define 'international concern'. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am coming to that, if the honourable senator can restrain his racing hormones. Clause 6 (2) of the Bill deals in a series of sub- paragraphs with the particular triggers which will in fact give force and validity to the operation of the external affairs power. The honourable senator will recall, I hope, because it was only a sentence ago that I mentioned it, that clause 6 is one of the provisions which entitles the Commonwealth to proclaim an area as being subject to the operation of this legislation. It has to satisfy another criterion, that of being an identified property, and there has to be a prohibition, which happens later. In clause 6 we are talking about the middle stage of the whole process, and that is the proclamation. Clause 6 is a series of potential justifications for such a proclamation being made, each of which in sub-paragraphs (a) to (d) come within the ambit of the external affairs power according to the way in which that power has been described and identified by various High Court judges. Many people have been puzzled about the drafting of clause 6 and the language in it, because it does seem, on the face of it, to be funny sort of language, slightly repetitive language and language which is potentially wide-ranging in respect of some parts of it. Senator Walters —I do not find it a bit amusing. Senator GARETH EVANS —Funny peculiar as distinct from funny ha-ha. It is a familiar distinction in the playground. I hope that it has now intruded into the Senate. Senator Martin —That is about the level at which you are operating. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am doing my level best, Senator, to intrude some understanding of this complex piece of legislation into the minds of people who, I suspect, on occasions are not all that terribly tempted actually to devote themselves to learning what the legislation is all about. The reason for the drafting of sub-paragraphs (a) to (d) is simply to deal with the various formulations of the external affairs power that have been enunciated by different judges of the High Court over a considerable period. Some judges have given some indication of the way in which they have expressed the operation of the external affairs power. Some judges have put it that what might be crucial is the actual participation in the State by the State in the process of creating the external obligation. That is the reason for the presence in the Bill of sub- paragraph (a). As to Senator Harradine's concerns about sub-paragraph (a) and its purported retrospectivity, I indicate to him that this does not just apply to Tasmania. The language of sub-paragraph (a) applies equally to the world heritage property in the Great Barrier Reef, the Willandra Lakes in New South Wales and also Lord Howe Island, because it was only the Government in each of those cases that approved the nomination. It was not in fact the State Parliament. The language in sub-paragraph (a) is perfectly apt to describe not only the Tasmanian situation but also the situation which exists in those other- three at least-world heritage areas. I mention also the Kakadu National Park in the Northern Territory. Each of sub-paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) is expressed in language which reflects the differing degrees of width that High Court judges have been willing to ascribe to the external affairs power. Sub-paragraph (b) refers to protection as a matter of international obligation, whether by reason of the Convention or otherwise. That is an endeavour to pick up the formula enunciated by those judges who say that what matters is the fact that there is some kind of international obligation to which Australia is a party, whether that obligation is clearly expressed in the form of some treaty obligation, or whether, rather, it is simply there as a matter of international common law, as it were, or as a matter of international comity. Various levels and degrees of obligation can be identified in appropriate cases. Sub-paragraph (c) focuses specifically on the question of Australia's involvement in treaty obligations with one or more other countries. It focuses on the view that some judges have that the external affairs power is attracted simply by virtue of Australia being party to a proper international treaty. I repeat here that, when we are talking about treaties, we are not simply talking about treaties entered into for the deliberate, contrived purpose of attracting the external affairs power. We are talking-and every judge who has ever passed judgement upon this issue has made the distinction clear-about the genuine treaties which concern matters that are, properly speaking, the subject of international diplomatic discourse. That is what sub-paragraph (c) is about. Sub-paragraph (d) is another variation on those themes. What constitutes international concern is a matter for the High Court to determine, having regard to the evidence available to the High Court by way of affidavit or otherwise, using its own judgment as to what sort of subject matter is so much in the international domain that it is legitimate to say that Australia has an international obligation with respect to it. Senator Townley —Do you really mean that you expect this clause to be challenged in the High Court many times? Senator Harradine —Judge-made law. Senator Townley —Why don't we make the law, instead of letting the High Court make it? Why cannot we define it, instead of the High Court? Senator GARETH EVANS —I appreciate, Senator Townley, that you may not be entirely aware of it, but we do operate under a written Constitution in which the High Court of Australia is the ultimate arbiter of the fate of the laws that we here may generate. Senator Townley —But you are writing it so that you have said that the judges-- Senator GARETH EVANS —I am sorry, Senator Townley, but it is clearly impossible to have any further meaningful discourse with you. The final sub-paragraph in clause 6 (2) is an attempt to derive some nourishment from what has been described as the nationhood power. That is essentially an inexplicit, implied power in the Constitution which has been identified by a number of High Court judges, particularly in the Australian Associated Press case in the mid-1970s, and on which the previous Liberal Government, when in Opposition, saw no reason to contest its possible application. I refer, as I have on a number of occasions, to what Mr Ellicott, the former Attorney-General, said, when he spoke in 1974 in the Parliament to the Whitlam Goverment's National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Bill, which relied in part on this concept of an implied or inherent nationhood power. The boundaries or dimensions of that power, as set out in sub-paragraph (e) of this Bill, and in similar terms in the National Parks and Wildlife Bill, are unclear and uncertain. But, as to that, Mr Ellicott said: . . . uncertainty as to the extent of constitutional power never of itself be a reason for opposing an otherwise worthwhile legislative exercise of power; nor should it prevent a government, properly advised, treading where angels of constitutional probity have formerly feared to tread. The High Court, as we know , will readily give us the answer- To anyone here tonight, or during the course of the afternoon, who has been minded to be upset about the Commonwealth's reliance on either the external affairs power or the nationhood power, I say that what they are demonstrating is a profound lack of respect for and confidence in the High Court. If we are wrong , the High Court will tell us so. But I believe we are right and that we are entirely justified as a practical matter in relying on these powers because only by doing so will Australia in fact be able to protect once and for all this property which is of outstanding univeral value. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(8.56) —I would like to confirm the view put previously, I believe, by Senator Jack Evans that the Australian Democrats oppose this amendment. We have taken the view strongly that, as first indicated by our own private members Bill in the last Parliament, the external affairs power is valid in this case. After all, we have entered into a world heritage convention. In other words, we have said that South West Tasmania is a property which is of value to the world. If that is not an international matter and thus a matter for the external affairs power, what would be? I have listened with great patience and tolerance-indeed, I must also congratulate the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) for the tolerance and patience that he has so far exhibited in this matter-to the arguments put forward by the Liberal Party. I have heard a variety of opinions tediously and repetitively expressed that the external affairs power does not apply but I have not heard any reasons for it. Senator Harradine —Only that we want a bit of democracy; that's all. Senator MASON —Only, as Senator Harradine says, that we want a bit of democracy; that is all. That takes me to my next point. We are debating-I would forgive any of those few people who might still be listening to this broadcast for not knowing-the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill 1983 which will decide whether, over the next month or two, a dam will be built in South West Tasmania. I think it is fairly obvious and demonstrable that the numbers are here to pass this Bill in this chamber. It has already passed the House of Representatives. In other words, its passage through this chamber and through the Parliament would be merely a confirmation of the views already clearly expressed in a number of independent opinion polls by the majority of the Australian people. In other words, the majority of the Australian people do not want this dam built. They believe that that area is the property of this nation. They do expect Tasmanians, including Tasmanian senators in this place, to be Australians before they are Tasmanians. If they are not prepared to do that-- The CHAIRMAN —Order! Senator Mason, you are straying too far from clause 6. Please confine your remarks to that clause. Senator MASON —Mr Chairman, I suggest to you with respect that this debate has ranged very widely, and I think that I am speaking to the subject. The external affairs power relates to whether there is a right or any sort of authority for the Commonwealth to exert a role nationally. I have said here before-and I will say it again-that at all tiers of government , decisions will be made to overrule the views of citizens. Such is the case at the local government level. I do not hear the Liberal Party screaming and yelling over that. Honourable senators will find that State governments regularly overrule the opinions of local government. There is not a State which does not have that power, as honourable senators know. Of course, the same applies in the Federal sphere. There are matters which are the concern of the Federal Government. This is one which is of that kind. As I said earlier, this clause should pass the Committee if it is put to the vote. I suggest that, having listened very patiently to what has been suggested here, there are signs which indicate that some people in this chamber are beginning to entertain what I would call a filibuster exercise. A filibuster is a determined attempt by members of parliament to talk out a matter when they know that the Government has the numbers to pass it. If we are going to talk about democracy in this place I suggest that we look at that matter. Why not let this matter come to the vote? Is the Opposition afraid to let it come to a vote? Surely that is what it is here for. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.1) —I remind the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) that I asked him several questions earlier which he has not yet answered. No matter how patronising he may be about my lack of legal training-I agree with him that I have none-I would still like him to try very hard to answer my questions without being patronising. I asked him earlier: What was the aim of the Government in this legislation? Was it only the dam? The Attorney-General has indicated, by shaking his head, that it is not; that it is to pick up a whole range of other things. Perhaps Senator Jack Evans will now acknowledge that it is not just a question of the dam. I also asked the Attorney-General about the retrospectivity of this legislation and whether the judgment should be made by the Commonwealth or by the States. However, some other questions have arisen as a result of the speeches by Senator Mason and Senator Jack Evans, and I would like to put those questions to the Attorney-General. Senator Mason demonstrated once again in this place that he did not have a clue what a States House was all about. He said: 'The States have no rights, we are all here as Australians and, really, we do not owe anything to our States'. That really depicts exactly how the Australian Democrats-- Senator Mason —Mr Chairman, I take a point of order. A while ago you reproved me for speaking off the topic. I draw your attention to the present contribution. The CHAIRMAN —I have been listening to Senator Walters. In my view she is speaking to the topic. Senator WALTERS —Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. I am answering a few of Senator Mason's statements. Perhaps we could just record that one of the Australian Democrats tried that approach in Tasmania at the last election. He said that he was an Australian first, not a Tasmanian, and he was thrown out by the people. Senator Mason —Mr Chairman, I take a point of order. I suggest that this matter does not relate to the clause of this Bill. The CHAIRMAN —Senator Walters is entitled to rebut remarks made during the debate. I am allowing her to speak on that basis. I would like her to keep her remarks brief. Senator WALTERS —Senator Mason also suggested that this place should legislate through opinion polls. I draw Senator Mason's attention to the election which was held prior to the last election when the opinion polls said that the Australian Democrats would get a few more votes than they did. They certainly did not, nor did the Australian Labor party. Senator Mason —Mr Chairman, I take a point of order. I suggest that the Australian Democrats' achievements in the last election or the one previously, or any debate on them, is not a matter relating to the clause of this Bill. I ask you to call the honourable member to order. The CHAIRMAN —I think Senator Walters is straying now. I would like her to confine herself either to direct rebuttal or to clause 6 of the Bill. Senator WALTERS —I will give up even trying to comment on Senator Mason's statements. Senator Gareth Evans was talking about the practical side of clause 6 when he said: 'We would be talking only about genuine treaties'. As I have already pointed out, there are 16,000 genuine treaties and conventions. I am not suggesting that we go out and make any more. I am suggesting that any one of those 16,000 genuine treaties that are already available to this Government may be taken up so as not to interfere with States' rights along the way. Have I the Attorney's assurance that no more of these treaties will be taken up? No matter how genuine they are will the Attorney stick only to the two treaties? Finally, I wish to quote from the judgment of the High Court of Australia on the enforcement of treaties by Oliver in 1982 where it states: A constitution would cease to be federal if the central government, without consultation with the states, could enter into any treaty and by so doing increase the legislative powers of the central government at the expense of state legislatures. If the treaty power can cut across all reserved powers and interdict the powers of the member states, then there are no real powers reserved to the internal sovereignties. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(9.6) —On behalf of the Opposition again, I reply to a gratuitous remark made by Senator Mason during his speech in which he said he believed that this debate was taking on the appearance of a filibuster. I believe that I have the right to reply on behalf of the Opposition. I repeat a statement I made to the Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans: Senator Mason has been present for very little of the Committee stage of this debate. If he had been here throughout the debate he would have discovered that very few people have spoken more than once on this amendment. Indeed there has been a range of speakers, every one of whom has been perfectly entitled to put a point of view and to have their point of view on this subject put on the record. This subject has been debated as much as any political issue in Australia in recent months. It is now in the Committee of the Whole of the Senate. We are entitled to speak on it. There have been many debates under various guises, including a Bill presented by Senator Mason last year. It may well be that Senator Mason is getting impatient with honourable senators expressing points of view, whether they are honourable senators from Tasmania speaking, as they see it, on behalf of their State or honourable senators from other States who see grave implications for the States and the Federation under the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill. Senator Mason —For 15 hours. Senator MARTIN —We have not been debating this matter for 15 hours. I suggest that the honourable senator's arithmetic is very faulty. We debated this matter for about 2 1/2 hours last Wednesday and one honourable senator spoke on this matter last Thursday. We are now back on to the Bill today. This Bill is a Bill with great portent for the Constitution and the behaviour of the Commonwealth Government. We are entitled, as a House of review, as well as a States House to speak on it and, I suggest, to speak on it for as long as is necessary. There is no filibuster. One or two honourable senators have shown a particularly active interest in this section of the debate. I suggest that if this were a Bill with which Senator Mason did not agree he would have been on his feet more often than any individual senator has been on his or her feet debating this clause. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(9.8) —I believe that the debate has run its course. It has more than run its course as far as clause 6 is concerned. According to my recollection, we started debating that clause at something like a quarter to six. I move: That the question be now put. Question put. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 26 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 8 —— Bolkus, N. Hearn, J. M. Button, J. N. McClelland, DouglasChilds, B. K. McIntosh, G. D. Chipp, D. L. Macklin, M. J. Coates, J. Maguire, G. R. Coleman, R. N. Mason, C. V. J. Colston, M. A. Missen, A. J. Cook, P. F. S. Primmer, C. G. Crowley, R. A. Ray, RobertElstob, R. C. Reynolds, M. Evans, Gareth Richardson, G. F. Evans, Jack Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M. Georges, G. Sibraa, K. W. Gietzelt, A. T. Tate, M. C. Grimes, D. J. Walsh, P. A. Haines, J. Zakharov, A. O. Baume, Peter Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller)Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lajovic, M. E. Boswell, R. L. D. Lewis, A. W. R. Carrick, Sir John MacGibbon, D. J. Chaney, F. M. Martin, K. J. Collard, S. J. Messner, A. J. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E. Durack, P. D. Scott, D. B. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. Harradine, B. Walters, M. S. Hill, R. Watson, J. O. W. Jessop, D. S. Withers, R. G. Jones, G. N. Archer, B. R. Giles, P. J. Rae, Peter Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clause 7 to 13-by leave-taken together. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.16) —Can the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans ) tell me the purpose of clause 7 (2)? Senator Gareth Evans —What was the question? Senator WALTERS —Mr Chairman, can you ask the Government to wake up and come to attention? The CHAIRMAN —Order! I ask the honourable senator to repeat her question. Senator WALTERS —The Attorney-General does not even know whether to say yes or no because he was asleep. I ask: Can the Attorney-General tell me the purpose of clause 7 (2)? Senator Gareth Evans —It remains a little mysterious to me what the purpose of clause 7 (2) is because there is no clause 7 (2) in the Bill. Senator WALTERS —I am sorry, section 7 (2). Senator Gareth Evans —I remain equally mystified as there is no section 7 (2). Senator WALTERS —I will read the clause. Mr Chairman, I have a copy of the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill. Senator Gareth Evans —Mr Chairman, I think I can help. The CHAIRMAN —Senator Walters, if you would yield the Attorney-General thinks he can help you. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(9.17) —I think that one of the honourable senator's problems is that she is referring to the wrong print of the Bill. An early draft of the Bill introduced in the House of Representatives, (26 /83), did have a clause 7 (2) but in the Bill we have been debating for the last half day there is no clause 7 (2). Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.18) —Mr Chairman, there is another clause that applies. It is indeed the next clause. I will bring this matter up when clause 8 is discussed. The CHAIRMAN —We are debating clauses 7 to 13, so it is relevant to bring up clause 8 now if the honourable senator wishes to. Otherwise I will call someone else. Senator WALTERS —Can the Attorney-General please tell me the purpose of clause 8 (3)? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(9.19) —Clause 8 (3) states: Where the Governor-General is satisfied that an Aboriginal site is being or is likely to be damaged or destroyed or that any artefacts or relics situated on an Aboriginal site are being or are likely to be damaged or destroyed, he may, by proclamation, declare that site to be a site to which section 11 applies. If we go to section 11 we see a series of unlawful acts in relation to Aboriginal sites there set out. What these two clauses are all about is giving the Commonwealth the power to enforce the protection of an Aboriginal site where that site is endangered or the artefacts on it are endangered. Of course, the head of constitutional power that is here being relied upon is section 51 (xxvi) , which was approved by an overwhelming majority of Australians in a referendum in 1967. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(9.20) —My contribution relates to clause 9 (1) and (2), clause 12 (1) and clause 13 (1). Clause 13 (1) states: In determining whether or not to give a consent pursuant to section 9 in relation to any property to which that section applies, the Minister shall have regard only to the protection, conservation and presentation, within the meaning of the Convention, of the property. I have looked at the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage which appears in the Schedule and which is referred to in a number of the articles-for example, Article 5 (d) and (e) and Article 23. What is the meaning of 'presentation' in clause 13 (1)? Could it be taken to mean that it refers to accessibility by the public? What, in fact, does that word mean? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(9.21) —In fact, 'presentation' means exactly that. Senator Harradine has identified the concept correctly. That term means that whereas it may not be legitimate to build a road, to establish a viewing point or to do something of that kind in relation to a cultural site if one had regard only to the protection or conservation of the property itself, if one has regard to the presentation of the property-that is, the physical access of people to it to be able to enjoy it to the maximum-it becomes defensible to erect the work, the access road or whatever is in question. That concept has particular relevance in the context of South West Tasmania, for example. That would mean that it is entirely consistent with the operation of this legislation for the Minister to have regard to the desirability of tourist roads being built in certain areas of the wilderness-for example, to enable access of people in order to enjoy the pleasures that the wilderness represents. On the other hand, perhaps an extremely hard-line conservationist position would have it that only those armed with boots and dangling corks and with strong legs should be able to enjoy the area in question. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(9.23) —That raises the matter I raised in the second reading debate as to the validity of the debate on the Tasmanian wilderness. If large numbers of persons visit the area under consideration one cannot have it both ways; the area would cease to be a wilderness. I will go on to the next point I wanted to raise which relates to clause 13. In giving consent pursuant to proposed section 9 in relation to the property, 'the Minister shall have regard only to the protection, conservation and presentation , within the meaning of the Convention, of the property'. Clause 9 refers to unlawful acts. In respect of that matter, is it really proper for the Minister to 'have regard only to the protection, conservation and presentation within the meaning of the Convention' or ought the Minister to have other common good considerations when coming to that conclusion when considering giving consent pursuant to that section? For example, leaving South West Tasmania out of it altogether, if there were an identified property and it was for the common good that some safety measure be installed in that area for persons either going to or coming from the area, would that not be a relevant consideration in determining to give consent or is the Minister too constrained by the criteria set down in clause 13 (1)? Mr Chairman, I will be content if I can go on to the last point I wanted to raise so that the Minister can answer all my questions at once in his response. I refer to clause 12 (1). It refers to zoning and management plans in federal legislation. I have made this point before and I will make it again. State management plans established under State legislation ought to have some relevance in this area. I am suggesting that I am concerned to see no reference to State management plans under State legislation in respect of identified properties. