Monday, 25 March 1985 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Costigan Royal Commission To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we are greatly concerned with the extent to which serious crime including murder, major drug financing and massive tax frauds have penetrated into the highest levels of Australian society as shown by the investigations of various Royal Commissioners and in particular by Mr Frank Costigan Q.C. That we are concerned that the National Crime Authority has too many restrictions and possible lines of veto placed upon it for it it be an effective successor to the Costigan Enquiry and that this will allow major criminals to avoid prosecution. And your petitioners humbly pray that the Federal Government negotiate urgently with the Victorian Government on the reactivation of the Costigan Commission and to extend its term to at least the 31st March, 1985 and also to provide the Costigan Commission with whatever resources it may need to successfully conclude its investigations into organised crime in Australia. Further we believe that the issue of organised crime in Australia is so important that the Parliament should not be dissolved until at least the interim Costigan Report has been received and fully debated in both Houses of the Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Short (from 18 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: That we the undersigned, having great concern because of the spread of moral pollution in our nation call upon the Government to introduce immediate legislation: 1. To provide strict controls over importation, production, sale, hire or mailing of video-cassettes with the open sale of only G, PG and M rated video-cassettes; and the total prohibition of the sale of R rated video-cassettes so that R rated films can only be viewed in an adult theatre by persons over 18 years. We totally reject the concept of ''X'' rated video-cassettes which would allow the legal sale of hard-core pornographic films for screening in the homes of our nation, which endanger our children. 2. To dramatically improve the Federal Attorney-General's Guidelines for Classification of Video tapes/discs which restrict the importation, production, sale or hire, screening in private homes and mailing by Australia Post so as to include the total prohibition of any pornographic, obscene or blasphemous video cassette, or film containing child pornography, bestiality, sodomy, group sex, violent sex acts with women, such as rape and pack rape, sadism and torture, etc. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will protect our society, especially women and children from moral pollution and its harmful effects. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 35 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows- That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Senator Bolkus (from 53 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That we strongly oppose the 'A.C.T. Smoking and Tobacco Products Advertisements Prohibition Bill' introduced by Senator Jack Evans, because it will adversely affect sporting organisations and small businesses in the A.C.T., it reverses the onus of proof, and represents an unnecessary intrusion by government into the private affairs of individuals and other groups. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should reject this Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 47 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully shows: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and its future. The presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression. Nonetheless recognises the rights of the Australian people should they wish as a people to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners most humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Collard (from 107 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth government 1. Uphold the principle that the seeds and cuttings of plants are a public resource and a common heritage to all and that accordingly seeds should be freely available to all, freely mutipliable, able to be sold, exchanged, exported and imported by anyone who wishes. This is seen as a matter of national food security. 2. Recognise that plant breeding is a highly co-operative venture often involving private enterprise at the very last stages after basic seed collection, storage, and research has been publicly funded. 3. In view of the aforementioned paragraphs, recognise that any system giving 'property' or ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises is inappropriate and unjust. 4. Recognise that legislation establishing plant patenting schemes overseas has had serious adverse effects namely: (i) a slowing-down of scientific information exchange and exchanges in basic plant breeding materials, that is, germ plasm, (ii) subordination and/or curtailment of public breeding programmes, (iii) farmer unrest at seed prices, (iv) monopoly control of seed production and sales has passed into the hands of giant petrochemical and drug corporations also marketing crop chemicals, (v) increased uniformity of crop varieties leading to a vulnerability to pest and disease attack. 5. Reject any proposal to legislate for any system such as the drafted Plant Variety Rights Act, which gives exclusive ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from 46 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's failure to act to correct the anomalies in the Assets Test on pensions bring to its notice and due to have effect from the 21 March, 1985 the Labor Government's legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensions, and calls upon the Australian Democrats to support Senator Messner's Bill for the abolition of the Assets Test. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the passage of the Social Security and Repatriation Assets Test Abolition Bill to repeal the Labor Government's iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Messner (from 43 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the phasing out of the recurrent grant to residential colleges will be detrimental to the ability of disadvantaged and country students to receive a tertiary education. That alternative arrangements to fund needy students will be of no net benefit to those students, owing to the higher costs of administering such arrangements. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the recurrent grant to residential colleges be maintained as the most efficient and equitable means of ensuring that all citizens, irrespective of background, have equal opportunity to receive a tertiary education. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chaney (from 51 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned Australian citizens respectfully showeth that: (i) The financial situation of students enrolled at Australian post-secondary institutions is already extremely difficult and any increase in the financial commitments of students would gravely worsen their financial difficulties. (ii) The imposition of post-secondary tuition fees of comparable levels to those imposed prior to 1971 would force many currently enrolled students to discontinue their studies and deter many persons willing and able at present to undertake post-secondary study from doing so. (iii) Those students and potential students from social groups currently under-represented and disadvantaged in the education system would be most severely affected by the reintroduction of fees for post-secondary education. Your petitioners therefore pray that: 1. Post-secondary tuition fees not be re-introduced for any category of students. 2. Any form of Stamp Duty or similar system of the 'user pays' principle in education not be introduced. 3. Emphasis should be on increasing access to education by, among other things, increasing student financial assistance. 4. The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs immediately clarify the government's attitude to the reintroduction of post-secondary tuition fees. And your petitioners as in duty bound shall ever humbly pray. by Senator MacGibbon (from 20 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of The Senate in Parliament assembed. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows that: We hail as a victory for the not-so-silent majority, the decision of the Hawke Federal Government to now conduct an inquiry into the effects of hard core pornography and violence upon people and especially children. We view with deep concern, and deplore, the decision of the Government to allow the sale of this objectionable material to continue and become even more widespread during the period of the inquiry. We request the Federal Government to immediately enact laws to ban the entry into Australia and the sale of hard-core pornography and violence in video and publication form. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator MacGibbon (from seven citizens). Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-I present the following petition which is not in conformity with the Standing Orders, relating to the rate of tariff on imported fertilisers, from 222 petitioners: We the undersigned, each being a member of one of the following Trade Unions: Amalgamated Metals, Foundry and Shipwrights Union, Building Workers Industry Union, Electrical Trades Union, Federated Clerks Union, Federated Engine Drivers and Firemens Association, Federated Iron Workers Association, Painters and Decorators Union, and all being employees of the Phosphate Co-operative Company of Australia do humbly pray that the Federal Government takes immediate action to protect the Australian fertilizer manufacturing industry from imported, manufactured, Hi-Analysis Fertilizer. We feel that for the Australian Fertilizer Manufacturing Industry to remain viable and continue to remain a reliable employer, immediate protective action must be taken by the Federal Government in the form of: (a) The immediate implementation of a realistic tariff on imported, manufactured, Hi-Analysis Fertilizer. (b) An immediate freight subsidy for Australian Fertilizer manufacturers so as to ease raw material importation costs of Christmas and Nauru Island Phosphate Rock. We humbly pray that this petition is given urgent consideration. Petitions received. Senator McINTOSH(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the following matters be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence: (1) The Australian Army's rapid deployment capability. (2) The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —Mr President, I table papers in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I incorporate the list in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Advisory Council for Inter-Government Relations-Annual Report 1983-84-pursuant to Section 7 of the Advisory Council for Inter-Government Relations Act 1976. 2. A.C.T Architects Board-Annual Report 1983-84-pursuant to Section 39 of the Architects Ordinance 1959. 3. Fishing Industry Research Committee-Annual Report 1983-84-pursuant to Section 19 of the Fishing Industry Research Act 1969. 4. Capital Territory Health Commission-Annual Report 1983-84-pursuant to Section 72 of the Health Commission Ordinance 1975. 5. Australian Film and Television School-Annual Report 1983-84-pursuant to Section 42 (1) of the Australian Film and Television Act 1973. 6. Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Authority-Annual Report 1983-84-pursuant to Section 16 (2) of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973. 7. Anglo-Australian Telescope Board-Statement of reasons for the delay in tabling the Anglo-Australian Telescope Board Annual Report for 1983-84. 8. Joint Standing Committee on New Parliament House-text of a statement by the Minister for Territories made in the House of Representatives 21 March 1985. 9. Academic Salaries Tribunal-Annual Report 1983-84-pursuant to Section 12G of the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973. 10. Remuneration Tribunal-Annual Report 1983-84-pursuant to Section 12AA of the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — I direct a question to the Minister for Finance. I understand that the national inquiry into local government finance is expected to report in September. Will the Government await the recommendations of the inquiry before making any changes to existing tax sharing arrangements with local government at either the Premiers Conference in May or the tax summit in July? Senator WALSH —I believe the first part of the question correctly assumes that the inquiry is to report by September of this year. As to the second part of the question, payments to local governments, of course, will have to be considered in the context of government outlays. It ought to be noted that, on present estimates, if the existing arrangement for local government is continued into next year it will get a nominal increase in funds of around 20 per cent and a real increase in funds of about 15 per cent. I do not believe that an increase of that magnitude, 15 per cent in real terms-a far higher increase in funds than local government has ever before received-can be justified in the present tight budgetary situation. Local government authorities have not increased their revenue raising effort in the last decade or so in spite of rising property values, and the States have responded to Commonwealth assistance to local government associations by reducing State contributions to local government. I cite, for example, Dr Edwards, a former Treasurer of Queensland, who, in a letter to the President of the Local Government Association of Queensland advising of a big cut back in Queensland Government payments to local government authorities, said: . . . the financial position of local authorities has improved significantly over recent years. In this regard, Commonwealth grants to local authorities have increased from $9m in 1974-75 to $50.7m in 1980-81 and . . . $59m in 1982-83. The Queensland Government subsequently reconsidered its position, but that statement is indicative of its attitude. I do not believe that a real increase of 15 per cent, in the difficult budgetary situation that the Government is facing, can be justified even in isolation, less so when the effect of that is to discourage local government and State governments from providing their own funds. It was always a foolish decision to tie any Commonwealth funding to local government to the most unstable of all Commonwealth revenues, that is, to personal income tax, which is highly unstable. What ought to be considered is a review of local government funding arrangements to put them on a more stable basis than any continuing arrangement tied to personal income tax. Finally, if, as some people would argue there should be, there were a major shift from personal income tax to broadly based consumption taxes in the raising of Commonwealth revenue, obviously the 2 per cent formula which some people would like to regard as sacrosanct would heavily disadvantage local government. That is another thing which must be taken into consideration. Senator TATE —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Youth Affairs. Does the Minister recall the survey of young Australians published in July 1984 which showed that 61 per cent of young Australians supported the idea of forging a link between community support for the unemployed and community service by the unemployed? Will the Government give consideration to creating a service for Australia scheme which would require several hours of community work in return for community support of those not in the paid work force and receiving unemployment benefits? Senator BUTTON —I am familiar with the survey to which Senator Tate refers. It is an interesting result from the persons who were surveyed in the 15 to 19-year old age group. I have no doubt that, if the survey were conducted amongst a much older age group, the results would be even more in favour of people performing some community service for the receipt of unemployment benefits. Senator Tate asked me whether the Government would consider creating what he calls a 'service for Australia scheme' requiring several hours of community work in return for community support. Of course, the Government will consider that in the context of considering a wide range of issues concerning youth unemployment. I must say, with the greatest of respect to Senator Tate, the author of this question, that there are always very glib answers and symbolic solutions provided by the relatively ill-informed in this debate-- Senator Walters —You are not suggesting Senator Tate is one of those? Senator BUTTON —Many of them emanate from the Opposition, particularly from people such as Senator Walters, who no doubt has half-a-dozen up her sleeve. The point is that the Government currently is conducting a wide ranging study of these problems. The sorts of matters which Senator Tate suggested in his proposed service for Australia scheme will be examined in the course of that consideration. Senator Lewis —A good policy for the run-up to the next election, I suppose. Senator BUTTON —Senator Lewis rightly reminds me that there will be another election in three years' time. I assure Senator Lewis and anybody else who is concerned about the merits of this matter, as distinct from political venality, that the Government will see that the issue is dealt with as quickly as possible. I believe that will be in the course of this financial year. Senator WALTERS —My question is addressed to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women. It deals with sex discrimination matters and is in two parts. Is the Minister aware that the Human Rights Commission has agreed to exempt two national sports meetings from the provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act, following complaints that the law would disadvantage young girls? Is it a fact that the Act requires that girls must compete against boys in sporting carnival events of under-12-year- olds? Was the exemption granted after complaints by the Australian Primary Schools Sports Association, a body with acknowledged experience of this subject? Has the Act in this instance been shown to be unjust to the point that it creates rather than eliminates discrimination? Will it be amended without delay, or does the Minister agree with the head of the equal opportunity unit of the Victorian Department of Education, Miss Deborah Towns, who advocates that schools should choose teams which represent the sexes, rather than select children on their merits? The second part of my question relates to media reports- The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's question is getting quite long. Senator WALTERS —It is very short. The second part of my question relates to media reports that thousands of school books have been withdrawn from the education system and will be given away by the Federal Government to South Pacific countries. Is it a fact that the reason given for the ban was that the books were considered to be too sexist and racist? The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator WALTERS —That completes my question. The PRESIDENT —The honourable senator has asked a second question which varies or is completely different from the first one. I ask the Minister to confine her answer to the first question asked by Senator Walters. Senator RYAN —Senator Walters asked a long and detailed question concerning the operation of the Sex Discrimination Act in its application to school sports activities for students under 12. It is the case that the Act has a provision, as a result of an amendment moved by an Australian Democrat senator, Senator Janine Haines, that enables children under 12 to apply for acceptance into teams on bases other than that of sex. The provision, of itself, does not prevent single sex teams. I make that quite clear. However, it does provide that where a 10-year-old boy or girl wants to apply for a team he or she should be judged on capacity to get into that team rather than on his or her sex. In some school systems, that has been interpreted to mean that there will be no more single sex competitive activities. That interpretation was criticised by the Australian Primary Schools Sports Association. As a result, that Association recently sought and was granted an exemption from that provision of the Act. The exemption is a limited one. It is to operate for one year and is limited to a swimming carnival to be held in Darwin next month and a track and field meeting to be held in Canberra in December. The Human Rights Commission, in granting the exemption, has allowed more time to consider in greater depth the question of the performing capacities of boys and girls in sport and national competitions. As a result of the Sex Discrimination Commissioner reporting to me on this matter and discussing it with me, I have made the suggestion, which I have taken up with some of my ministerial colleagues, that we ought to fund a research project into the physical capacities of children under 12 years of age, because there are many views in the community but there is very little evidence. It may or may not be established that there are some significant sex differences which make it unfair to have mixed teams, but, because we do not know, I agreed with the granting of a temporary exemption. Depending on clarification of the situation, the Government will consider the matter further. Certainly there is no intention at this stage to amend the Act because there is simply not enough evidence to suggest that we ought to. Although this exemption has been granted and there have been some complaints about the way the provision in the Act has been interpreted, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner has reported to me that she has received a large number of calls, particularly from parents of young girls, expressing satisfaction that young girls are now able to get into mixed sex teams. So it is not all a matter of complaints by any means. However, I think that we should look at the matter further before anything as extreme as an amendment to the Act is contemplated. Senator WALTERS —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. The Minister did not answer the last part of my question, which was: Does the Minister agree with the head of the equal opportunity unit of the Victorian Education Department, Miss Deborah Towns, who advocates that schools pick teams which represent sexes rather than select children on their ability? Senator RYAN —The short answer to that question is no. Senator BLACK —I refer the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to Senator Messner's contribution to the assets test debate last Thursday in which he referred to 'the famous Senator Gietzelt list of 124 pension cheats that was discredited about 18 months ago'. In what way has this list been discredited? Is there some substance to the Minister's claims that the incidence of income test avoidance by the wealthy through contrived financial arrangements was widespread? Senator GIETZELT —I thank Senator Black for his question. I did, in fact, expect a question from Senator Messner having regard to the statement he made in the debate on the assets test when he said that he had noted that I had not substantiated my statement that 124 wealthy service pensioners had contrived their financial affairs in such a way during recent years as to avoid the income test and indicated that, as a result of my failure to produce further evidence, somehow or other that list had been discredited by the Opposition. I should have thought that if Senator Messner believed there was no foundation to the list I read to the Senate he would have challenged me as to the details, but no challenge was forthcoming. If Senator Messner is in some doubt as to the validity of the question I raised in the original debate as to the extent of income test avoidance, I suggest that he take up the matter with his colleague Senator Chaney, who told the Senate on 14 October 1981: . . . I get frequent reports of pensioners with tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars being involved with schemes which are not in their best interests and which are aimed at doing no more than increasing pension income, often at the economic detriment of those pensioners. For the information of the Senate I will give several examples of cases which have arisen during the assets test assessments and which, of course, confirm what I said originally when I answered questions on this matter some 18 months ago. In New South Wales a married service pensioner had total assets of $430,000, including $325,000 in a trust account. In Queensland a married service pensioner had total assets of $425,000, including $176,000 in shares, $93,000 in bonds and $28,000 in a bank account. A single service pensioner in Queensland had total assets of $375,000, including $134,000 in the bank. A married pensioner in South Australia had total assets of $412,000, including $398,000 in a family trust. A Victorian married service pensioner had total assets of $350,000, including $202,000 in shares and $95,000 in other investments. These assets are all in addition to the owning of their own homes. A single pensioner in Western Australia had total assets of $356,000, including $354,000 in a bank account. Senator Chaney —I raise a point of order, Mr President. This is obviously a prepared answer to a prepared question. All I am objecting to is the amount of time being taken up. I suggest that the Minister could make a statement if he wishes to put that amount of information into his answer. I request you to ask Ministers to answer questions and if they have extensive supporting material either to incorporate it in Hansard or to table it in order to give us a chance to ask the questions that we are waiting to ask. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Senate will know that the Chair is not in a position to be able to direct Ministers as to the way in which they answer questions. However, I ask Ministers, in answering questions, to keep their remarks as concise as possible and to give consideration to incorporating material in Hansard when this can be done so that the time allotted to Question Time will not be unduly restricted. Having said that, I ask the Minister to make his remarks as brief as possible in response to the question asked by Senator Black. Senator GIETZELT —I quite deliberately prepared an answer because I expected Senator Messner to ask me the question. I was referring to the single pensioner in Western Australia whose assets were $356,000, including-and I draw the attention of the Senate to this fact-a total of $354,000 in a bank account. This last case is particularly disturbing. It is clear that the service pensioner was doing himself a grave disservice by depriving himself of an annual income of at least $40,000 in order to qualify for a pension worth about $7,000 a year with fringe benefits. That particular bank and that particular bank manager were in fact taking advantage of the service pensioner and minimising his capacity to earn a much higher standard of living than he would have from receiving the service pension. This just proves conclusively how correct the Government's position was in taking steps to establish the assets test. Senator MASON —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Is it a fact that the majority of Australia's 120 Centurion tanks, while in urgent need of maintenance after having been mothballed for nine years, are still in usable condition but are regarded as unsuitable for service because of the very high petrol consumption of the original Rolls-Royce engines fitted to them? Has the Israeli Army, at relatively low cost, re-engined its Centurion tanks and are they now still in service as a reasonably effective fighting force? Is the Australian-built General Motors diesel engine suitable for re-engining our own Centurions at a fraction of the cost of new tanks? Will the Government investigate this possibility at this time before the tanks deteriorate any further and will the Minister agree that to allow the equipment to deteriorate beyond practical future use would represent a serious misuse of public assets? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am advised by the Minister for Defence that Australia's Centurion tanks have been placed in long term storage. They are not in immediately usable condition, but would require major refurbishment at considerable cost. Re-engining would be only part of any such refurbishing. The status of the Centurions is reviewed periodically in the light of operational and technological changes, and no doubt it will be again in the context of the force structure review which is proceeding this year. At this stage there is no requirement to refurbish them. I am advised by the Minister for Defence that when the Leopard tank was introduced to Australian service, now nearly a decade ago, in the view of the Minister and his Department the Centurion was already a logistic burden, it lacked endurance and reliability and had poor tactical mobility. Under those circumstances, it seems like an admirable vehicle for the Australian Democrats. Senator MASON —I ask the Minister a supplementary question. Will the Government check the information that has been given to me, that in fact these weapons are now at the stage where they might be still used but are rusting away and that the unserviceability issue which the Minister raised in such a derisive fashion is, in fact, due substantially to the engines? Senator GARETH EVANS —I was given the courtesy, which I have not reciprocated, of being given early advice of this question. I did, accordingly, have the matter checked out in the terms in which Senator Mason raised it with me and I doubt, as a result, that any further checking could usefully add to the answer that I have given. However, I will refer our exchange to the Minister for him to take such further action as he thinks appropriate. Senator CHILDS —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. Has his attention been drawn to comments by the Western Australian Premier about criticism of the acquisition by the Commonwealth Government of the yacht Australia II? Can the Minister for Finance provide the background of the Commonwealth's decision in this matter? Senator WALSH —My attention has been drawn to that. I must say I was astounded by what I read because apparently the Premier is complaining that Australia II, which the Commonwealth Government made the decision last year or possibly in 1983 to purchase, is to be left in Western Australia until the proposed Museum of Australia is built and then transferred to that museum. The statements made by the Premier in the last few days indicate that he was unaware of that. On 4 November last year Mr Dix, the Chairman of the Council of the Museum of Australia, issued a Press statement, I think at a function in Canberra-at which, incidentally, I understand the Premier of Western Australia was present, although I have not been able to confirm that yet-in which he said: After its use in the preparations for the Challenge, Australia II is expected to remain on display in Western Australia until it takes its place among the exhibits at the Museum of Australia which is to open in Canberra in 1990. So at the very least the Premier should have been aware of the fact from 4 November last that the Commonwealth proposed to house the yacht which it bought, with Commonwealth money, in the Museum of Australia when it is completed. Senator Walters —It is taxpayers' money. Senator WALSH —Commonwealth taxpayers' money; precisely. I note that the West Australian newspaper reports the State Government as saying that the State was considering ways of buying Australia II for Western Australia. If the Western Australian Government wanted to have control of the ultimate resting place of Australia II and wanted it in Western Australia, it should have bought the yacht when it was being hawked around in 1983 or 1984. It is a bit late to complain, now that it has been purchased by the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth has made a decision-and publicly announced that decision many months ago-as to what it intends to do with it. If the State Government is serious about it and actually wants to make the Commonwealth an offer to buy the yacht and so be perfectly entitled to do whatever it likes with it, I cannot on behalf of the Government respond here to such an offer as, of course, it would have to be considered by Cabinet, but so far as I am concerned I would be quite happy to take the cheque. Senator REID —Will the Minister representing the Minister for Territories give an unequivocal assurance that all Australian Capital Territory fire units are in service and fully operational? Will he also give an assurance that the comments made by the Secretary of the Australian Capital Territory Firefighters Union, which appeared in the Canberra Times on 18 March, that five fire units were unsafe due to defective brakes and steering, non-existent sway bars and shock absorbers plus the non-design compliance of the skyjet ladder and snorkel unit, are incorrect? Senator GIETZELT —All honourable senators and all residents of the Australian Capital Territory would be aware of the dispute that has continued for some time between the Australian Capital Territory Fire Brigade and the union and the difficulties that have flowed from that dispute as it relates to the responsibilities of those employed to look after property in the Canberra region. I would probably not help things if I were to say very much because the dispute is currently under discussion with the appropriate authorities and the Minister has, since his return from sick leave, had numerous discussions with a view to resolving it. I am led to believe that the dispute needs to be resolved. It should be resolved and steps have been taken by the Minister to reach that objective. Senator McINTOSH —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware of media reports on Friday of last week regarding a shipment of sexist, racist text books to be made to Tonga, Western Samoa and Vanuatu as a goodwill gesture? Does the Minister agree that the shipment of this material is an insult to the peoples and governments of those nations and that this move will serve only to present Australia as a paternalistic, uncaring nation? Will the Minister undertake to have the shipment of this outdated material stopped and the books destroyed? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am advised by the Minister for Foreign Affairs that in January of this year the Sydney office of the Australian Development Assistance Bureau received an inquiry from the New South Wales Government Printing Office about the possibility of donating 163,000 outdated kindergarten text books to developing countries. These text books apparently contain titles such as Gay Days, but I am told that no adverse inference should be drawn from that. ADAB arranged for evaluations to be carried out on the text books to determine their suitability. These evaluations indicated that a number of publications were not in line with modern approaches to education. As part of that evaluation process, which apparently is not yet complete, copies of titles are being passed to some South Pacific island countries to elicit their reactions. No action has yet been taken to deliver multiple copies of these books to aid recipient countries, and I am sure that no such action will be taken if the books prove to be as out of step with current community values, both here and in the South Pacific countries in question, as has been suggested. Senator McINTOSH —I have a supplementary question. I draw the Minister's attention to an article which states: The Department of Foreign Affairs is believed to be arranging to pass the books on to the Royal Australian Navy for shipment in May. Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator McIntosh ought not to believe everything he reads in the Press. Although some preliminary inquiries may have been undertaken about the logistical exercise in question, I am told that no action has been taken yet to deliver the books. I assure him that, in the light of the publicity he has given now to this matter, no action will be taken until everyone is satisfied that in fact the books are an appropriate vehicle for aid. Senator TOWNLEY —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. I remind the Minister that the estimate at Budget time for interest on our public debt for this year was $5,600m, which is 20 per cent more than we spend on education and almost as much as we spend on defence, and that Australia already has a debt per head of more than Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Poland or Chile-all of which we know are in extremely bad economic situations. Does the Minister agree that unless drastic action is taken this country could follow the same path as those countries? Finally, what will be the effect of the devaluation of the Australian dollar on our interest bill, and will the Minister advise the Senate, as he promised to do on 24 August last year, what percentage of the debt for public interest is paid to overseas banking organisations? Senator WALSH —The figure of $5.6 billion interest on public debt which Senator Townley gave sounds correct, although I do not have the papers with me. It is quite a lot of money. It is over 9 per cent of total Commonwealth outlays and, being a charge which cannot be avoided short of repudiation of debt, it obviously gives governments a good deal less flexibility than they would have otherwise in making their expenditure decisions. Whether or not it is too much, it would have been a great deal more if the irresponsible and discredited former Treasurer, Mr Howard, had still been Treasurer in 1983 and actually had produced a Budget with a deficit of nearly $10 billion. That is the prospective deficit which this Government inherited from the discredited former Treasurer, aspiring Liberal Party Leader and certainly the Leader of the Sydney faction of the Liberal Party, Mr Howard. It would have been considerably more than it is had Mr Howard not been removed from Government early in 1983 and had he actually produced, as a real deficit, the prospective Budget deficit of nearly $10 billion which this Government inherited from him. Senator Peter Rae —You know it is an absolute lie to say that he had that planned Budget deficit. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Peter Rae will withdraw that expression. Senator Peter Rae —I withdraw that it is an absolute lie that- The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator has withdrawn. Senator WALSH —Whether Senator Rae chooses to recognise unpleasant truths or not, it is a fact which has been on the public record for more than two years that the prospective deficit for 1983-84 announced by the Treasury Secretary in March 1983 was $9.6 billion. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. It is not surprising that senators opposite the Minister make statements that have to be withdrawn when he persists with things which are known to be inaccurate and which have long been proven to be inaccurate. The fact is that his own Treasurer would not produce the forward Estimates. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Leader of the Opposition to relate his remarks to the point of order. Senator Chaney —The point is that the Treasurer would not produce the forward Estimates on the grounds that they were not reliable. That is a similar comment to the one that is being made by the Minister for Finance. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. Might I suggest to the Minister that he is rather tending to debate the answer to the question asked by Senator Townley. If he could restrict his remarks to the question, the Chair certainly would appreciate it. Senator WALSH —By all means, Mr President. Senator Peter Rae —Tell the truth, too. Tell the truth. Senator WALSH —I have already told the truth. The published forward estimate, on a no policy change basis, of the Budget deficit which this Government inherited immediately it assumed office was $9.6 billion. That is the truth. It may be an unpalatable truth, but it is still the truth. Senator Townley asserted that Australia's per capita debt was comparable to or more than that of Argentina and Mexico. I do not know whether that is correct, but I am certain that Australia's debt overseas, as a proportion of gross domestic product, is a great deal lower than that of either of those countries. The debt, as a proportion of GDP, is a more relevant figure than per capita debts, particularly when we are dealing with countries which have very low per capita incomes as against countries like Australia which, in spite of having had 25 years of tory government in the last 30 years-during which time it slipped down from third on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development income scale to about sixteenth-still has, by the standards of Mexico and Argentina, a very high per capita income. The effect of the recent devaluation of the Australian dollar will depend on the currencies in which the interest has to be paid for that proportion of the debt which is owed overseas. I apologise if I said on 24 August I would try to obtain some figures about the proportion of total Commonwealth debt owed overseas. Indeed, I think I can remember giving those figures in a subsequent answer in the Senate some time last year, but I will look that up. From memory, it is something like one-sixth or one-seventh, but that certainly needs to be confirmed. I will get those figures again. Finally, the point should be made that debt owed overseas is something which any nation ought to be concerned about if it reaches a very high level. A debt owed internally-apart from the technical differences in it-is qualitatively very different from a debt owed overseas. Senator Short —Why? Senator WALSH —Why? Did that come from a Queensland senator? The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Minister to ignore the interjections and answer Senator Townley's question. A lot of people want to ask questions today and time is running out. Senator WALSH —Yes, Mr President. The reason why it is different, of course, is that both the people who must service the debt and those who receive the debt servicing costs for a debt owed within the country are all within that country. It is a question of transfer of payments within the one society or the one economy, compared with servicing debts owed overseas-a haemorrhage or a leakage, if you like, of income and wealth from one country to another country. That is the difference. Senator TOWNLEY —I ask a supplementary question. Does the Minister agree that the amount of interest now being paid is 65 per cent more than it was in the previous Government's last Budget? Senator WALSH —I do not know whether that is true. However, I can say that it would be a great deal more still if the discredited former Treasurer had remained in government and had actually produced a Budget with a $10 billion deficit. Senator ELSTOB —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs concerned that recent publicity surrounding the United States and Australia MX missile tests has highlighted how top secret defence strategies can be analysed and deduced by correlating information gained through the United States Freedom of Information Act? Is the Minister able to confirm whether any action has been taken to counteract such penetration of security information systems and safeguard information which could be used to the detriment of this country? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government has taken the view that it is not appropriate for any Minister to comment on the workings of the United States Freedom of Information Act. That is a matter which falls within the sovereign rights of the United States and is not one on which the Australian Government would wish to offer a view. If, however, the United States Act enabled public access to defence or international relations information which the Australian Government might wish to remain protected, we would, of course, want to be consulted by the United States Government in advance. In both the Australian and the American Freedom of Information Acts there is scope for consultation on matters of common interest. I understand that consultation on such matters occurs regularly. Senator BROWNHILL —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade. In view of the decline from 28 to 8 per cent in the effective level of assistance to agriculture in recent years, while protection to secondary industry has fallen from only 36 to 25 per cent, will the Government adopt the Prime Minister's Osaka manifesto of 1984 and proceed to reduce the level of tariff protection in this country? Given that the Australian dollar has been devalued by more than 30 per cent in the past two years, does the Minister agree with the National Farmers Federation that the time has arrived for a 10 per cent across the board reduction in tariffs? Senator BUTTON —The answer to the last part of the question is no. I think the earlier parts of Senator Brownhill's question are broadly correct in that they indicate the changes which have taken place in broad levels of tariff protection. However, I qualify that somewhat by drawing attention to the fact that a number of sectors of rural industry have been clamouring somewhat for tariff protection and one cannot generalise to the extent to which one could a few years ago about general levels of tariff protection for rural industry. This Government, since it came to office, has embarked on a course of gradual reduction of tariff protection for manufacturing industry, particularly those industries where the levels of tariff protection have been highest and most discordant or out of harmony with the average level of protection applicable to manufacturing industry. It is, of course, true that the general average level of protection has declined. However, at the same time there have been very notable exceptions to that, such as the motor vehicle industry, where the Government has taken that sort of action. The Government's view is that these things, because of their disruptive effects, are best done gradually with time for industries to accommodate the effects of the changes. I should say that the Prime Minister and other Ministers met representatives of the National Farmers Federation a few weeks ago to discuss these issues and a further meeting is planned. One of the points which emerged from that meeting was that there was some disagreement on factual matters as to the impact of levels of tariff protection. It was agreed that at the next meeting those issues should be discussed in greater detail. The issues are being addressed and, I believe, in a way which is consistent with the longer term view of bodies such as the National Farmers Federation. But certainly the Government will be taking no precipitate action of the kind suggested in the last part of the question. It may provide some temporary benefits, as it did once before, but in our view it is not a sensible long term solution. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer to a question I asked last Thursday in which I cited a statement by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Peacock, indicating that the Liberal and National Party Opposition would review the dependent spouse rebate in respect of income tax to determine whether the rebate should be means tested. I ask the Minister today whether he has now seen a further statement by Mr Peacock on the dependent spouse rebate. If so, what is the Minister's response to that statement? Senator WALSH —Firstly, I have seen the transcript of Mr Peacock's appearance on the Sunday television program on 10 March when he responded to a question from Robert Haupt about a paper which had been circulated and which advocated the means testing of the dependent spouse rebate. Robert Haupt asked Mr Peacock: . . . where do you stand now? Mr Peacock replied: Yes. In fact we see some merit here. He went on to say: . . . I'm not surprised, in fact a number of us indicated not only when we were in Government but also in the first year that we were in Opposition that we would favour an examination in this arena. Mr Peacock is reported in the Adelaide News of last Friday as follows: And the Federal Opposition Leader, Mr Peacock, today lashed the proposal, claiming that cutting the benefit from up to a million families would be deeply damaging. I do not know from that statement whether Mr Peacock had second thoughts about what he had said on the Sunday program, because he has had second thoughts about many things that he said on the Sunday program after the Sydney faction of the Liberal Party led by Mr Howard, the sort of pretender to the throne, went to work on him in the following week. If that is the case, it is bad enough when the various factions in the Liberal Party, principally the Melbourne faction and the Sydney faction, contradict each other on issues such as capital gains taxes and a wages policy: It would be sad if Mr Peacock is contradicting himself as well as being contradicted by the pretender to the Liberal Party throne and leader of the Sydney faction, Mr Howard. It would be most disturbing if the Leader of the Liberal Party should contradict himself. It would lead one to question what sort of a policy maker he would be if he ever got the chance to be a policy maker. Alternatively, it is possible that Mr Peacock was misled by a highly inaccurate report published in the Australian newspaper of that date, to which Senator Maguire's question and my answer referred, and a similar report published in the Daily Telegraph. I believe it is no coincidence that both of those newspapers have a common ownership and a long-standing record of irresponsible reporting and irresponsible comment. The report in the Australian contained many factual errors, the most significant of which was the allegation that the Government was contemplating withdrawing the spouse rebate benefit from one million families, which is the approximate number of total recipients of the spouse rebate. Indeed, Mr Peacock may have been misled by the publication in the Murdoch Press of fiction masquerading as news reporting. It is a matter of some concern to me, and it ought to be a matter of some concern to every responsible citizen of Australia, that that particular Press has made a habit of publishing fiction as news reporting for a number of years. It is a very serious