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(9.25) —As to the first point raised, technically speaking the Minister is only supposed to have regard to protection, conservation and presentation issues. That means that someone who believes that the Minister has not had regard to those criteria can, under the provisions of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, seek a review of his decision on the ground that it is unlawful because it has not been made by reference to those criteria. One can say in that respect only that courts would not, I believe, in the sort of situation Senator Harradine has raised in which there is some overriding safety consideration in issue, find themselves absurdly constrained by those criteria. There is always an overriding public interest criteria which courts feel able to apply in those sorts of situations. I am sure that the concepts inherent in that area are broadly flexible enough to accommodate Senator Harradine's concerns. The Bill is drafted as it is because we wanted to indicate at least the direction to which the court ought to have regard in adjudicating on these issues and also because, of course, we wanted to adhere as closely as possible to the terms of the international Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and National Heritage which, in fact, uses that formula. But I do not think it is reasonable to assume that the court would be absurdly constrained in its application of those considerations. As to the possibility of State plans of management being satisfactory under this legislation even though they are not recognised specifically by it, I think the point to be made is simply that if it is the case that some legitimate State plan of management is in operation in relation to a heritage-type area and that State plan of management is bona fide and one which is directed to the preservation for use and enjoyment of the area in question, it is hardly likely that that area would satisfy the description of being property which is being damaged or destroyed or is likely to be damaged or destroyed within the meaning of the trigger sections of this Bill. So although there is no explicit provision for an automatic exemption simply by virtue of the existence of something purporting to be a State plan of management, if it is a fair dinkum plan of management one would believe that the Bill could have no application to the area in question. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.27) —I refer to clause 9 (1) (h). I gather this is an area that is left open for any future legislation, regulation or whatever the Government thinks might be necessary in the future. Is that the meaning of that paragraph? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(9.28) —It is a residual provision which identifies some other possible form of proscribed act but, again , that act would have to be proscribed by regulation and, accordingly, it would be subject to disallowance by this chamber. One would suggest that not only would the regulation in question have to be authorised by the general thrust of the Act and, accordingly, be in tenor with it, but also it would be subject to that democratic scrutiny process. Accordingly there is no particular reason to suppose that the Commonwealth would go galloping off in any intransigent fashion based on that paragrah. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.29) —Can Senator Evans give me an example of what he was talking about? Senator Gareth Evans —No, I cannot give you an example. If I had thought of an example, we would have put it in the Bill. Senator WALTERS —I am suggesting that the Government has left this area very widely open. I am just wondering what on earth could come up in the future that is not already covered by the legislation. If Senator Evans can envisage something which could clarify that point for us, I would be very grateful. Senator Gareth Evans —I have nothing to add, Mr Chairman. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(9.30) —Can the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) give us a relatively simple explanation as to the applicability of the Aboriginal power which, as I understand it, relates to making laws for the Aboriginal race rather than in respect of the preservation of Aboriginal lands? Can the Attorney-General explain to us how he sees the constitutional power of the Commonwealth in that regard as espoused in the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(9.31) —I do not think it would be appropriate to embark upon a lecture on the potential scope and operation of section 51 (xxvi) of the Constitution although no doubt it would serve the honourable senator's purpose of consuming still further time. I remind him that probably the best exposition of the present law on section 51 (xxvi) is in the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs on the operation of the Queensland reserves overriding legislation in, I think, in 1978 or 1979, perhaps before Senator Lewis was a member of that Committee. It is a detailed and systematic account of everything that is known or has ever been speculated about the operation of section 51 (xxvi), and I think that gives a better account of it than I can offer. All I can simply say about the operation of section 51 (xxvi) in relation to this Bill is that it will be a matter for the High Court of Australia to determine, if challenged, whether or not any particular attempted reliance on that power can withstand scrutiny. It is a most uncertain area and the power has not been specifically litigated. Clauses agreed to. Clause 14 (Enforcement). Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(9.32) —by leave-I move: (5) Page 8, clause 14, sub-clause (1), line 25, leave out 'The High Court or'. (6) Page 8, clause 14, sub-clause (2), lines 28 and 29, leave out the 'the High Court or'. (7) Page 8, clause 14, sub-clause (2), line 30, leave out 'the High Court or' and ', as the case may be'. The amendments all relate to the same point. The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that the judicial body which is given the power to administer the Act is the Federal Court of Australia and not the High Court of Australia. For example, clause 14 (1) states: The High Court or the Federal Court may, on the application of the Attorney- General or of an interested person, grant an injunction restraining a person from doing an act that is unlawful by virtue of section 9, 10 or 11. Clauses 9, 10 and 11 on which we have had brief debate, define the unlawful acts . Clause 9 states what things cannot be done, such as carrying out excavation works, carrying out operations, erecting a building, damaging a building, killing or damaging trees, constructing any roads or vehicular tracks, using explosives and 'if an act is prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph' and so on. That clause is very detailed in relation to the acts that are described as unlawful under this Bill. They are essentially questions of fact. The High Court is better suited to determine appeals and state principles in relation to acts rather than determine questions of fact. We believe that the Federal Court should be the court that is named here as the appropriate court. Of course that in no way affects anyone's right of appeal to the High Court which will always stand. The effect of questions of fact going to the High Court rather than the Federal Court will be, firstly, to overburden the High Court and, secondly, to very substantially slow down the process of receiving determinations and decisions on matters of fact. People are entitled to as speedy a resolution of their legal actions as possible and the Federal Court is equipped and in a position to give far speedier resolutions of cases such as those which come under clauses 9, 10 and 11 than is the High Court. Further on in our amendments we raised the same issue in relation to clause 17, for example. I am not foreshadowing debate on clause 17 but the issues remain the same. As a matter of principle we think that it is unreasonable in these two clauses to specify the High Court. We believe the more appropriate court is the Federal Court. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(9.35) —I will explain why the High Court of Australia is given original jurisdiction here. It is largely connected with the reference that appears in clause 17 to which the honourable senator refers. An issue which may arise about whether a particular exercise by the Commonwealth of its power under the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill amounts to an acquisition of land within the meaning of section 51 (xxxi) of the Constitution is a matter which can ultimately be properly resolved only by the High Court. If there is an argument about whether something amounts to an acquisition-that has to take place in the High Court-it would seem appropriate that if the matter is of sufficient size and importance to justify the High Court's attention, the High Court should also have the capacity to deal with the rest of the matter. Of course the High Court already has original jurisdiction in those matters where the Commonwealth is a party. As a result one would imagine that it would be appropriate for other parties to initiate litigation against the Commonwealth in the High Court because the matter will end up there sooner of later. Rather than having to go through some intermediate step it would seem appropriate that the option at least be available to start the action there. I do not suggest that Senator Martin's amendment is entirely without merit. I can understand the point that she is making but equally I ask her to take on board the fact that there are circumstances in which it is appropriate that the High Court have original jurisdiction. The matter is expressed in the alternative. It does not have to begin in the High Court; it can start in the Federal Court. Should the matter be essentially trivial in its significance, or in terms of the monetary values and so on that are involved, of course it is always open for the High Court to remit the matter back to another court which has jurisdiction in it, in this case the Federal Court. Although reasonable men and women-indeed even reasonable honourable senators-may differ about the utility of this provision, it is not one that ought to detain us, and I suggest that accordingly we do not amend it. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(9.37) —I take exception to the concluding remarks of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). If the issue is one worth debating it is one that ought to detain us. I am getting irritated by suggestions such as that made earlier when Senator Lewis raised a point that he is perfectly entitled to raise that time is being wasted. It is nothing of the sort. Important matters are at stake and I appreciate such explanations as the Attorney-General gives but I point out that he has talked more than anybody else in the debate this evening and it is not-- Senator Gareth Evans —Be fair; I am just trying to help. Senator MARTIN —I have said that I appreciate the Minister's help. I do not even mind if it is lengthy. But the Minister should not mind if other honourable senators put their point of view that is perfectly legitimate in relation to the Bill. I reiterate that clause 14 (1) relates to the granting of an injunction restraining a person from doing an act that is unlawful by virtue of clauses 9, 10 or 11. It seems to me that that is a very straightforward issue. Sub-section (2) of section 14 refers to an application which has been made for an injunction restraining a person from doing an act. I do not see why we retain this emphasis on the High Court of Australia. I have said that the issue also arises in relation to clause 17 which we will come to later in greater detail. I repeat- the Attorney-General did not negate this-that there is always the right of appeal from a decision of the Federal Court of Australia to the High Court. The Federal Court determines matters on the basis of fact and if someone believes that the fact has been wrongly stated the High Court can apply to the principle. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(9.40) —Why force a litigant to go through two steps if it is possible to allow him to go to one? The reality of the matter is that under clause 14 it is not only the Commonwealth that is likely to be a party; other persons have standing to sue in relation to these matters. The matter may be one of very great magnitude-very great importance-which clearly will not finish at the level of the Federal Court of Australia and clearly will be litigated up to the High Court of Australia if one of the party gets an adverse response. It is simply an enabling provision to ensure that, in a matter of sufficient magnitude, parties are not put to the expense of going through dual stages where it is appropriate that they leap immediately to the highest. If the matter is trivial and if it is not one that the High Court wants to waste its time on, I can assure the honourable senator that the High Court, notwithstanding that it is vested with original jurisdiction under this clause, retains the power to remit the matter back to a junior court-the Federal Court- and would undoubtedly exercise that power in an appropriate case if it thought that its resources were being misused, just as at the moment, for example, the High Court has the constitutional jurisdiction to deal with any matter that arises between residents of different States. So if there is a motor car accident involving absolutely no questions of law of any significance and maybe only quite trivial questions of damages, technically the High Court has jurisdiction to deal with that. But the High Court has made it very clear for a number of decades now that, should anyone have the temerity to approach it seeking the exercise of its jurisdiction in such a matter which is essentially trivial, the High Court will not have a bar of it and it will be sent back to another court accordingly. It is an enabling provision. I am not trying to be offensive in any way in suggesting that we do not waste time on this matter. I am simply saying that I do not think that it in any way inhibits the effective operation of this legislation. Accordingly, objections to the clause in this form ought not to be pursued. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(9.41) —I am sorry that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has not given an example. I reiterate: The clause relates to the granting of an injunction. It is standard in a number of Acts to provide that the court in the first instance is the Federal Court, which does not take away from appeals going to the High Court, I reiterate. We are not trying to do something to this Bill that is not contained in many other Acts of the Parliament. It might have helped if the Attorney-General, instead of flinging himself around in exasperation, had given an example that explained his case. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(9.42) —I will give one example: If one has a case like the South West wilderness in which some hundreds of millions of dollars are potentially involved in litigation, it would not seem to the point to require a non-Commonwealth litigant to start his case in a matter of that magnitiude in a court where obviously it will not finish. Amendments negatived. Clause agreed to. Clauses 15 and 16-by leave-taken together. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.43) -Could the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) tell me why five sitting days was chosen instead of the usual 15? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(9.44) —The honourable senator seems once again to be referring to an outmoded Bill. The revocation provision in clause 16 is five days, but the original proclamation provision is 15. Clauses agreed to. Clause 17 (Compensation). Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(9.44) —by leave-I move: (8) Page 10, clause 17, sub-clause (1), definition of 'acquisition of property' , line 27, at end of definition, add, 'as extended by sub-section 3A'. (9) Page 11, clause 17, after sub-clause (3), insert the following new sub- clause: '(3A) For the purposes of sub-section (3) property shall be deemed to have been acquired from a person in accordance with the provisions of the Lands Acquisition Act 1955 to the extent that its use or its enjoyment by a person has been affected by the operation of this Act or the Regulations.'. (10) Page 11, clause 17, sub-clause (4), line 11, leave out 'High Court', insert 'Federal Court'. (11) Page 11, clause 17, Paragraph (6) (b), line 23, leave out 'High Court', insert 'Federal Court'. (12) Page 11, clause 17, sub-clause (6), lines 28 and 29, leave out all words after 'agreement', insert: 'the Commonwealth is liable to pay such compensation as is deternmined by the Federal Court to be fair and just'. (13) Pages 11 and 12, clause 17, sub-clause (7), line 43 (page 11), to line 2 ( page 12), leave out all words after 'shall', insert: 'determine the compensation that he considers to be fair and just in respect of the acquisition not later than 14 days after the said 6 months period expires'. (14) Page 12, clause 17, sub-clauses (8) and (9), lines 3 to 23, leave out sub- clauses, insert the following sub-clause: '(8) Interest shall be payable on the amount of compensation determined by the Governor-General or the Federal Court (as the case may require), such interest to be calculated from the date of the acquisition up to and including the date of payment at a rate of interest which is fair and just in the circumstances.'. (15) Page 13, clause 17, sub-clause (14) and (15), lines 9 to 26, leave out the sub-clauses insert the following sub-clause: '(14) Where the operation of this Act or of the Regulations has resulted in or is taken to have resulted in an acquisition of property from a person and the person considers that the compensation determined by the Governor-General is not fair and just, the Federal Court may, on the application of the person, determine the compensation that is fair and just in respect of the acquisition'. The issue arises whether the freezing of the use of land by proclamation under the legislation would amount to an acquisition of property. To clarify that point we have moved two amendments, the first one, No. (8), relating to the second and the second, No. (9), being the critical one, by inserting a new sub- clause (3A) into clause 17 to read: For the purposes of sub-section (3) property shall be deemed to have been acquired from a person in accordance with the provisions of the Lands Acquisition Act 1955 to the extent that its use or its enjoyment by a person has been affected by the operation of this Act or the Regulations. There is no practical difference between a government acquiring land and depriving an owner of the use of the land and the government ordering that no use can be made of the land. We believe that the Lands Acquisition Act ought to apply, and that property that the Commonwealth takes action on under this clause ought to be deemed to have been acquired so that the Lands Acquisitions Act can apply. There will be further debate on the other amendments as to the details of compensation, but I mention these two amendments in the first series of amendments that I have moved and in which the Opposition has embodied its fundamental opposition to the attitude towards the acquisition of land and compensation for that acquisition under this Act. The provisions of the Lands Acquisitions Act, we believe, are appropriate. We also believe that they are preferable to the procedure that is outlined in the Bill. I referred earlier in the debate to the Attorney-General's reply in the second reading debate last night. He made a number of statements in relation to acquisition of land and what the Government perceives to be acquisition of land specifically in relation to South West Tasmania and relevant matters relating to compensation. We seek through these amendments to establish the principle that to act in relation to the property in the way in which the Commonwealth intends to under this Bill amounts to acquisition, should be recognised as such, and should follow the principles of land acquisition which have been followed by the Commonwealth for a long time now, and that is as outlined in the Lands Acquisition Act. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(9.48) —I do not want to repeat at any length what I said last night but I think it ought to be said at the outset of this debate on the compensation clause of this Bill that what the Bill is about is basically not the acquisition of land at all. Certainly there is no explicit provision entitling the Commonwealth, pursuant to this Bill, to acquire land. If the Commonwealth is to acquire land directly and deliberately, no doubt it will do so under the provisions of the Lands Acquisition Act. This Bill and clause 17 simply contain a kind of fail safe mechanism to ensure that, should the interference with the use and enjoyment of the land in question be of such magnitude that the courts are minded to find that it amounts to acquisition, there are appropriate provisions in the specific terms of the Bill to enable the compensation to be determined, having regard of course to the constitutional requirement in section 51 (xxxi) of the Constitution that where there is a compulsory acquisition of land by the Commonwealth just terms be given for it. It is in that context, and in that context alone, that the Bill refers to acquisition and to compensation. I really do try to make it clear at the outset that, if the Commonwealth is embarking on a deliberate acquisition exercise, this is not the provision that will apply on their face; it will be the provisions in other existing Commonwealth legislation. Be that as it may, let us come to deal with the terms of the clause as they do in fact stand. What we have in this amendment-I will not canvass the other amendments that have been moved-is a really quite extraordinary clause which I cannot believe Senator Martin or her advisers in the other place have seriously thought through. What it says is that property shall be deemed to have been acquired from a person in accordance with the provisions of the Lands Acquisition Act to the extent that its use or enjoyment by a person has been affected by the operation of this Act. Use and enjoyment can be affected in all sorts of ways with all sorts of degrees of significance. It may be, for example, in respect of some area of outstanding natural beauty that a State electricity commission wants to put a series of pylons across it. By virtue of the operation of this Act the Commonwealth could direct that the pylons not be put through that corner of the land in question but rather be re-routed-at a cost of some dollars, but that is all. There is no interference other than that with the use or enjoyment of the land in question. The way this clause is framed, that would be deemed to be an acquisition of the land in question and the Commonwealth would be up for the full cost of such an acquisition as determined by the criteria in the Lands Acquisition Act. Is that fair? Is that a reasonable imposition on the Commonwealth Treasury? Take again some area of cultural heritage more than natural heritage like, say, on Lord Howe Island. Let us assume that we have a built-up area that the nation regards as an area of outstanding universal value and the Commonwealth wants to stop renovations or extensions being undertaken to the buildings in question. Say it insists on retaining a two-storey height limit and will not let the owner of a small guest house add another storey. That is obviously an interference in the use and enjoyment by that person of the property in question. Are we as a result of this provision to have an automatic deeming that thereby the Commonwealth is acquiring that property in question and therefore has to fork out the full amount? It may be that some compensation is appropriate for the interference involved; that is something that can be determined by reference to other criteria. It seems to me in all seriousness to be an utterly misconceived amendment. For those reasons, quite apart from the more basic reason-that the thrust of these compensation provisions is quite different from that which seems to be believed- I have specifically indicated that it seems to me the amendment must be resisted . Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(9.52) —I must say I find the view of the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) on this matter passing strange. It seems to me that it does not really make a great deal of difference if what is found by a court to be an acquisition by reason of action under this legislation is not intended to be an acquisition. It is right that the Government should provide in the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill for a situation where the action is found to be an acquisition. If a person then suffers loss of use or enjoyment and so forth, he has suffered it just as greatly whether or not the Government intends it to be an acquisition or whether in fact it is just an acquisition by reason of the Constitution. I find the Attorney's first point, therefore, very curious indeed. I do not see that there is any real distinction and I think the people have the same suffering and the same entitlement to just terms if it comes in that way as if it comes from the full intention of the Commonwealth to acquire. Nor did I find the rest of the argument convincing. It seems to me that this amendment, if it is carried, must be tied with sub-clause (3) and paragraph (a) of that sub-clause. I would have thought that if a person makes a claim and it is found, then he ought to have the right and privileges which the Lands Acquisition Act has given to people who have had land acquired over many years. I must say that I do not find the argument convincing. Senator Gareth Evans —How much interference with use amounts to an acquisition? Is any interference at all to be construed as an acquisition? That is what your new paragraph 3 (a) says. That is absurd. Senator MISSEN —To the extent that it is interfered with- Senator Gareth Evans —That is what mine says, not what yours says. Senator MISSEN —That is what it does say-to the extent that use and enjoyment by a person have been affected- Senator Gareth Evans —Have been affected, not have been affected enormously, gigantically or impossibly but have been affected. Senator MISSEN —It might be affected only by a small amount and so it might be small compensation. I still think the right should exist under the Lands Acquisition Act to enjoy those benefits. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(9.54) —The Australian Democrats support the Government on this matter. This amendment has caused us some concern and we have looked at it with great care. Indeed, the question of Lord Howe Island and the analogy that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) made had occurred to us also. Suppose somebody there has a two-storey guest house, the business is operating satisfactorily and the owner wants to add to it but is prevented from doing so. The fact that he is not allowed to do so does not affect his present income; nor can any active acquisition be justified. Acquisition is not a thing that can be had in small degrees; one either acquires something or does not acquire it. It does not make sense to us at all. There needs to be a much more flexible area of compensation, and it would be very damaging to people if there were not a flexible area of compensation. The Opposition amendment could create legal difficulties which might be of great embarrassment to people and of difficulty to them if the situation arose. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(9.55) —In response to Senator Mason I reiterate the point that Senator Missen made to the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). He referred to the extent that use or enjoyment has been affected. Senator Mason —But acquisition is not that thing. You either acquire it or you do not. Senator MARTIN —No, you do not either acquire something or not. It is possible that a government could take an action which could very much affect the way one uses or has access to one's property. Senator Mason —But, Senator, you do not call it acquisition. Senator MARTIN —Indeed, the Commonwealth may not call it acquisition. It may acquire it or it may stop one using it or getting access to it, in which case the Government ought to face the fact that its actions are no different in effect from acquisition. Under these circumstances a court would determine that. I refer to Senator Missen's comment in response to Senator Evans when he said: ' A little or a lot?'