threat to responsible and decent government in this country that a major media organisation such as News Ltd should continue to behave in that way. Senator WATSON —My question also is addressed to the Minister for Finance. Given the high level of prime interest rates and, in the words of John Howard, the highest real interest rates since the Depression, does the Minister foresee even higher rates next year when the Government has to finance a higher than normal level of Commonwealth securities that fall due for payment and a continuing high Commonwealth deficit? Senator WALSH —I have not seen the comments of the discredited former Treasurer to which Senator Watson has referred. However, I know that the discredited former Treasurer ought to know something about high interest rates, because he presided over the highest interest rates we have ever seen in Australia. The short term rates hit 20 per cent when the discredited former Treasurer was primarily responsible for the national economy. While speaking about deficits, I might add that apart from the $10 billion prospective deficit which this Government inherited from none other than Mr Howard, Mr Howard was also a dismal failure at expenditure control. He introduced five or six Budgets, and in every one the outlays exceeded the estimates. He was a failure at keeping expenditure under control, a failure at restraining the deficit and a failure on interest rates. He presided over the preconditions of the largest deficit that this country has ever seen and the highest interest rates that we have ever seen. Over six consecutive years expenditure exceeded the rubbery figures that he produced when he presented his Budget estimates. Senator WATSON —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. Did the Minister hear my question? If so, could he answer it? The PRESIDENT —Order! That is not a supplementary question. Senator Walsh —I have nothing to add. The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator is entitled to seek elucidation of the Minister's answer, but he is not entitled to ask another question, such as, 'Did the Minister hear my question?' Senator REYNOLDS —Is the Minister for Education aware of teacher and parent concern about the way in which Federal education funds are allocated in Queensland? Furthermore, is the Minister aware that state schools are being repainted with community employment program funds? Will the Minister discuss accountability procedures with her ministerial colleague Ralph Willis and ensure that the Queensland Government is not propping up its ailing economy by misdirecting Federal education and job creation funds? Senator RYAN —I am not aware of any particular incidents in which community employment program funds are being used to do essential maintenance on Queensland schools. However, I shall certainly speak to our ministerial colleague Mr Willis and have that matter investigated. I also comment generally, too, that I have received frequent complaints from Queensland about Queensland's share of tertiary funding. I simply place on record again the fact that of the extra tertiary places that this Government has made available-about 5,000, I think, to date-the lion's share has gone to Queensland. The reason is that the provision of tertiary places in Queensland was lower per head of population than in any other State, for the simple reason that in the years before the Whitlam Government assumed full funding responsibility for tertiary education, successive State governments in Queensland had been very negligent in this area. Of course, not long after the Whitlam Government assumed full Federal funding of tertiary education, it was replaced by the Fraser Government, which, as everybody knows, reduced the funds available to tertiary education and thus provided no opportunity for the citizens of Queensland to make up the shortfall that their State Government has caused. However, that shortfall is now being made up. In respect for the use of CEP funds for school maintenance projects in Queensland, I shall certainly seek that information for Senator Reynolds. Senator JACK EVANS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. In view of the fact that the tobacco industry's only major objection to proposed restrictions upon the advertising of tobacco products is based on its plea that 'If it is legal to sell a product, it should be legal to advertise that product', and in view of the fact that it is illegal to sell tobacco products to children under 16 years of age, will the Government legislate to protect our children from the tobacco companies' inducements to lifelong tobacco addiction and a 50 per cent probability of a painful, lingering death, by prohibiting the advertising of tobacco products to children under 16 years of age? Senator GRIMES —I accept that the intent of Senator Evans's question is commendable, but I suggest also that even he is well aware that such a suggestion is not practical in application. Even if such a ban were introduced, it would not be possible to prevent children under 16 years obtaining access to otherwise permitted advertising. However, I assure the honourable senator that the Australian Health Ministers, including the Federal Health Minister, share his concern about the harmful effect of smoking on health. Tobacco advertising is only one of the issues being addressed by the Health Ministers at their conference. At a special conference last December all the Health Ministers agreed and recommended that all tobacco advertising carry a health warning against smoking. This is being pursued. Senator Peter Baume —What did you recommend in 1977? Senator GRIMES —In 1977 Senator Baume and I and others suggested that we should ban all tobacco advertising. No government has been willing to take up that recommendation. I hope that the efforts of the Health Minister, the first of which will be to limit advertising and put warnings on all tobacco products, will have the desired effect of reducing the consumption of tobacco in this community. It may even have some effect on me. Senator CROWLEY —My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. Given the increased return from the assets test over the predictions of government at the time of introducing the legislation, can the Minister say whether the Government is satisfied that the assets test is working adequately? What steps, if any, is the Government taking to monitor the assets test? Can the Minister make clear to the Leader of the Opposition the advantages of the assets test in the light of his objections at the time of its introduction, particularly as he thought that the money to be recouped was insufficient? Senator GRIMES —I must say that I was surprised-I am sure that many members of the Government and Opposition were surprised-at the extent to which people had been avoiding the previous income test. I said at the time we were discussing the introduction of the assets test that we thought that about 2 per cent of the pensioners would be affected. I understand that the figure is about 2.3 per cent or 2.4 per cent. The amount of money collected in a full year, we thought, would be about $50m. In excess of $100m will be collected in social security and a similarly increased figure will be collected in the area of veterans' affairs. One of the Opposition's complaints at the time was that insufficient revenue was being obtained from the assets test. I note that that complaint is no longer heard from the Opposition. It is apparently saying now that too much is being obtained. When we consider the saving of over $100m in the social security area it is worth while remembering that that is heading towards the amount of money one would need to increase, for instance, supplementary assistance to the poorest of pensioners, those in private rented accommodation and those who have little other income. Senator Messner —What about the 25 per cent of average weekly earnings? Senator GRIMES —That is a valid and reasonable question. We maintain our policy of getting pensions up to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings as soon as possible. The percentage of average weekly earnings has increased from what it was when the previous Government was in power. I suppose that the sensible thing to do would be to suggest to Senator Messner that he tell us where he will obtain the $140m or $145m obtained from the assets test to increase supplementary assistance or the pension as a percentage of average weekly earnings, should he be in government. Will he do that by increasing taxes so that we can raise $140m or would he do that, as the previous Government did, by reducing pensions as a percentage of average weekly earnings? As Senator Gietzelt and Mr Howard demonstrated, unfortunately people in this community with large amounts of liquid assets either have been not getting an income from those assets in order to get the pension or have been used by their bank managers or their accountants to the benefit of the banks and the accountants. That is deplorable. In fact, it is one of the reasons we introduced the assets test. The test is being monitored by the Department of Social Security, by the Government and by committees of the Government. It will continue to be so monitored. Before the assets test was introduced, we said that there were difficult areas. I talked about them in this place. One can go through the Hansard to find what we said about them. One such difficult area relates to people in rural areas. That is why we brought in special provisions for them. If honourable senators know of genuine instances of people having been unfairly disadvantaged, they should bring them to the attention of the Minister. Senator Messner —Why don't you do something about it? Senator GRIMES —Senator Messner brought in phoney issues in two debates here. Those issues having been demonstrated to be phoney, he has remained silent on this matter since. Senator Messner and a few of his colleagues are protecting a few people who have been taking advantage of the system that they introduced. Senator Boswell —That is absolute rot. Senator GRIMES —I am sorry that situation has arisen. In view of Senator Boswell's interjection, it is interesting to note that a large number of those with the largest amounts of money, in excess of $500,000-including the type of person with five farms worth over $900,000-in receipt of the full pension and full fringe benefits, as a percentage of the population, come from Queensland. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. Is it a fact that the departmental review of the developing country preference scheme was completed by October 1983? Is it also a fact that the scheme was discussed by Cabinet in November and December 1983, but that no decisions were taken and no agreement was reached? Is the Government any closer to resolving its views on the developing country preference scheme? Will the Minister indicate whether the Government proposes making any decisions in this area; if so, when? Senator BUTTON —I am not sure whether the so-called departmental review was finished in October 1983 or whether Cabinet considered the matter in December 1983. Both things happened and I concede that they happened some time ago. I suppose whether the matter is any closer to resolution by the Government is the essential point. The answer is yes, it is closer to resolution than it was. Pending resolution of any general position regarding the matter, the Minister for Trade and I, as has been traditional practice, exercise a case by case response to Industries Assistance Commission reports which deal with the question of DC preferences. The matter has been somewhat further complicated by decisions made by foreign governments. The United States Government, for example, last year introduced a financial threshold test which applies to some countries, but not to all DC countries. The New Zealand Government, earlier this year or late last year, introduced a test which is related to the per capita gross national product of the DC preference country and New Zealand. None of those tests have much to commend them in the view of this Government. In the course of last year we had some discussions on the matter under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. We hope that within the framework of the GATT there will be a general review of that system, but that also seems to have been delayed. In that context, to revert to the honourable senator's question, we have to press on with our own endeavours. I cannot give a date, but that is happening at present. Senator COONEY —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction: Is the waiting list for public housing rental accommodation increasing in Australia and, if so, at what rate? If it is, will the high priority which the Government intends to give to public housing reverse that trend and, if so, to what extent? Senator RYAN —I do not have available to me information about the waiting periods for public housing throughout Australia but I have no doubt that they are unacceptably long, particularly for those people who are in the queue. This would be despite the fact that the Hawke Government has massively increased the funds available to public housing. For example, in this financial year the amount available for public housing will be $1,600m, which is a record even in real terms. In addition, the Government has liberalised the eligibility criteria to ensure that all Australians have a chance of getting a house. No doubt the waiting lists are too long. I will get specific information as to what they are on a State and Territory basis. I am sure that the Minister for Housing and Construction will be giving very high priority to securing even more funds so that the unacceptably long waiting lists can be shortened. Senate WALSH-Last Friday during question time Senator Puplick asked Senator Button on my behalf about a three-page summary of a report of a Joint Working Party of the Department of Finance and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. Senator Puplick asked, among other things, why the summary had not been tabled with the full report on 20 March. He also suggested that the omission of the summary had led to the Senate being misled as to the facts and conclusions of the Joint Working Party. It is correct that the original Joint Working Party report included a three-page summary agreed on by both the Department of Finance and the CSIRO. When I approved the tabling of this report, with the concurrence of the Minister for Science, it had been my intention that the summary be included with the tabled report. The omission of the summary was an inadvertent administrative oversight and, in accordance with Senator Button's comments last Friday in the Senate, I am now pleased to table the summary. As to Senator Puplick's suggestion that the omission of the summary statement was designed to conceal criticisms of the Government, I point out that the comments to which Senator Puplick referred in the summary are dealt with in greater detail in the full report which was tabled in Parliament last week. I refer the Senate to paragraph 3.12. The CSIRO seems to be equally unaware of the fact that those matters were included in greater detail in the full report that was tabled. Clearly there was no attempt to censor or hide from the Senate any part of the Joint Working Party's report. I table the summary, Mr President. The PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from Senator Jones proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The need for the Federal Government to alert the International Labour Organisation to the breaches of international conventions by the Queensland Government, and take all possible steps available to it to work towards a reversal of the dangerous industrial relations situation in that State. 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 JONES(Queensland)(3.09) —In supporting the matter of public importance which I proposed in correspondence to you, Mr President, I believe it is important at this stage that I repeat the terms of the matter, namely: The need for the Federal Government to alert the International Labour Organisation to the breaches of international conventions by the Queensland Government, and take all possible steps available to it to work towards a reversal of the dangerous industrial relations situation in that State. It is worth while to mention at this stage that the last part of the sentence refers to working towards a reversal of the dangerous industrial relations situation in that State. With that in mind, I believe it is very important that we should look at the effects of the legislation that was brought forward by the Premier of Queensland. We should look at the effect on future employment of the sacked South East Queensland Electricity Board linesmen, the effect on the Queensland economy, the effect on small business, the effect on the export of coal and primary produce particularly and the effect on the work force generally. It is sad to note at this time the deaths of 19 youths in the South African town of Uitenhage. The State Government of Queensland has again proclaimed a state of emergency. The last time that that Government took such an action was during the Springboks tour of Australia in 1971. The anti-union stance of Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen is certainly in line with the South African Government's treatment of black South Africans. In Queensland we have a state of emergency; in South Africa we have the pass laws. The Premier's attack on the union movement leads us to examine the proclamation of the state of emergency. This was lifted by an order of the Governor in Council on Thursday, 4 March, but not before a draconian piece of legislation, the Electricity (Continuity of Supply) Act, was introduced in the State Parliament and passed by the National Party, the Liberal Party and supported by the Independents within that chamber. The Electricity (Continuity of Supply) Act is only a small, five-page piece of legislation, but it gives supreme power to the Electricity Commissioner and takes away the right of unionists to appeal to the Industrial Commission. It takes away the right of unionists to make any appeal whatsoever. A further amendment was passed in the Queensland Parliament, after being put forward by Mr Gibbs, which allows for the setting up of another tribunal to which appeal can be made. But in fact that takes away the right of trade unionists in Queensland-a right that they have had for many years-to appeal to the Industrial Commission within the State under the law as legislated by the Government of Queensland many years ago, and which had applied for many years before this draconian piece of legislation was brought in by the Premier. I believe we should look at some of the provisions of the legislation which secures continuity of supply within the electricity industry. The legislation was only a very small, five-page Bill and one would expect that there would not be a great deal in it. But one sees that in clause 3 the Electricity Commissioner is authorised: (a) to take whatever steps he considers are necessary to have work performed to provide, to maintain or to restore a supply of electricity; (b) to direct any person whatever who, in his opinion, is capable of carrying out the necessary work to provide, to maintain or to restore a supply of electricity. Clause 4 lists the consequences of failure to comply with that direction. Any employee of the Queensland Electricity Commission or of any Electricity Board who fails to comply forthwith with the direction of the Electricity Commissioner given to him or her pursuant to section 3 is liable-(a) to summary dismissal, notwithstanding the provisions of any Award; and there are no rights of appeal because those were taken away by the legislation- and (b) to a penalty not exceeding $1,000. And so it goes on. In clause 5 obstruction and harassment are prohibited. Clause 6 deals with the continued effectiveness of dismissals by the SEQEB. Clause 7 deals with contracts of service made or to be made by the SEQEB. Clause 8 deals with the limitation of the Industrial Commission's jurisdiction. It says: Notwithstanding the provision of any other Act, the Industrial Commission has not jurisdiction to make any decision within the meaning of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1961-1983 or recommendation, or give any other indication that- (a) is directed to the reinstatement or reemployment of- (i) any person whose dismissal is declared by section 6 to continue to be lawful and effectual; or (ii) any person summarily dismissed by reason of his failure to comply with a direction of the Electricity Commissioner given to him or her pursuant to section 3. It gives total power to the Electricity Commissioner, taking away the rights which existed under the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act of 1961-1983. The Act continues: (b) is directed to or might result in the negation or avoidance of the provisions of section 3 or 7 of the substitution, in respect of persons employed under contracts referred to in section 7, of other terms of employment- In other words, the Premier of Queensland has put off linesmen, their numbers having been reduced from 1,002 to 820. He sacked them, did not re-employ them and then changed the Act under which they were employed in the first place. He has now started to gather people back into the Electricity Commission and is employing them under contract with a reduction in their terms of work as laid down by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and set out in the Act of 1961-83. This new Act, along with other legislation passed by the State Parliament, contravenes a number of International Labour Organisation conventions signed by Australia and agreed to by the States, including the State of Queensland. Some 43 such conventions have been ratified by Australia and, before that ratification, approved by the States of Australia, one of those States of course being the State of Queensland. It is not my intention to go through the 43 conventions but out of sheer interest, so that people will understand what this legislation is doing to the sorts of conventions that Australia has ratified and the States have agreed to, I will run through some of them. Convention No. 2, Unemployment, was proposed in 1919 and ratified on 15 June 1972. I believe Convention No. 29 is another of the conventions that this Act of the State Parliament of Queensland contravenes. It is a convention of 1930 relating to forced labour, which was ratified by Australia on 2 January 1932-the year I was born and I would say the year a number of senators were born. Senator Grimes —You are old. Senator JONES —I will ignore that interjection. Convention No. 87, Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise, was proposed in 1948 and ratified on 28 February 1973-when Sir Johannes Bjelke-Petersen was the Premier of Queensland. Other conventions contravened by the Queensland Act include Convention No. 88, Employment Services, proposed by 1948 and ratified on 24 December 1949; Convention No. 93, Wages, Hours of Work and Manning, revised in 1949 and ratified on 3 March 1954; Convention No. 98, Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining proposed in 1949 and ratified on 28 February 1973; and Convention No. 111, Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) proposed in 1958 and ratified on 15 June 1973. One does not have to be an industrial lawyer, or any sort of lawyer, to look through the conventions as set down by the ILO and see that there has been a contravention of them by the State Government's legislation. No doubt the Convention No. 87, dealing with the freedom of association and protection of the right to organise, will be dealt with by some of my colleagues. Convention No. 111 concerns discrimination in respect of employment and occupation. If one takes the anti-union view of the Premier of Queensland, surely the legislation he is bringing in, in itself, discriminates against the workers in that industry and against the Electrical Trades Union. The International Labor Conference Convention No. 29 concerns forced or compulsory labour-the basis of the Bill put forward by the State Government. I believe that the power given to the Electricity Commissioner by the legislation put through the State Parliament amounts to forced labour. Article 1 reads: 1. Each Member of the International Labour Organisation which ratifies this Convention undertakes to suppress the use of forced or compulsory labour in all its forms within the shortest possible period. This convention was ratified in 1932. In 1985 legislation is being put through the State Parliament by the Premier of Queensland, which is supported by the National Party, the Liberal Party and Independents in that Parliament and which contravenes a convention approved by Australia and ratified in 1932. Article 1 continues: 2. With a view to this complete suppression, recourse to forced or compulsory labour may be had, during the transitional period, for public purposes only and as an exceptional measure, subject to the conditions and guarantees hereinafter provided. It is obvious there is no condition that allows the Premier of Queensland and his Party to bring legislation into the State House to allow compulsory labour or forced labour by the Electricity Commissioner in Queensland. I could continue to go through the conventions, but I want to raise other points. The Premier of Queensland brought down that legislation not only because it contravened the convention, not only because he opposed the unionists and not only because he has an anti-union point of view, but also because he wanted to hide the problems of the economy of Queensland. He wanted to hide the problems his Government has. He wanted to hide the fact that the Government, led by him, has neither the power nor the ability to manage the economy of Queensland. If one looks at the figures and what is happening in Queensland, one can see, without a great deal of research, that the economy of Queensland is about to fall to pieces. The Premier has used this opportunity to vent his anti-union feelings on the unions. He has used the legislation, the argument over the electricity Act and the problems that exist within the electricity industry to hide his inability to manage the economy of Queensland. Unemployment in Queensland is 11 per cent. The national average is 8 per cent; it is 3 per cent higher in Queensland. Not only has the Premier not done anything to support or help to create jobs in Queensland, but also he has taken the step to sack 1,002 electrical workers. Senator Messner —They sacked themselves. Senator JONES —Honourable senators can shake their heads on the other side of the chamber and say that he has not sacked those workers, but if they saw the 820 linesmen who have not been back to work going to the Trades Hall to gather supplies, is would be obvious, even to anyone not involved in the conflict, that they had been sacked and that they are receiving supplies to keep their families and themselves going. I note that Senator Bjelke-Petersen will speak in this debate today. Senator Maguire —She is on the phone now getting instructions. Senator JONES —It is quite obvious that she will be on the phone getting her riding instructions from the Premier of Queensland and the Queensland Government. The Premier and Senator Bjelke-Petersen between them earn in the vicinity of $150,000 per year. That would pay 10 linesman for 12 months in Queensland. When some of the linesmen's wives, who were not involved in the dispute, made a passionate plea to the honourable senator who represents Queensland to use her good offices to intervene and talk to the Premier to try to have some of the men reinstated, she completely refused and continued with her holiday on the Gold Coast. I notice that Opposition senators are not saying much at this stage. Surely we should feel for the 820 men who have been sacked, who have lost their superannuation entitlements and who have lost their chance of employment. Some of these men are 54, 55, 56 years of age and have no opportunity to be further employed because we have 11 per cent unemployment in Queensland, no opportunity to make provision for their children and no opportunity to retire and receive the superannuation to which they are entitled. They have worked for the South East Queensland Electricity Board for 20-odd years and all their entitlements have been removed. When some of the wives of these gentlemen appealed to the honourable senator the appeal fell on deaf ears. She said she would not approach the Premier because she did not believe that the men should be on strike. I want to talk about the economy of Queensland. An editorial in the Courier-Mail- Senator Boswell —Why don't you stick to the matter of public importance? Senator JONES —I notice Senator Boswell is in the chamber. He would not even know what I am talking about. I note that his name is not on the list of speakers. It seems to me that Senator Messner will take the place of Senator Boswell. Why does Senator Boswell not put his name on the speakers list and try to defend the action of the State Government in Queensland? Why does he not try to defend his promoter, Bjelke-Petersen, the Premier of Queensland? Why does he not try to defend Senator Bjelke-Petersen from Queensland, who would not even talk to the wives of the people who were sacked by the Premier of Queensland? I will not spend my time with Senator Boswell; let me look at what the Courier-Mail said in its editorial about the economy of Queensland. It stated: The cost of the power strike continues to mount. Already hard-pressed by falling demand and prices, the Queensland coal industry is losing $9 million a day and the State Government is losing $2.25 million a day through royalties. Did the Premier try to stop the strike? Did he try to have some discussions? Did he take any notice of the Commissioner from the Industrial Commission when he suggested that the men be given a chance to go back to work and that there be discussion between the Government, the South East Queensland Electricity Board and the employees to try to stop the strike? Did he take that action? No, he did not. The strike went on. He took no notice of the recommendation. Lionel Ledlie, the Commissioner in Queensland, could not make anything other than a recommendation. He could not make a direction because the state of emergency brought down by the Governor-in-Council had removed any chance for the Industrial Commission to bring down a recommendation for the Government and the employers. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(3.28) —We have just had a pathetic performance from the previous speaker, Senator Jones, who has brought on this matter of public importance. The degree of pathos that ought to be felt by all members in the Senate is represented by the behaviour of his colleagues who are now leaving the chamber. They are absolutely disgusted with that performance. Not one front bench member of the Australian Labor Party is prepared to come in here-I am sorry, Senator Grimes is sitting in the corner. Senator Collard —Only one. Senator MESSNER —Only one, the Minister on duty. For such an important issue as this I would have expected every front bencher from the Labor Party to stand up here today. In fact, every Labor speaker on the list is from the back benches. Not even one speaker from the left wing of the Labor Party is listed. There is none from that faction, which I believe should identify very clearly with the feelings of the Electrical Trades Union in that State, which I understand has a left wing leadership. The absurd little matter of public importance which has been brought forward today is so pathetic as to be beside all point of argument. Senator Jones really is a very nice chap and, generally speaking, he can make out a far better case than the one he made out today. Honourable Senators do not have to take our word for what we believe to be the case. Let us look at the editorials and opinion polls published during the dispute to find out where the real danger and the real problem lies, and whose position the community backed during the dispute. The people of Queensland backed the Premier and his Government all the way. Let us look at what the dispute was about. It was a simple matter of efficiency and equity. The South East Queensland Electricity Board wanted to hire some workers on contract. It wanted to do so to increase the efficiency and flexibility of the work force. It was designed to produce power more efficiently so as to assist the consumers of Queensland. It is not only proper for this State instrumentality to pursue those goals, but also its duty under its charter to do so. It is common sense. Yet the Electrical Trades Union decided to take on the Government and create the most serious industrial crisis seen in Australia for years. Senator Jones should answer some basic questions. Was a single job at risk before this action was taken by the union? No, not one job was at risk. Were the wages and conditions of the members of the ETU at risk? No, not one. None at all was at risk. Was the South East Queensland Electricity Board seeking to diminish the benefits enjoyed by the ETU members? No, not at all. Then what on earth was the Queensland power crisis all about? It was about a government being unwilling to be stood over by a union which was hell-bent on placing the lives and livelihoods of all Queenslanders on the line. Let me quote from the Courier-Mail editorial of 8 February. It encapsulates the dangerous absurdity of the union's case. It states: SEQEB wanted to employ contractors who are-- honourable senators should note the word 