. The court determines whether it is a little compensation or a lot of compensation under those circumstances. Amendments (10) and (11) take up an amendment that we moved earlier which seeks replacement of the High Court by the Federal Court. In this case there is no choice. In sub-clause (4) of clause 16 application has to be made to the High Court requesting the Court to make a declaration on the operation of the Act or on the regulations in relation to an acquisition of property. There is no alternative. We want to replace the High Court with the Federal Court, again recognising that there is always a right of appeal to the High Court. So replacing the High Court with the Federal Court does not delete the High Court from the operations of the Act. However, this is a situation in which there could be a large number of applications to the Court by individuals. Without doubt a number of them would go to the High Court because some constitutional issue could be involved or an appeal may be necessary. It seems quite unreasonable, the High Court having made a decision on a matter, that all subsequent cases that might claim to be of a kind should go to the High Court. It would be quite possible for the Federal Court to implement decisions of the High Court. Under those circumstances it is not a reasonable procedure to provide that everybody who wishes to make an application must go to the High Court. Because there is a slightly different application here-the Federal Court is not included at all-I seek a reasonable approach from the Attorney. I understand that he wants the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill through this evening and the Opposition is attempting to be co-operative. Given that the Government wants the Bill through this evening- Senator Gareth Evans —It wants the Constitution Bills as well. Senator MARTIN —Not this evening I hope, Senator; you will kill yourself. Given that the Bill will probably be through this evening there is no reason why reasonable amendments cannot go back to the House of Representatives tomorrow and the Government can have the Bill when it wants it. This is not a trivial request; it is quite a substantial one. The purpose of amendments (12) to (15) is to ensure that just and fair compensation is paid to persons whose property is affected by the legislation and that that compensation is paid expeditiously. This clause, which provides for the setting up of a commission to determine claims over a certain site, is extremely controversial. The claims over $5m are to go to a very strange commission of inquiry which would clearly take a long time to conduct its inquiries. The recommendation is not binding on the Governor-General in any event. The recommendation is secret. The commission consists of three people, one of whom is nominated by a State government, the Northern Territory not having that right at all. No qualifications are indicated for the commissioners. No guidelines are given as to what sort of people the Government sees as special , and as suitable to be appointed to a special commission such as this. After the completion of the inquiry, if the Governor-General has made a determination, a person can still go to court over the issue. This links in with our wish to have the Lands Acquisition Act included in the compensation provisions. The procedures outlined here for claims in excess of $ 5m are extremely cumbersome, unsatisfactory and time consuming. It is not at all unlikely that somebody who has to proceed under this section because his or her claim is in excess of $5m could wait years for a determination. We seek to have accepted an amendment that would require the same procedure to be followed as is followed under the Lands Acquisition Act. We prefer to follow principles that have been followed in relation to acquisition by the Commonwealth. Specifically, amendment 14 reads: Page 12, clause 17, sub-clauses (8) and (9), lines 3 to 23, leave out the sub- clauses, insert the following sub-clause: '(8) Interest shall be payable on the amount of compensation determined by the Governor-General or the Federal Court (as the case may require), such interest to be calculated from the date of the acquisition up to and including the date of payment at a rate of interest which is fair and just in the circumstances.'. The principle of the payment of interest is one that the Commonwealth has followed for some time. Most cases under the Lands Acquisition Act are resolved fairly easily. A few are a little more difficult. There ought to be no disadvantage for someone if the procedure must take a length of time even under the Lands Acquisition Act in these days of high interest and high inflation. I draw the Committee's attention to the report of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, in which it is stated: The Committee draws attention to the difference in treatment accorded disputed claims which fall either side of the $5 million. Disputed claims of $5 million or more are made subject to a process of resolution which may, in some circumstances, be less speedy and possibly involve undue delay in the payment of amounts for land acquired by the Commonwealth. The Committee draws attention to the departure from the usual procedure set out in the Lands Acquisition Act 1955 which in most instances lends itself to the possibility of a speedy resolution of disputed claims. That is a bipartisan Committee. Senators from the Australian Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the Australian Democrats are members of that Committee. No dissent is recorded in the report. We take it to be the unanimous consideration of the Committee. Senator Tate —It is very mildly worded. It is not a firm recommendation. It is a very tentative and mild one. Senator MARTIN —Senator Tate, who I think is Chairman of the Committee, disclaims the strength of the report. Senator Tate —I am not disclaiming it; I am just giving it the strength that it is due. Senator Missen —He floats things for the benefit of the chamber. Senator MARTIN —I see. He said that the expressed view was not very strong; it was very mild. I take it as a statement of fact that the Committee believed that these claims could in some circumstances be less speedy and possibly involve undue delay in the payment of compensation for land. They may or they may not, but the fact is that they may. The Committee recognised that but the legislation does not. I think Senator Tate will accept that point of view. The Attorney- General in his second reading speech on behalf of the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) and in his reply to the second reading debate last night attempted to justify this rather strange structure which will clearly be unsatisfactory on the grounds that it is a special case. I reiterate what I said earlier in the debate: Whilst the Attorney may plead a special case, in fact the Bill has a very broad application. If the Attorney wanted a Bill that applied to South West Tasmania he could have brought in a Bill that did just that. Tonight we are passing a Bill which will have a very broad application in Australia, and we have a responsibility to look at its application. I am not aware why the Government has settled on the figure of $5m. Many people would probably be dazzled by $5m. I would be dazzled by the prospect of having $ 5m but I am not dazzled by what $5m buys when we are talking about this sort of action. In fact, $5m is a very small amount of money in the context of this Bill . Senator Gareth Evans —It is petty cash for tories, isn't it? Senator MARTIN —I wish that were so. The honourable senator has more access to such amounts in his activities than I will have in a lifetime. That is not the point. I would like the Attorney to address himself to the issue. The sum of $5m is an arbitrary and, in the context of this Bill, a small amount of money. The additional argument used by the Attorney in justifying this amount is that there are other things that would have to be taken into account. In his reply to the second reading debate he said: For example, we are talking about the possibility that what happens in South West Tasmania will be construed under the Constitution as amounting to an acquisition of land. When it comes to compensation that will raise very real questions related to the whole economic future of Tasmania-matters which are not usually within the compass of courts and are certainly not dealt with by using the procedures of the Lands Acquisition Act . . . The Opposition does not suggest by its amendments that all issues would be resolved by the Lands Acquisition Act. It suggests that certain issues would be better resolved by the Lands Acquisition Act. So far as the loss of livelihood of workers of Tasmania is concerned, it is always open to the Government to enter into negotiations with the Tasmanian Government on whatever programs it sees fit and to make whatever offers it sees fit quite apart from the value of the land in relation to which it is operating in this case. The Fraser Government offered the Tasmanian Government $500m. It did not do it because it was required to do it under the Lands Acquisition Act but because it recognised the need in Tasmania. So we do not need this clause of the Bill for the Government to take that sort of action. This clause does not enhance the Government's chances of taking that sort of action. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(10.9) —I rise to support the amendments moved by Senator Martin. I think she was somewhat puzzled by my interjection during her speech. It was made, of course, on the basis that the matters to which she was referring when she quoted from the report of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills were raised by that Committee by way of floating them before this chamber and indicating to the Senate and the Government matters which the Committee thinks might be regarded as trespassing unduly on the personal rights and liberties. It is not the practice of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee to make any dogmatic statements in these matters but it is for the Senate to decide whether it wants to take up such issues. One would expect the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) to respond to matters which are raised by the Committee. Senator Martin referred to part of the Committee's report. To save time, I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard paragraphs 9 to 12 inclusive of the first report of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, dated 11 May 1983, as I think it would be useful to have them recorded . Leave granted. The report read as follows- Clause 17-Compensation 9. This clause sets out the procedures relating to the determination of any compensation that might be payable for land acquired under the Act or under regulations made pursuant to the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975. The procedures are intended to fulfil the Constitutional requirement that the Commonwealth acquire property ''on just terms'' (s. 51 (xxxi)). 10. Once it has been determined that the Commonwealth is liable to pay compensation, the precise amount-the ''just terms''-is determined in accordance with a procedure spelt out in clauses 17 (7) to 17 (14). If the claimed amount is less than $5 million, and the Commonwealth does not agree to this amount, the claimant may apply to the Federal Court for determination of the compensation, under clause 17 (14). 11. However, in cases of disputed claims for $5 million or more, the Governor- General shall establish a Commission of Inquiry to inquire into and report on the compensation payable. Under clause 17 (10), a Commission has 12 months in which to report; and under clause 17 (12), the Governor-General has a further 3 months in which to determine the compensation payable. Although the Committee believes that the Report of the Commission of Inquiry would be admissible as evidence in any Federal Court action taken under this clause, the Committee is concerned that the Report may otherwise not be publicly available, either through tabling in Parliament or release to the claimant. If either the Commission does not report within 12 months or the claimant contests the amount determined by the Governor-General, the claimant may apply to the Federal Court to determine a just amount. 