'are'-- ETU members. Where is the problem? It is the duty and responsibility of the SEQEB to provide power at the cheapest possible rate. If that means employing contractors-union members-surely SEQEB has that right. That surely is plain, honest, downright common sense. On what possible grounds could the ETU object to the action of the Board? The contract workers would have been union members. The ETU's subsequent actions were totally indefensible. Let there be no doubt about what those actions were. The ETU put its own wilfulness above its responsibility to supply an essential service to the people of Queensland. It endangered lives and jobs and, in the end, its members were dismissed because of its actions. Senator Jones knows that full well. Let us fact the facts. The Premier of Queensland was most conciliatory in this matter when it started out. He said to the workers: All I can suggest to the men in all seriousness is that they recognise their responsibilities and accept the direction made by the court-- the industrial relations court-- and go back to work on Monday. What could be more reasonable than that? The dispute was handled through all the normal channels of industrial dispute settlement in Queensland. The umpire said to the ETU: 'Return to work and we will proceed with negotiations'. The Premier supported the Queensland Industrial Commission's ruling and quietly urged the union to comply with it. But did it? No, it defied the Industrial Commission's return to work ruling. The ETU ignored a clear Commission ruling. Its members refused to return to work. It acted with blatant disregard for the Commission's standing and authority and totally without thought for the people of Queensland who had to put up with the consequences of the action. I wonder what the International Labour Organisation says about such non-compliance with the umpire's decision? I could only support social irresponsibility if it upheld the view of honourable senators opposite. In the course of Senator Jones's remarks he made some play of the ILO conventions. He read a great number of them to us. The only one I refer to however, which, I think, he mainly commented upon, was Convention No. 29, which concerns forced or compulsory labour. I notice that in clause 2 of Article 2 of that Convention, the definition of forced or compulsory labour specifically excludes, under paragraph (d), the following: Any work or service exacted in cases of emergency, that is to say in the event of war . . . and in general any circumstance that would endanger the existence or the well-being of the whole or part of the population. That is what the Convention says. The Queensland Government acted within that Convention. While I am certainly no legal eagle, as Senator Jones admitted he was not, I think my interpretation is a lot nearer the mark than his. Is it any wonder that after all this activity the Premier's patience started to wear a little thin? Can he be blamed for invoking a state of emergency in Queensland in the light of that? Of course not, he was only doing his duty as the Premier of the State and the leader of the people of Queensland. He took concrete action to ameliorate what was truly a crisis in the life of Queenslanders. The Premier took action only when it was clear that the Electrical Trades Union was determined not to be reasonable or responsible and was happy to let innocent citizens suffer. Again it must be stressed that the Premier took firm steps only after the ETU's repeated defiance of the Industrial Commission. In mid-February, the Commission made five recommendations to resolve the dispute. It recommended that Electrical Trades Union members return to work; that the Government withdraw dismissal notices issued to ETU members; that further dismissal notices not be issued; that action to deregister the union be withheld pending discussions on future dispute settling agreements; and that the Commission chair another conference to discuss the awarding of contracts and the future of contract labour in the South East Queensland Electricity Board. The Premier, his Government and the South East Queensland Electricity Board accepted the Commission's ruling. The ETU did not. The people of Queensland knew what was going on. They had tasted the consequences of the power union's selfishness previously. It was not the first time they had been inconvenienced by unions pursuing their own ends regardless of the welfare of others. That is why they backed the Premier. The Premier had the community on his side, a community fed up to the back teeth with union irresponsibility in Queensland. Let me quote from a letter to the editor published in the Courier-Mail during the dispute. It is from a Mr Thompson of Ashgrove. He said: For too long the unions have been bashing the public, causing inconvenience, higher prices, loss of confidence, sabotaging the recovery of the economy, ultimately inducing higher unemployment and lower living standards. . . . the Queensland Government is to be commended for its courage in this dispute . . . the stranglehold of the union leaders should be broken and workers freed from their oppression. Mr Thompson was not alone in his sentiments. A survey of 15,000 Queenslanders conducted during the dispute found that 60 per cent supported the Premier's stand. When Sir Johannes Bjelke-Petersen said that the ETU workers had 'sacked themselves', he meant more than in the technical sense of failing to return to work and thereby being subject to dismissal. He meant that the Queenslanders backed him, that they too would not tolerate such obstructionism in the delivery of the State's essential services. The wilful members of the ETU sacked themselves, according to the letter of the law and in the minds of Queenslanders. I will make one point about that: The fact is that the emergency essential services legislation which passed the Queensland Parliament in 1979 has been in place since then. We have not heard Senator Jones complaining in this place about it before, but the people of Queensland have democratically confirmed the Government of Queensland, the Bjelke-Petersen Government, twice since then. It is further confirmed by the fact that the gallup polls at this very moment show Labor in sharp decline. Apparently, it is not even the people of Queensland who influence Senator Jones in his attitude in bringing forward such a silly motion. I notice that even people in his own Government, such as the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, are not prepared to endorse Senator Jones's position here today. In fact in the Age of 14 March 1985 the Minister said that he thought there might have been a breach of three International Labour Organisation conventions. Has Senator Jones produced the opinion of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen)? Does he have it in front of him? Can he quote from it and tell us just how the Attorney-General feels about this? I would like to hear it. The other person who has not taken this into account is the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, who of course is currently just returning from overseas. The Canberra Times of 14 March quotes the Prime Minister at a Press conference in Canberra the previous day as saying that the legislation was not consistent with the conventions of the ILO. That was the first point he made but, when pressed to say what he would do about it, whether he would seek to employ the powers equivalent to those used in the south-west Tasmania dam case, he said: 'No fear. We would not do that'. Why? Because he is unsure of his ground. Senator Jones knows as well as I do that his case is as weak as water and does not hold any water in this place today. I return to the facts of the dispute. When that dispute was finally resolved it was on the initiative of none other than the Premier, after 15 days of unnecessary death, the tragic fires, the disruption to ordinary life and the economy and loss in production of millions of dollars. I noted that Senator Jones in his speech in the Address-in-Reply debate the other day talked about $100 billion but I do not know where he got that figure from. No doubt it is, again, a figment of his imagination. But the crisis was solved finally through the actions of the Premier of Queensland. Although the leaders of the ETU spurned any peace offers, they ultimately responded to the Premier's offer. They could see that they had no hope, that public opinion was behind the Premier and that continuing the dispute was absolutely hopeless. How can Senator Jones talk about breaches of the ILO conventions in relation to this dispute? How dare he suggest that the Queensland Government was not acting out of plain common sense and in the public interest? The ETU was wrong. It did not have a case. Whether contract workers are hired or not is none of its business. But throughout the entire course of the dispute the Premier acted with restraint, using the law, as it was in his hands, at the appropriate times. When necessary he had the courage to stand up for what was right and that included adherence to the Commissioner's, the umpire's, decision and the rulings of that Commission. Now the ETU seeks to shelter behind Federal registration. I understand that he has the support of the Minister for Industrial Relations. It is one way of skipping the State and seeking a home under the Federal Government's legislation, wherein no doubt special arrangements can be made. Again it demonstrates the appeasement of the militant union on the part of the Hawke Government. The Hawke Government is the captive of the union movement and that is becoming clearer day by day. After the Public Service dispute and the Federal Government's assistance to the ETU there can be no doubt that it lacks the strength to support those who pursue the common good and the public interest against those selfishly rampaging for their own narrow ends. I can quote no better authority than the Canberra Times editorial in the course of this dispute, the last paragraph of which states: This newspaper believes that the Queensland Government should try to hold out for its own settlement terms-eventual reinstatement with no-strike clauses-which has become the basis of the settlement. Although Sir Joh's style may be offensive at times, his is the elected government and Queenslanders should recognise what it is fighting for, democratic process and the rule of law, and back it to the limit of their endurance. So should other Australians. Tomorrow it could be the ACT, Victoria or Tasmania that is subjected to the national might of the Australian labour movement. That says it all. Clearly this union in Queensland has been wrong. Clearly it has acted against the public interest, and the people of Queensland perceived that that is so. The people of Queensland have backed the Queensland Premier in all his actions. As I have demonstrated, the furphy that has been thrown about today by Senator Jones-that there has been some kind of breach of the ILO convention on forced labour-on my reading of it, is wrong. If that is so, Government senators stand condemned for bringing forward a frivolous proposal here today which is wasting the time of the Senate, obviously with the sole intention of building up some kind of political hysteria in order to preserve their own preselections. That is all this is about. It is not about the interests of the people of Queensland or of the people of Australia. It is about looking after the preselection of some Labor Party back bench members from Queensland. Senator Jones stands condemned for bringing forward such an absurd proposal here today. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland)(3.48) —I am extremely surprised that the Opposition would give the job of leading this debate to Senator Messner. Senator Collard —Why? He is the shadow Minister responsible for industrial relations. Senator REYNOLDS —I would never have guessed that he knew anything about industrial relations. He is not a Queenslander. Furthermore he has no idea about many of the facts, as evidenced in his speech this afternoon. He has absolutely no feeling for the deep hostility that is developing in our State. I would have thought that the Opposition would want to distance itself from Queensland following the embarrassment it suffered during the last Federal election when the Queensland Premier consistently ignored the National Party Leader. I find it absolutely disgusting that Senator Messner, apparently as spokesman on industrial relations, cannot see how important this debate is today. I would like to draw his attention to a couple of things. He quoted from opinion polls but he obviously would not have seen the opinion poll taken after the power dispute when, after 15 days of the power dispute, the lights had been finally switched back on-incidentally, I add, very much on the initiative of the Opposition Leader in Queensland, Nev Warburton, who brought the relevant parties together. It was the Queensland Premier who was running along behind, determined to have ongoing confrontation and then to turn his back on the Industrial Commission. From this particular street poll, it is clear that people do not agree with the Queensland Premier's confrontationist style. I quote: The majority interviewed were totally believing that power unions should still have the right to strike. One woman said. Of course they have the right to strike. They should be allowed to strike for fair conditions. I don't think our Premier should be able to rule everything, and I wouldn't like to see him wipe out unions altogether. Those opinions are replicated throughout that street poll. Perhaps Senator Messner would care to look at it. Despite the fact that the Opposition cannot see any principles involved in today's debate, it is of historic importance to all Australians, especially Queenslanders. It concerns some fundamental principles and rights which are the birthright of everyone and which have been taken for granted in this democratic country for many years. Of course, I would not expect the Opposition to be aware of fundamental principles, because obviously Opposition members are very unprincipled when it comes to industrial relations. Despite the precedents in Australia for conducting our industrial relations reasonably, one State government, Queensland, has seriously threatened those basic human rights and is even prepared to jeopardise economic and social stability to prove that one man can monopolise power and destroy the conventions of justice and fair play for which Australians are renowned. It is essential that all Australians recognise the significance of recent events in Queensland. Too frequently, Queensland is the butt of media jokes about the deep north. Its regressive government policy is caricatured as belonging to another era. Everyone laughs at the idea of needing a special visa to enter the Sunshine State. Senator Boswell —But we still win every election. Senator REYNOLDS —With 39 per cent, Senator. Sixty-one per cent of Queenslanders are not amused by such southern jokes at their expense. Senator Boswell —How many people vote for the ALP? Is it more than 50 per cent? Senator REYNOLDS —We shall come to that. Those 61 per cent of Queenslanders know that only in Queensland could a Premier rule-not govern; he does not know how to govern-with a vote of 39 per cent and the support of two defectors from the Liberal Party. These Queenslanders know that there was a discrepancy of only 9,866 in votes cast for a minority government. Only in Queensland could such a minority enable any political party to form a government, which in reality has become a dictatorship. The enormity of events in Queensland needs to be restated again and again to impress upon Australians just how ruthlessly the Queensland Premier has dismantled the rights of workers. The precedent has been established and it is not just 1,002 power workers whose livelihoods have been threatened-although, of course, that is of paramount importance. The foundations have been laid for a government to dictate and control Australian workers in a way unprecedented in modern industrial relations. It is essential that all Australians recognise the potential of the Queensland power workers situation to spread to other areas within that State and even to provide a model for other States where conservative forces may rule in the future-at a very distant stage, of course. The media have not focused beyond the sensational confrontationist aspects of this dispute, but there needs to be a serious analysis of the potential risks to industrial democracy in this country. In the last month we have witnessed the most significant change in industrial relations in Queensland in many years, probably since the creation of the Industrial Commission in 1917. The Bjelke-Petersen Government has embarked upon a course of union attacks unprecedented in Australia this century. This minority Government's actions not only affect those in the electricity industry but also they impact upon all public servants and, in fact, all employees whose wages and conditions are determined by the Queensland Industrial Commission. In brief, this minority Government has, firstly, used a state of emergency and now the Parliament to override the provisions of an industrial award set by the Commission so that electricians can be employed under conditions worse than their award; secondly, it has made the dismissal of the 1,002 South East Queensland Electricity Board workers the law of the State. The absurdity of this is that, technically, it would now be unlawful for them not to be sacked; thirdly, it has legislated to prevent the Industrial Commission from ordering or even recommending the re-employment of the 1,002 sacked SEQEB employees or any other employees sacked by the Electricity Commission in the future; fourthly, it has given extraordinary powers akin to those of Cabinet during a state of emergency to one person-the Electricity Commissioner; fifthly, it has introduced legislation which reverses the onus of proof so that unionists charged with an offence must prove their innocence. In other words, we are to be guilty until proven innocent. If that is not an infringement of human rights, I do not know what is. Sixthly, in one section of the Bill, statements reported in the Press, not necessarily word for word, are sufficient proof that a person is guilty of a breach of the new Bill. This will include statements attributed to a person without direct quotation. Seventhly, the Queensland Government has introduced legislation to encourage people not to join unions and to be industrial freeloaders; eighthly, it has restricted the rights of the unions to recover debts owed to them, so that normal contractual law arrangements do not apply; ninthly, it has introduced legislation to override the power of the Industrial Commission to give preference to union members. All of these actions add up to an unprecedented attack upon the Industrial Commission, all union members in Queensland, and our system of industrial relations. For the first time since the great depression of the 1930s, a large group of workers have had their conditions arbitrarily reduced. We may well ask why the Bjelke-Petersen minority Government has embarked on such a hazardous course of conflict which is bringing it into dispute with so many respected groups in the community. It is well known that in National Party circles- Senator Collard —Who are you quoting? Senator REYNOLDS —Much of this comes from National Party circles. I have some strange friends. It is well known in National Party circles that a number of more rational strategists-there are a few more rational strategists on the fringes of the National Party-have serious reservations about the current directions of their leader. The Queensland Premier has long held trade unionism in contempt, and he now openly boasts that he will crush any opposition to his plans to control and emasculate the trade unions. He is ruthless in his emulation of Thatcherism, which he believes he can influence to spread throughout Australia. But the Federal Government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions will not allow the jackboot mentality of the Queensland Premier to cross the border. Already moves are under way to transfer electricity workers to Federal awards, and, on present performance, the Queensland Government may force all State workers to seek refuge in Federal industrial awards. Australia has a tradition of developing a fair system of industrial democracy, which will not be allowed to be challenged by the fanaticism of Bjelke-Petersen. This man has progressively trampled on fundamental human rights and traditions over many years. It is no wonder- Senator Boswell —Why do so many people vote for him all the time? Senator REYNOLDS —Thirty-nine per cent vote for him, as I have to keep reminding Senator Boswell. Senator MacGibbon —I raise two points of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. First, the honourable senator is reading her speech, and under standing order 406 I ask that you make her desist. Secondly, when a senator rises to take a point of order, the senator speaking should sit. Senator Grimes —On the point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Townley) —I do not think that I need any help. Senator Grimes —I think that I have the right to speak on the point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President, particularly the point of order about reading speeches. This matter has been raised frequently in this place. I merely comment that although Senator Reynolds may be using her copious notes, at least she wrote them herself-unlike Senator Boswell and others in this place who have theirs written by mining company representatives. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! I shall rule on this point of order without any more advice from the floor. I perceive that Senator Reynolds is using copious notes. However, I ask that, when a point of order is taken in future, she defer to the Chair. Senator Grimes —At least she is a loyal Australian-unlike the person who took a point of order. Senator Boswell —I take a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. Senator Grimes said that I used speeches that were prepared by mining companies. That has never been so. I have never used a speech prepared by anyone else. I call upon Senator Grimes to withdraw and to apologise to me for that statement. Senator Grimes —If I should apologise to anyone, it should be to the representatives of the mining companies for the way in which you read your speeches. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Grimes, you have been asked to withdraw that statement. I ask you to do that. Senator Grimes —I cannot understand what I am asked to withdraw. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —You implied that the honourable senator was- Senator Grimes —If that is an implication, I withdraw it. I did not mean it to be an implication. Everyone here knows that it is a fact. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Thank you, Senator Grimes. I call Senator Reynolds. Senator REYNOLDS —Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. It is no wonder that many Queenslanders question whether the Premier's state of paranoia owes as much to his reputed associations with the Hitler youth movement as to his advancing years. He has long demonstrated disloyalty to his adopted country and an arrogance in pursuing un-Australian goals which are marked by his dealings with foreign land sharks whose extensive land grab makes a mockery of the Queensland Government's opposition to Aboriginal land rights. Apart from the Premier's own ideological paranoia, why has he chosen 1985 to launch this bitter attack on Queensland workers? The answer lies very close to any analysis of the Queensland economy, as Senator Jones has already pointed out. Last Saturday's Sydney Morning Herald announced: 'Joh's economic smile begins to wear thin'. Two significant reports in the last three weeks have shown the Queensland economy to be crumbling as other States are climbing out of recession. The king-hit was made last week with the release of Australian Bureau of Statistics figures which show that Queensland has the highest number of unemployed in its history: 128,000 Queenslanders, that is, 11.3 per cent of the work force, had no job. That figure is one-third higher than the national average of 8.3 per cent. The implications obviously stirred even the dismissive Premier to plant a dorothy dixer in Parliament last week so that he could try to reassure Queenslanders that this significant slump was temporary. Even the Queensland Minister for Industry, Small Business and Technology, Mr Mike Ahern, admitted to tough times when he addressed a Rotary meeting last week. Life obviously is not so great in the sunshine State. A recent University of Queensland report cited the State as having a faltering economy, an insecure future and a low level of Government spending on essential social services. I will not have the time to continue because of the repeated interjections from members of the Opposition who obviously get very upset when I cite that figure of 39 per cent. In concluding, I remind all Australians that Queensland is governed by a minority government-it gained 39 per cent of the vote at the last election-which means that 61 per cent are dissatisfied. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator MacGibbon —I ask that the honourable senator's copious notes be tabled. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —She may table them if she likes. There is no provision for that in the Standing Orders. You will have to move a motion to that effect if you wish to. The only way that this can be accomplished is for you to move a motion to that effect. Do you wish to do so? Motion (by Senator MacGibbon) proposed: That the document quoted from by Senator Reynolds be tabled. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business)(4.04) —I wish to speak to the motion. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —This would be much more appropriately left to the end of the debate. Senator GRIMES —I would have thought so and I would have thought it would be better manners to do so, but as the motion has been moved I believe I have the right to speak. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —You have the right to speak. Senator GRIMES —Senator MacGibbon, in ignorance of the Standing Orders, demanded that Senator Reynolds table what he described as copious notes; then, when he found he was unsuccessful, he undertook, on his own behalf, to move that the Senate demand that Senator Reynolds table her copious notes. I remind honourable senators of the situation we are left in. It means, of course, that honourable senators on this side of the House, and, I dare say, Australian Democrats senators at least, will have to think about what they will do in the future when so many Opposition senators read a speech or use copious notes. I should have thought that it would be a considerable embarrassment to those who read speeches which they obviously have not written themselves, but that is up to them to judge. The conduct of this place will not be enhanced by such a motion, and I urge members of the Opposition to think seriously whether they want to carry through such a motion because quite clearly if it happens from one side of the House it will repeatedly happen from the other side of the House. I urge all honourable senators while I am speaking to seriously consider what they are doing. Senator Reynolds was quoting carefully researched material in a carefully researched speech. The facts were undeniable and members of the Opposition did not like it. In an attempt to silence her, phoney points of order were taken, one about reading a speech and another rather rude and ill-conceived one about Senator Reynolds allegedly not sitting down when Senator MacGibbon got to his feet, which is typical of the arrogance demonstrated by Senator MacGibbon in this place. We will oppose this motion and we will oppose similar motions; but, of course, if motions such as this are moved and passed on one side of the House, they will be moved repeatedly and passed by the other side of the House. From my experience of some of those sitting opposite, I suggest that more honourable senators on that side will be embarrassed than on this side. Senator MacGibbon —I seek the direction of the Chair. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator MacGibbon, you have no right of reply. Senator Messner —I think that Senator MacGibbon has the right to seek leave to make a statement. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —He has. There is a motion before the Chair that should be disposed of first, unless he wishes to pursue the matter. Question resolved in the negative. Senator COLLARD(Queensland)(4.06) -We are considering a matter of public importance submitted by Senator Jones, namely: The need for the Federal Government to alert the International Labour Organisation to the breaches of international conventions by the Queensland Government, and take all possible steps available to it to work towards a reversal of the dangerous industrial relations situation in that State. The debate has broadened into one on the Queensland power supply situation as it has unfolded over the last six to nine months up to the present, when the Queensland State Government has seen fit to move certain legislation to guarantee a continuation of power supplies. It has been spoken to by Senator Jones, who submitted it, and by Senator Reynolds, two Queenslanders who talked a lot about philosophies and principles and all the rest of it. However, it was really left to my colleague Senator Messner, a South Australian, to get to the nub of what the whole thing was all about. It is quite obvious why, with very good reason, members of the Government, particularly those from Queensland, do not really want to talk about what the dispute is all about and how it got into the situation in which it finds itself today. The central issue of this dispute is whether management of a statutory authority in Queensland has the right to organise its work force and work programs in such a way as to be of benefit to the community. To explain it in power jargon: It wants a base load work force but the ability to use contract labour to handle the peak loads. I see nothing wrong with that. It must use its work force in a very efficient manner, which is what it would be doing. It would also be providing work for other contractors within the Queensland work force. The significant part, which was brought out by my colleague Senator Messner, is that all the workers are members of the Electrical Trades Union or would be members of the ETU. This has been going on for some time. I shall give a few of the chronological details. On 1 June 1984 a draft agreement was sent by the generating authorities to the ETU. It said, among other things, that there would be no retrenchments, no forced redundancies, security of employment, and a guarantee as to tenure of employment. I think that should be spelt out. That was rejected out of hand by the ETU. The dispute simmered along and then in January it hotted up a little. It came to a peak over three transmission lines and one sub-station that were to be constructed. On 17 January the ETU went on strike. On 18 January a disastrous storm hit Brisbane and the workers were ordered back to work for 14 days. To their credit, they went back. Indeed, some of those in country areas, because of the disastrous situation, were back at work before they were ordered back. That was the sense of responsibility to the community held by some of the people within that work force. On 29 January there was a further stop work meeting and further bans were imposed-within the 14-day period, I might add, which did not finish until 1 February. On Thursday, 7 February, the workers were on strike again. The Commission ordered the ETU to return to work. On Friday, 8 February, they were again ordered to return to work and the general manager was given power to dismiss. On 9 February that power to dismiss was extended. It was extended again on 10 February. On 11 February it came to a halt. At a news conference at which the reporters referred to 'strikers', the Premier pulled the reporters up and said: 'I'm sorry, they are no longer strikers; they are now unemployed'. It is essential to reiterate what this dispute was all about, or more particularly, what it was not about. No jobs, no wages, no conditions and no benefits were at risk. What then was it all about? A militant union, led by a maverick organiser, sought to usurp the powers of a legitimately elected government. That is it, pure and simple. If honourable senators will pardon the pun, it was a power struggle, one that has been going on for some time throughout this nation. It was a power struggle that could not be allowed to continue. No union should be allowed to win a struggle of that kind. It should never have got to that stage. The Trades and Labor Council, with its accumulated wisdom-which I acknowledge-should have bought into the dispute earlier. If Dinny Madden, the organiser of the whole thing, did not have his backside kicked beforehand, he certainly should have had it kicked afterwards. The TLC, with its accumulated wisdom in handling disputes, should have bought into the dispute before it reached that stage. No less a figure than the trade union movement's Sir Jack Egerton, on 12 or 13 March on the Today Tonight program, reiterated these facts. I happened to be a branch president of a union when Sir Jack was President of the TLC. I will say this for him: He never let anybody go out through the gate unnecessarily. He did not