12. The Committee draws attention to the difference in treatment accorded disputed claims which fall either side of the $5 million. Disputed claims of $5 million or more are made subject to a process of resolution which may, in some circumstances, be less speedy and possibly involve undue delay in the payment of amounts for land acquired by the Commonwealth. The Committee draws attention to the departure from the usual procedure set out in the Lands Acquisition Act 1955 which in most instances lends itself to the possibility of a speedy resolution of disputed claims. Insofar as there may be some extension of the time in which compensation is payable for land acquired under this Act, the Committee draws this provision under clause 17 to the attention of the Senate under clause 1 (a) (i) in that it might be regarded as trespassing unduly on personal rights and liberties. Senator MISSEN —I will not go over the issues which were raised, including the questions of interest, which are important matters which would show the compensation provisions in a fairer light, the other matters which are raised and queried in the Committee's report and the matters raised by Senator Martin. I refer also to one matter in the Committee's report and ask the Attorney- General whether in his reply he will refer to it-that is, the matter which is raised in paragraph 11 of the Committee's report, in regard to the report which the Governor-General receives from the Commission, which deals with an award of over $5m. The Governor-General, of course, has a further three months to determine the compensation paid. Paragraph 11 of the report states: Although the Committee believes that the Report of the Commission of Inquiry would be admissible as evidence in any Federal Court action taken under this clause, the Committee is concerned that the Report may otherwise not be publicly available, either through tabling in Parliament or release to the claimant. I make two statements about that paragraph. I cannot see anywhere in this Bill that the Parliament will be able to judge the matter, because it will not be in the Parliament's records as to what was the actual report of that examination over a year. It seems to me that ought to be available so that the Parliament and the public can judge whether or not the Government is making a reasonable offer to the claimants. Furthermore, although the report states that the report of the Commission may be admissible in evidence, it may not be compellable. If someone can get his hands on it, it may be put before the Federal Court when it is determining compensation. But it would seem to me to be very relevant and important for the court to know the reasoning behind the report that was made to the Governor-General by the Commission. I invite the Attorney-General to say whether or not the report will be available. It seems to me that if it is not available, that is somewhat defective and somewhat unfair to claimants. I believe for that reason, and for the reasons advanced by Senator Martin, that these amendments have validity. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.12) —I refer to one matter contained in clause 17 (12). I believe that this sub-clause provides that the Governor-General does not have to take any notice at all of the Commission of Inquiry if the decision has not been taken in respect of acquisition between the people and the Commonwealth . If the decision has not been reached, the Commission of Inquiry's report will not necessarily be abided by. It is taken notice of, but not abided by. Can the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) explain, if no agreement has been reached, why the Governor-General should not abide by the report of the Commission of Inquiry? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.14) —I am indebted to the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills for bringing forward its report on this Bill, as indeed, on all others. It is a useful document because it draws attention to some points that need to be answered. In relation to the Committee's report, as with the original amendment moved by the Opposition, insufficient account has been taken of the context in which these compensation provisions are written. I repeat, as I said earlier, that we are dealing with a situation in which acquisition would not be the normally perferred mode of operation of the Commonwealth. To the extent that the Commonwealth wanted to control the management of the land area in question by means of acquisition, it would not do so by acting under this Bill. It would use some other means, notably the Lands Acquisition Act. This Bill only has these provisions in order to cope with the contingency that what it does by way of prohibition of dam building or anything else might just be construed by a court as amounting to an acquisition and, as such, demanding the payment of just terms by virtue of section 51 (xxxi) of the Constitution. I hasten to add that it is highly unlikely that a court would so construe any of this prohibitory activity by the Commonwealth. There are many cases which indicate that a government can engage in all sorts of zoning regulations, prohibitory licensing regulations and so on, without that amounting to an acquisition of the proprietary interest in question, but there is a doubt about it. There are American cases and other exotic cases suggesting that it might amount to an acquisition and, in order to avoid the whole edifice tumbling down in the event that it did have to be construed as an acquisition because of the absence of provisions for just terms, this procedure is built in for the identification of just terms in the unlikely event that something was construed as an acquisition. I know that that sounds very technical. But it is the only context in which we are here talking about compensation and acquisition. Senator Martin was quite right in saying that the Government would normally be expected to have regard to other considerations-negotiations, consultations and so on-if it comes simply to the business of compensating a State for the effect of Commonwealth action in inhibiting what the State would otherwise like to do. All of those things can occur outside the context of an acquisition exercise. So that is the context in which this provision is contained in the Bill. It is made particularly clear by the vesting of the jurisdiction in respect of these matters in the High Court, which is one of the matters dealt with by the Opposition's amendments. The High Court is given original jurisdiction because we are talking about the curious case of something being construed as an acquisition within the meaning of section 51 (xxxi) of the Constitution; in other words, a 'constitutional' acquisition is involved and, as such, is something that will ultimately fall for determination by the High Court. Rather than again requiring litigants to wend their weary way up through the court system in order to have this matter determined once and for all by the High Court, since it raises a question of interpretation of the Constitution, we are proposing simply to vest that jurisdiction directly, in the first instance, in the High Court. It may be that experience of the operation of this legislation will indicate that a number of these claims are made over time and that it would suit the convenience of litigants to have access to some other tier of courts in the system, rather than having to go to the High Court in the first instance. Again, I say that we will take into account the way that this system works and will do our best to accommodate any such experience that shows up. Certainly, in the first likely area of application of this legislation, namely, South West Tasmania, I do not believe anyone is in any doubt but that the High Court is the court that will be involved in the first instance. So there is plenty of time to modify the Act in subsequent amendments, should that prove necessary. But there is a genuine coherent rationale for the High Court being vested with this jurisdiction. The procedure will have to be looked at in light of the context we are talking about. In involves a highly unusual case. Of course, the distinction between $5m minus and $5m plus is an arbitrary one, but no more so than the usual demarcation between various jurisdictions when some monetary element is involved . There is an element of arbitrariness in any figure that one may choose. I suppose that $5m seems a lot more to honourable senators on this side of the chamber than it does to those on the other side. We could argue about that. But I suggest it is not an unreasonable ground for distinction. The reason for a special procedure involving a commission of inquiry in respect of claims of more than $5m is the likelihood, as Senator Martin has acknowledged I said in my reply to the second reading debate, that monetary aspects relevant to what compensation is fair and just will in most cases need detailed investigation. They will not involve the ordinary acquisition of land for the purpose of building an aerodrome. They will involve odd cases such as South West Tasmania or matters of that kind. It will be necessary in these sorts of situations to have flexible procedures that can deal with wide-ranging economic arguments about the effect of the Bill. The solutions that might be appropriate by way of compensation in those cases could include, for example, conditional grants, under section 96 of the Constitution to be made by the Commonwealth as part of some development package. Such measures, although they would, constitutionally speaking, constitute an appropriate and effective form of just terms within the meaning of the constitution, would not necessarily be appropriate for judicial determination in the first instance. That is the reason for this commission of inquiry concept being established. Finally, with regard to some of the procedural aspects that were mentioned in relation to the Commission of Inquiry, Senator Walters raised the question about whether it made any sense for the Governor-General not having to take any notice of the Commission of Inquiry report. I make the point that if the Governor- General-that is, the Commonwealth Government of the day-does not take any notice of the Commission of Inquiry report, it is always open to the aggrieved individual or State to appeal directly to the Federal Court. As to the question raised by Senator Missen about the obligatory tabling of the report, I suggest to him that although in a sense it might be an improvement in the Bill to put the matter clearly beyond doubt it is surely implicit, if not explicit, in the operation of the Bill. For example, clause 17 (14) (c) states that if the person considers that the compensation determined by the Governor-General pursuant to sub-clause (12) in respect of the acquisition is not fair and just then he may apply to the Federal Court for determination of the matter. How on earth could the person make that decision unless there was an implied obligation for the Commission of inquiry's report and so on to be made available to him via the determination of the Governor-General? So, although I can see the point that is being made, I do not believe it is so significant or so necessary for the proper and just working of these provisions that an amendment is necessary at this stage. Again, should a machinery amendment prove to be necessary, of course, that is one of the tidy-up things that we would be prepared to contemplate. But there is not so obviously or starkly a defect on the face of the Bill that in my belief and the Government's belief demands an amendment of this kind. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(10.21) — There is very obviously and starkly a defect. I refer again to the matter of the High Court and the Federal Court. Sub -clause (4) of clause 17 talks about acquisition of property from a person and states in part: . . . the person may make application to the High Court requesting the Court to make a declaration that the operation of this Act or of the Regulations has resulted in an acquisition of property from the person. I reiterate that it is possible under the operation of this legislation for the constitutional issue to have been settled by earlier cases and for the matter of fact to be quite within the competence of the Federal Court in that case. If someone wanted to challenge whether it was a matter of fact of the same kind that fitted in with an earlier decision of the High Court he could take it to the High Court. That right of appeal applies. I am not impressed by the Attorney -General (Senator Gareth Evans) saying that, if some tidying-up is necessary later, he will do it. We have said that we will pass this Bill tonight, and we will do so. The tidying-up should be done now. I have seen years of governments saying: 'That is a good idea. We will do it in due course'. It never happens. If the Attorney-General is fair dinkum, he will accept that amendment. It will not be a major stumbling block in the finalisation of the Bill, and he can recognise the worth of it. Nevertheless, it must be very disquieting to the Tasmanian Government to hear the statement that, if the Bill is not satisfactory, it can be amended at some time in the future, because it will be a test case. Senator Gareth Evans —They are going to the High Court, and you know that as well as I do. That is a debating society argument. Senator MARTIN —It will have to go through the compensations procedure. It will have to face this weird commission of inquiry. There is no reason at all that compensation cannot come under the Lands Acquisition Act or other Acts. It is just too bad for those for whom the Bill is not tidied up in advance. That is a cavalier attitude on behalf of the Attorney-General and the Government and now is the time to be trying to make this Bill as fair and satisfactory as we can for all, including the first ones who will come under its application. Mr Chairman, may I request that you put amendments Nos 10 and 11 first-they are the amendments that relate to the High Court and the Federal Court-and that you subsequently put together amendments Nos 8, 9, 12, 13, 14 and 15, that is, that group of amendments that relate in the broad to the subject of compensation. The CHAIRMAN —If there is no objection, I will put them in that form. Is there any objection? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.25) —There is no objection. Let me say one more thing on the High Court or Federal Court matter. I am not being pigheaded or wilfully obstructive about this. It is simply that I believe that it is a principled decision which lies behind the choice of the High Court, namely, what we are talking about is the determination of whether something is an acquisition within the meaning of the Constitution and, as such, that is a matter peculiarly appropriate for determination by the High Court. It may be that in some future run of cases such a substantial body of precedent will be established by the High Court that there will be no doubt that a particular form of prohibitory activity by the Commonwealth represents an acquisition of property. But I would be surprised were that to be the case because, if experience tells us anything here, it is that every case turns on its own peculiar facts in acquisition questions. As such, I believe that for practical purposes these matters will end up in the High Court and, if that is so, they ought to start there. It is not a matter of being intransigent. I believe there is a principled ground for the Bill staying as it is. Question put: That amendments Nos 10 and 11 (Senator Martin's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 33 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Baume, Peter Lajovic, M. E. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lewis, A. W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. MacGibbon, D. J. Carrick, Sir John Martin, K. J. Chaney, F. M. Messner, A. J. Collard, S. J. Missen, A. J. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E. Durack, P. D. Scott, D. B. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. Harradine, B. Walters, M. S. Hill, R. Watson, J. O. W. Jessop, D. S. Withers, R. G. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Bolkus, N. Hearn, J. M. Button, J. N. McClelland, DouglasChilds, B. K. McIntosh, G. D. Chipp, D. L. Macklin, M. J. Coates, J. Maguire, G. R. Coleman, R. N. Mason, C. V. J. Colston, M. A. Primmer, C. G. Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Reynolds, M. Elstob, R. C. Richardson, G. F. Evans, Gareth Robertson E. A. (Telller)Evans, Jack Ryan, S. M. Foreman, D. J. Sibraa, K. W. Georges, G. Tate, M. C. Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A. Grimes, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Haines, J. Archer, B. R. Jones, G. H. Rae, Peter Giles, P. J. Question so resolved in the negative. Consideration interrupted. The CHAIRMAN —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Chairman do now leave the chair and report to the Senate. Question resolved in the negative. Consideration resumed. Question put: That amendments Nos 8, 9, 12, 13, 14 and 15 (Senator Martin's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 33 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Baume, Peter Lajovic, M. E. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lewis, A. W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. MacGibbon, D. J. Carrick, Sir John Martin, K. J. Chaney, F. M. Messner, A. J. Collard, S. J. Missen, A. J. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E. Durack, P. D. Scott, D. B. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. Harradine, B. Walters, M. S. Hill, R. Watson, J. O. W. Jessop, D. S. Withers, R. G. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Bolkus, N. Hearn, J. M. Button, J. N. McClelland, DouglasChilds, B. K. McIntosh, G. D. Chipp, D. L. Macklin, M. J. Coates, J. Maguire, G. R. Coleman, R. N. Mason, C. V. J. Colston, M. A. Primmer, C. G. Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Reynolds, M. Elstob, R. C. Richardson, G. F. Evans, Gareth Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Evans, Jack Ryan, S. M. Foreman, D. J. Sibraa, K. W. Georges, G. Tate, M. C. Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A. Grimes, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Haines, J. Archer, B. R. Jones, G. N. Rae, Peter Giles, P. J. Question so resolved in the negative. Clause 17 agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(10.38) —I wish to raise one matter that was not relevant to raise in the course of consideration of any of the particular amendments. If I may, I will raise it at this stage rather than at the third reading stage. Very briefly, in the course of the second reading debate on this Bill last night, I made reference, as reported at page 479 of Hansard, to the fact that decisions had been made to place the area of South West Tasmania on the World Heritage List at the request of the Commonwealth and the Government of Tasmania. I said: That was not done in secret, nor were the various proclaimed parts which have made up the national parks and the area of that listing. All that was done openly and we had that responsibility. I discover that, subsequent to that, Senator Watson, in speaking on the Bill, made the following comment on page 485, which is not entirely accurate. In speaking about Premier Lowe's actions, he said: . . . no evidence has ever been offered contrary to what my colleague Senator Missen said today, about openness of the decision-making process in relation to this issue. No evidence has ever been offered as to how the former Premier Lowe discussed the matter in Cabinet or Caucus. Certainly, there has been no evidence to show how he discussed it in parliament. That could not be construed as open, honest government as such. Of course, honourable senators will realise from what I read from in my speech that I was not talking about discussions in parliament. In fact that statement is incorrect. Therefore I wish to have incorporated in Hansard extracts from the Tasmanian House of Assembly Hansard of 30 April 1981, in particular, a statement by Mr Lowe, the then Premier, in which he explained the decision of the Tasmanian Government in regard to an application to increase the area of the World Heritage listing. Approval had been given to this matter by the Government . That statement was followed by members saying: 'Hear, hear'. There was then a division in which the present Premier, Mr Gray, took part. In view of the statement which was made here I think that statement should be incorporated in Hansard. Therefore, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the two pages of the Tasmanian Hansard of 30 April 1981. Leave granted. The document read as follows- HANSARD-30 April 1981 TASMANIAN HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY Dr AMOS (Denison-Minister for Primary Industry):I seek leave to bring in the bill. In doing so, it is not my intention to try to put the bill through the House during this session. There is a problem with a sunset clause on part of a regulation. By bringing the bill forward now, under the Acts Interpretation Act the provision may continue until such time as it is debated in the House. Leave granted. Bill presented by Dr Amos and read the first time. Report of Free Conference Resumed from 23 April 1981 (page 7041). Mr LOWE (Franklin-Premier):I have the honour to report from the Free Conference with the Legislative Council that the conference has failed to come to agreement . Motion by Mr Lowe agreed to- That the bill with amendments be referred to the Legislative Council for further consideration. Ministerial Statement Mr LOWE (Franklin-Premier):Mr Speaker, I wish to make a ministerial statement. I wish to inform the House that at a special meeting of the Executive Council held earlier this afternoon, the establishment of a wild river national park was proclaimed. The park encompasses the catchment area of the Franklin and Olga Rivers and the lower part of the Gordon River. In addition, the proclamation provides for the extension of the South West National Park to include the catchment area of the Davey River. It will be recalled that in July 1980 the Government made a decision on a comprehensive range of future power development and related matters. This development included a major hydro-electric power scheme-the Gordon above Olga scheme-and establishment of a national park of world significance embracing the catchment area of the Franklin River. At that time I made it clear that it was the Government's desire to obtain approval for its power development scheme before action was taken to proclaim the Wild River National Park. It was the expectation of the Government that at worst the legislation would be passed by Parliament by the end of December 1980. As members will be aware, that legislation was still the subject of disagreement between the two Houses at the end of 1980. That session of Parliament has continued to the present time with the matter remaining unresolved. As a result of the latest conference of managers of both Houses held this morning, it is quite clear that major disagreement remains on this matter in respect of values, philosophy and interpretation with regard to various points of detail. It was the Government's initial intention, prior to the development of the current impasse with the Legislative Council, not to proclaim the Wild River National Park until such time as the matter of future power development was finalised. However, the circumstances of disagreement which I have described have compelled the Government to pursue a different course of action. Continuing inaction in regard to proclamation of the national park may have led some to doubt the Government's determination to save the Franklin River whilst simultaneously ensuring that our energy future is also adequately protected. So that the Government's position can be made quite clear, it has therefore decided that this national park should be proclaimed in the south-west of the State without further delay. I will today be writing to the Prime Minister asking him to amend the Australian Government's submission for World Heritage listing of the South West National Park to include the areas covered by today's proclamation. Approval of the power scheme is a matter for Parliament. Approval of the national park and its boundaries is a matter for government decision, and that decision has now been formalised. Construction of the next power development scheme can proceed as soon as Parliament approves the legislation. The Government awaits that approval with great anxiety, having regard to the consequences of further prolonged deferral of a decision on this vital matter. The decisions by the Government and the Parliamentary Labor Party in July 1980 on energy and related matters embraced endorsements of the Gordon above Olga scheme as the next major power development, further hydro-electric schemes, a range of matters relating to energy conservation and management, the conversion of Bell Bay thermal power station to coal-firing, the conservation of the Franklin and Davey Rivers catchment areas and certain other policy initiatives. In short, my Government's judgment in relation to the next major power development was taken within the context of a package of policy initiatives, the principal thrust of which was a continuing all-hydro power development aimed at enhancing the social and economic well-being of the State, together with the protection of certain unique wilderness areas. My Government does not retreat from these important policy commitments, as evidenced by today's proclamation. Members:Hear, hear. Mr PEARSALL (Franklin-Leader of the Opposition): Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a motion without notice for the purpose of moving to censure the Government . The [Tasmanian] House divided- AYES 13 NOES 19 Mr Beattie Mr Adams Mr Beswick Mr Aird Mr Bingham Dr Amos Mr Bonney Mr Aulich Mr Braid Mr Baldock Mr Bushby Mr Barnard Mr Cleary (Teller) Mr Coughlan Mr Cornish Mr Devine Mr Gray Mr Field Mr Mather Mr Graham Mr Page Mr Holgate Mr Pearsall Mrs James Mr Robson Mr Lohrey Mr Lowe Mr McKinnon (Teller) Mr Polley Mr Sanders Mr Weldon Mrs Willey Leave so not granted. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.44) —Mr Chairman-- The CHAIRMAN —Is the honourable senator seeking the call? We are debating the remaining clauses of the Bill. Senator HARRADINE —Yes. I am seeking the call. Senator Gareth Evans —Mr Chairman, I take a point of order. We do not want to extend this debate unduly. If people have matters that they want to raise arising out of the debate the adjournment debate is the appropriate time to do it. The CHAIRMAN —I note the point of order. Senator Harradine has the call. I ask him to speak to the remaining clauses of the Bill. Senator HARRADINE —I will speak in a manner similar to the manner in which Senator Missen spoke. Senator Georges —Senator Missen was not speaking to the clauses. Senator HARRADINE —No, he was not, but I will speak to the clauses. I now have a copy of the document that has been incorporated in Hansard. By implication Senator Missen alleged that the Tasmanian Parliament had endorsed the nomination of the Western Tasmanian Wilderness National Parks to the World Heritage Committee for listing. Senator Missen —No. Senator HARRADINE —You said that by implication. That is precisely the implication that you were making. You said that there was a division in the Tasmanian House of Assembly on that issue. The CHAIRMAN —The matter that Senator Harradine is debating would be more appropriately debated during the third reading debate. I allowed Senator Missen to speak on another matter. Senator HARRADINE —Mr Chairman, you allowed Senator Missen to get away with it. Why will you not allow me to get away with it? The CHAIRMAN —You have a perfect right to raise the matter during the third reading debate. I allowed, in order to expedite proceedings, Senator Missen to raise a matter which was not relevant to the remaining clauses of the Bill. You can speak to the third reading if you so wish. Senator HARRADINE —Mr Chairman, I would like to know why you did not rule him out of order. The CHAIRMAN —I am ruling you out of order now. You may speak to the remaining clauses of the Bill. Senator HARRADINE —I am speaking to clause 18. Mr Chairman, I hope you recognise the fact that I have not spoken on more than one occasion on any of the clauses. I refer the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) to clause 18 of the Bill which relates to the delegation of authority by the Minister. That clause indicates that the Minister may delegate his authority to a person in respect of any of the powers that he has under clauses 9, 10 or 11 of the Bill. These clauses are vital clauses which deal with the methods of ensuring the implementation of this legislation in respect of identified properties. It would be a matter of concern if, for example, the Minister were to delegate his powers to a designated person who would be the ipso facto major domo of the World Heritage Committee in Australia. For example, he could delegate his power to a person such as Professor Bellamy. The Government could get him out here especially and he could be the person to whom delegated power could be given under this provision. As the matters are so important I would like the Minister not to delegate his power in respect of those matters, especially when the identified properties are properties relating to a State. I wonder whether the Minister would respond by saying that the person he represents in this chamber does not intend to delegate the authority which he has under clauses 9, 10 and 11 of the Bill. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.46) —The powers of delegation under the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill are wide but not unusually wide. Whether they are being exercised by an ipso facto major domo or by anyone else they are still subject to challenge under the enforcement provisions of clauses 13 and 14 of the Bill; that is to say, as to the prohibitions, consents and so on. In clause 13 there is provision for redress through the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, no matter who exercises delegation. Senator Harradine —Would the Minister's decisions be subject to that? Senator GARETH EVANS —Certainly, the Minister's decisions, too; there is no doubt about that. Not only the delegator but also the delegatee would have their decisions challengeable under these provisions. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.47) —With respect, that statement does not meet the point that I made. On matters of such grave importance it is unusual for the Minister to delegate power. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.48) —We can stand here all night saying: 'It is. It is not'. 'It is. It is not'. Senator Harradine —To whom is it envisaged the power would be delegated? Senator GARETH EVANS —On some big decisions, for example, 'thou shall not construct a dam', it would be highly unlikely that the Minister would delegate his power. On small decisions, for example, 'thou shall not knock down a bush larger than two metres high', one could reasonably delegate to someone down the line within the Department. There will be big decisions and little decisions. The prospect is that the big decisions would be retained by the Minister and the little ones would be farmed out. In either event they are all challengeable. Senator Harradine —Within the Department? Senator GARETH EVANS —One would expect so, yes. That is as I read the clause-in the normal way, down the line. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(10.49) —A few minutes ago during the debate my attention was drawn by a colleague to page 485 of yesterday's Hansard and to a statement which I made which was not entirely correct. The CHAIRMAN —I allowed Senator Missen, in retrospect, excessively generous terms in which to make a statement which should have been made during the third reading debate. I ruled Senator Harradine out of order for making a similar statement and I also rule you out of order. You may debate only the clauses before the Committee. If you wish to raise this sort of matter it would be appropriate to do so during the third reading debate. Senator WATSON —I will raise it then. Remainder of Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Third Reading Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.50) —I wish to oppose the third reading of the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill. I do so because I believe that the Parliament of the Commonwealth has done a disservice to the community; it has done a disservice to the Constitution. Senator Missen, prior to the finalisation of the Committee stage, raised an issue about which I took some exception because he had done so in order to clothe what has been done tonight with some sort of democratic principle. That he cannot do. I attempted to answer Senator Missen in the Committee stage and was invited by the Chairman of Committees to do so on the third reading. This legislation, particularly clause 6, enables the Commonwealth to make a proclamation in relation to identified property that is in a State and is property to which one or more of the paragraphs in clause 6 apply. Senator Chipp —This debate will hold up the whole Senate. Senator HARRADINE —Senator Chipp is leaving the chamber after having described me as a mental defective. One is not a judge in one's own case but fortunately Senator Chipp is not one of my electors. This measure enables the Commonwealth, without reference to the Parliament of any State, to nominate a property for listing by the World Heritage Committee. Under those circumstances not only the persons of the State have no say in the matter but also citizens of the Commonwealth have no say in that matter other than by disallowance of the proclamation. In the instant case of South West Tasmania no one can say that that nomination went forward to the World Heritage Committee and was listed with the approval of the Tasmanian Parliament. That is the sort of implication that was made by Senator Missen, and it is totally unfair for him to make that implication because it is just not so. The Premier of the day put forward the nomination. He did in fact, as has been indicated, report it to Parliament, but the Parliament did not vote on that nomination. To be fair, the Premier of the day put forward the nomination when legislation such as this was not on the statute books and when he was prepared to build a dam, namely the Gordon above Olga, within that South West Tasmania nominated area. That is something that has not come out in the debate so far. Senator Georges —Why are you raising it now? Why didn't you raise it at the proper time so I could get a chance to answer it? Senator HARRADINE —The honourable senator can answer afterwards. The Premier of the day put forward the nomination for inclusion on the World Heritage List when he knew that his policy was for the building of the Gordon above Olga dam, which is in the nominated area, the identified area. It is pure cant and hypocrisy to suggest that his action-that is to say, the action of the State premier in nominating this particular area-should be used as a trigger for the operations of this Bill. Furthermore, I remind the Senate that Article 34 (b) of the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, which is set out in the Schedule to the Bill, provides: with regard to the provisions of this convention, the implementation of which comes under the legal jurisdiction of individual constituent States, countries, provinces or cantons that are not obliged by the constitutional system of the federation to take legislative measures, the federal government shall inform the competent authorities of such States, countries, provinces or cantons of the said provisions, with its recommendations for their adoption. The nomination of this area proceeded not with the approval of the State Government but in fact with its active disapproval. By a telex dated 28 June 1982 the Premier of Tasmania requested that the nomination be withdrawn and subsequently by letter of 16 August 1982 he renewed the request but the nomination was not withdrawn. I point out to the Senate that, in respect of the five nominated areas, South West Tasmania is the only one which has not in effect met with the approval of the particular State concerned. Yet we have the Commonwealth Government proceeding inexorably with its legal and political moves -at great cost, might I add-to the democratic principles of subsidiarity and to democracy in this nation. I am concerned that what the Senate has done tonight will react against this federation. I believe that even if the High Court of Australia considers that the legislation that we have passed is not properly based, the issue will not stop there. The Tasmanian Wilderness Society has announced already that, irrespective of what we do or what the High Court does, there is an eight-year program to stop power development in the area-in other words, to overthrow and override the democratic decisions that have been taken by the groups within the parliamentary system which have the responsibility and the information to take those decisions. Those people-namely, members of the Wilderness Society and others-have declared their intention. They will attempt to impose their will on the rest of us-I include everybody in this chamber and on the High Court- irrespective of democracy and civil liberties. Senator Georges —Do you include me? Senator HARRADINE —Yes, I include the honourable senator. All right, we can differ on various- Senator Coleman —How can they impose their will on the High Court? Senator HARRADINE —They can do so by the blockade tactics they have thrown up only over the last six months. If those blockade tactics and the tactics of those who have an imbalanced attitude on this issue are disapproved of, honourable senators should say that they disapprove of them and let the law take its course. But let me say that I will remember those who have said that those tactics are not appropriate. Can I take it that Government members would say that if this measure fails in the High Court that should be the end of the matter? Am I clear on that-that that should be the end of the matter? If the High Court rules as invalid any measures taken under this legislation do honourable senators opposite accept that that is where the situation lies and that is where it ends? I take it by the silence of Government members- Senator Georges —I am going to be quite happy with that. I trust the High Court to come down with the right decisions. Senator HARRADINE —I just remind the Senate of what has been said by Mr Bob Brown of the Tasmanian Wilderness Society. In an announcement broadcast last week by the Australian Broadcasting Commission he said that no matter what happened in the High Court or in the Parliament the development will not proceed . I ask the Senate to have regard to that. Finally, I ask the Senate to ensure that that sort of undemocratic approach is not countenanced so that democracy will prevail in the end. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(11.4) —Like Senator Harradine, I attempted to answer certain allegations that were raised by Senator Missen and the Chairman of Committees thought it would be more appropriate to answer the allegations at the third reading stage. I want to answer those allegations by Senator Missen who challenged my remark about the process by which this matter in relation to the listing proceeded through Cabinet, Caucus and the Parliament. Honourable senators may recall that my remark was that I believed the process lacked a certain openness and honesty within government. In fact, on reading the extract of the House of Assembly Hansard of 30 April 1981, which my colleague had incorporated in Hansard, we note that former Premier Lowe made a ministerial statement in the Tasmanian House of Assembly in which he said: I wish to inform the House that at a special meeting of the Executive Council held earlier this afternoon, the establishment of a wild river national park was proclaimed. Later in the statement, he said: It was the Government's initial intention, prior to the development of the current impasse with the Legislative Council, not to proclaim the Wild River National Park until such time as the matter of future power development was finalised. However, the circumstances of disagreement which I have described have compelled the Government to pursue a different course of action. I think that the only difference in the situation is that former Premier Lowe issued a ministerial statement after the event. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(11.6) —I point out briefly that the Opposition will oppose the third reading of the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill 1983 . We did not oppose the second reading of the Bill because we wanted it to proceed to the Committee stage, so that we might attempt to improve it. We have moved a number of amendments, some of which the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has indicated had some merit. Nevertheless, the Government and the Australian Democrats have voted against all amendments. We consider this Bill to be quite unsatisfactory and we will be voting against the third reading. Question put. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 26 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 8 —— Bolkus, N. Hearn, J. N. Button, J. N. McClelland, DouglasChilds, B. K. McIntosh, G. D. Chipp, D. L. Macklin, M. J. Coates, J. Maguire, G. R. Coleman, R. N. Mason, C. V. J. Colston, M. A. Missen, A. J. Cook, P. F. S. Primmer, C. G. Crowley, R. A. Ray, RobertElstob, R. C. Reynolds, M. Evans, Gareth Richardson, C. F. Evans, Jack Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M. Georges, G. Sibraa, K. W. Gietzelt, A. T. Tate, M. C. Grimes, D. J. Walsh, P. A. Haines, J. Zakharov, A. O. Baume, Peter Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller)Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lajovic, M. E. Boswell, R. L. D. Lewis, A. W. R. Carrick, Sir John MacGibbon, D. J. Chaney, F. M. Martin, K. J. Collard, S. J. Messner, A. J. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E. Durack, P. D. Scott, D. B. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. Harradine, B. Walters, M. S. Hill, R. Watson, J. O. W. Jessop, D. S. Withers, R. G. Jones, G. N. Archer, B. R. Giles, P. J. Rae, Peter Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Senate adjourned at 11.13 p.m.