want to see any hurt or hardship come to anybody. He kept people at work and through conciliation and talks tried to achieve what had to be achieved. On that Today Tonight program, Sir Jack Egerton re-emphasised what was pretty well his basic philosophy, one he held throughout his union career: 'You don't go into a fight that you can't win'. The ETU started the war and chose the battlefield. Let that not be forgotten. It started the war and chose the battlefield. The Queensland Government won that war on that battlefield and on those terms. Senator Jones quite rightly pointed out the hardships that have accrued to the wives and families of strikers. Those of use who have worked in the union movement and experienced strikes probably know that better than most other people. Probably just as many senators on this side of the chamber as on the Government side fall into that category. Senator Bjelke-Petersen, who will speak for the Opposition after me, was at one time a member of a union, as indeed I was. I say it again: The ETU started the war, chose the battlefield and was beaten on its terms and conditions. It is interesting to note that two honourable senators have talked about the gerrymander in Queensland. I point out that the electoral conditions that operate in Queensland today were brought in by a Labor government, the Hanlon Labor Government. The non-socialist forces have fought Labor forces and beaten them on their own terms and conditions. Let us not forget that. It is no use Labor senators coming in here crying. Labor made the terms and conditions. We used them and Labor has been fought, outmanoeuvred and outwon every time. We now have the rear guard action. Senator Jones, acting deputy blank file assistant Whip, or whatever he is, led the debate. Where were the front benchers? Senator Boswell —They wouldn't get involved; they're not that stupid. Senator COLLARD —No, they are not stupid; that is why they are on the front bench. They did not want to buy into this argument. So acting deputy blank file assistant Whip, Senator Jones, aided and abetted by Senator Reynolds, fought the battle. No front benchers wanted to get involved. The Government is just as impotent as it was in the Public Service dispute. The first thing the Government did when it came to office was get rid of our Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act and our no work as directed no pay legislation. I bet the Government wished that it had that legislation a few weeks ago. It had to go to the court for stand down provisions. Meanwhile, the economy of this country ground to a standstill. It had an effect on the value of the dollar. That incident, among others, is notable in terms of the Government's poor economic performance. The Government could do nothing about the Public Service dispute, such is its impotence. The union movement has a great history and a great heritage. Its contribution to the welfare of the work force of this nation and of other nations can possibly never be tabulated. In 200 or 300 years people will probably look back and record that history. The union movement has done a great service to the working people of the world. Now, in the latter half of the twentieth century, what has happened to it? This great union movement has been prostituted by the tin gods who sit in glass castles and see themselves as alternative governments. They put themselves literally up a pole, as they did in Queensland. The trouble is, the Queensland Government took the pole away. Much has been said about the Queensland economy. Let me talk briefly about the Queensland economy and the contribution the Queensland Government has made to the national economy over a long period. When other States were in stagnation, Queensland was expanding. Because of the detrimental effect on the economy this Government has had, that expansion has come to a standstill. Consequently, construction has come to a standstill. There is nowhere for workers to go, other than to stay in Queensland. There is no expansion in the other States. All those who have been involved in the great expansion in Queensland remain there. They would not want to go to the other States anyway. Senator Messner —Oh! Senator COLLARD —Some might want to go to South Australia. Nothing is happening in the Australian economy. Construction has come to a standstill. Even though we have been trying to sell more coal, what has happened? The coal miners are on strike. Never again will the great coal industry of Queensland and Australia be looked to as one of our key export earners because purchasers are looking elsewhere. They are looking to South Africa, Canada and America because we cannot be relied upon. Consequently, there will be suffering and a lack of jobs, as there is at this time. Thus we find ourselves in a bad economic situation. What the dickens the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) talked about when he went to Canada I am blowed if I know. If the present rate of exchange for the Australian dollar now is not an indication of our economic performance and the way in which the world community sees us, I do not know what is. Certainly, there are unemployed people in Queensland, but those people were gainfully employed in lifting our State to the level of one of the greatest coal producing areas in the world and were involved in all else that has gone on in Queensland up to now. There is nowhere else for those unemployed to go. No other State is expanding. We took the unemployed from the other States in times past. Much has been said about the right to strike. Indeed, the churches have joined the battle. No one talks of one's duty or responsibility to the community or to one's fellow workers. No one ever talks about the right to work. One reason that Russia does not allow strikes is that the right to strike cuts across other people's right to work. I am not saying that we should not have the right to strike; I am saying we have a responsibility and a right to work. The ETU workers are now the meat in the sandwich. There is a continuing power struggle. Time and again, we hear: 'Solidarity, brother. We are here with you'. They are there with them all right; they are there with them until the last ETU worker finds finds a job somewhere else. What a pathetic performance has been put up! If any ETU workers, their wives or families are listening today they should wake up to what is going on. They are being used in a traditional struggle between those who believe in the right to work and those who believe that the union movement should be all powerful. To the last one, the ETU workers are being led as lambs to the slaughter. And so the solidarity goes on. I refer to the legislation that has been introduced by the Queensland Government. Similar legislation has been introduced in other countries, such as the United Kingdom and the United States of America. Some people have the hide to talk about there being forced labour. The members of the Municipal Officers Association of Australia are on $40,000 a year plus and a 36 1/4-hour week and ETU workers are on $23,000 a year plus, a 36 1/4-hour week and a nine-day fortnight. My colleague Senator Messner gave the lie to that when he referred to Article 2 of Convention No. 29, which takes into consideration the fact that there are situations in which forced labour conditions are negated. I do not know how one could say that this situation is in any way, shape or form forced labour. The Government has been elected to govern and it has a responsibility and a right to guarantee essential services, even electricity, to the people of its State. Senator COOK(Western Australia)(4.21) —I support the matter of public importance raised by my colleague Senator Jones and supported by Senator Reynolds. There is indeed a sense of deja vu about the events in Queensland today. Ninety four years ago, back in the 1890s, Queensland, like northern New South Wales, was wracked with major disputes. At that time they were in the shearing industry. Those disputes are significant in Australian history; indeed, they are seminal in industrial relations history. As a result of those disputes workers learned that they could not struggle to achieve their own goals by industrial means alone; thus they formed the Australian Labor Party. They also learned that there ought to be a better way than simply going out on strike. The arbitration system in Australia directly arose from those events. Indeed, the seminal nature of the 1890s disputes bears many similar features to those of this dispute. When I look at this dispute in Queensland the words of the Ballad of 1891, a ballad written to commemorate the struggles of the workers, comes to mind. The opening paragraph of that ballad states: The price of wool was falling, in 1891, The men who own the acres, said something must be done, We will break the shearers union, and show we're masters still, They'll take the terms we give them, Or we'll find the men who will. That is how that ballad commemorated the events of the 1890s and there are echoes in Queensland today of the same situation. The economy in the State of Queensland is wallowing and as a consequence there is an attack upon the structure of the union movement in that State. The reason is the adoption of the classic conservative ploy when one is losing the economy of tackling the union movement and trying to drag the industrial relations red herring across the face of the electorate to divert the attention of the electorate from one's sins in economic management. That is what is happening in Queensland today. I read in the Courier-Mail this morning that the Premier of that State, Sir Johannes Bjelke-Petersen, had indicated that more legislation is to come. He wants to take the matter further. If that is his intention, there will be a modern change in Queensland. The seminal nature of the 1890s will be translated into the 1980s and we will see, as was the case in Western Australia when the Court Government was thrown out of office because of its confrontation with the union movement in that State, conservatism in Queensland defeated and that there will be a change for the better. In this debate there is a tendency by conservatives to say that to tackle the Premier and the Government of Queensland is to tackle the people of Queensland. Nothing could be further from the truth. The people are governed by a 39 per cent majority Government, a Government which can muster only that type of vote and which is now turning the State of Queensland into the Gulag Archipelago of Australia as the forced labour conventions of the International labour organisation are being raised in opposition to the legislation that that State is introducing. This matter of public importance is not an attack upon the people of Queensland. They deserve much better than what they have got with this Government. It is to protect the people of Queensland and to do Australia a favour that this matter of public importance has been raised. It will do Australia a favour in one other important area. We are gaining a reputation among our overseas trading partners on the continuity of supply simply because we have conservative governments disrupt industrial relations for their own political ends and giving Australia a bad name. What is happening in Queensland is important to Queensland but it is also vitally important to Australia. Australians now have a ringside seat for making a choice as to what type of government is best. We have a choice between the consensus model of the Australian Government-the Hawke Labor Government-which has pulled Australia out of the economic morass that the Fraser Government got it into and the Bjelke-Petersen model of divide, confront and cause division and dissension within the community. Those are the two models now on firm display in Australia. As Fraser and Court were consigned to the trash can of industrial relations history, so will Bjelke-Petersen as his conservative classic ploy about bashing the unions to direct the attention from the economy is revealed. Why is there chaos in Queensland? I argue that it is not simply because of a power industry dispute but, as I have said, because of the economy. Let us look at the economy of Queensland and see how it compares with that of the rest of Australia. Senator Boswell —What has that got to do with it? Stick to the point. Senator COOK —It has everything to do with this subject. Recently, in a parliamentary statement, Premier Bjelke-Petersen sought to abdicate his own responsibility in Queensland for the economic mismanagement of his State. He said: Primary responsibility for economic management in Australia rests with the Federal Government . . . Of course that is true. The Government's statistics on its performance as a Federal government are exemplary, but what is the case in Queensland? The Queensland Government abdicated responsibility for economic management many years ago. The result is that unemployment is at 11.3 per cent, by far the highest of any Australian State. It registered a fall in employment in the year to February 1985 and it had the lowest percentage increase in job vacancies of any State. Honourable senators should listen to this. Queensland had a 20 per cent drop in private capital investment in the September quarter of 1984 compared with the same quarter a year earlier when the national average was a 2 per cent rise. In Queensland there was a 20 per cent decrease; nationally there was a 2 per cent increase. Official expectations are that there will be a further decline in Queensland. As if that is not enough, most other economic indicators indicate that Queensland lags behind the national average. That is Queensland economic performance. If you, Mr Deputy President, were Premier of that State, would not you want to prevent that performance from being disclosed by others? This fact was made clear beyond any doubt in the Courier-Mail this morning when Bjelke-Petersen, for the first time, paired the two issues together. He tackled the union movement and attacked it over the power dispute and in the same Press release raised the question of the Premiers Conference. Here we have a government heading for the electorate next year trying to maximise its bargaining position at the Premiers Conference, trying to use industrial relations to obfuscate the real problems of its State and, as well, trying to mislead the people of Queensland into believing that taxes and charges that the Bjelke-Petersen Government will be imposing on Queenslanders when it brings down its next State Budget are due to the power unions. That is now revealed starkly as being the real purpose behind the power industry dispute. The power industry dispute is nothing more than a ploy to enable the conservatives in Queensland to continue in control of that State. Notwithstanding that it is a ploy, we ought to turn to the dispute and examine what is happening because for the Senate there is an important question to answer at the bottom of this debate. That question is: What distinguishes free labour from forced labour? We are, and we profess proudly to be, democratic and anyone who professes democracy ought to be interested in the answer to that question. Free labour is where a person has freedom to associate and the right to strike. Forced labour is where either of those or both are absent or, in the words of the Ballad of 1891, where one has to take the terms one is given or they will find men who will. Basically these conventions recognise that workers have but one thing to sell, one commodity, and that is their labour, and that in bargaining for the right price or conditions for that labour they are entitled to bargain freely and, if necessary, to withdraw it in order to ensure that the contract struck on the provision of labour for the provision of pay is fair. If the conditions on the bargain about labour in the Queensland power industry were to be imposed in terms of a civil contract, I believe that that civil contract would be thrown out on the grounds that it was harsh and unreasonable. There is no proper freedom of bargaining because the Electricity (Continuity of Supply) Act 1985 which has been brought in by the Bjelke-Petersen Government and the other Acts remove the freedom to bargain properly. That is why the Act breaks the conventions as referred to by Senator Jones and Senator Reynolds, and that is why it contravenes the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Both those conventions and the covenant refer directly to those rights as being rights that all people should have. As citizens of a democratic country, we in Australia should have those rights. When one talks about the right to strike, one should say a few other things about it because it is the most misinterpreted right of all. It is particularly misrepresented in this chamber. The right to strike obviously is caveated by several other provisions; it is not an untrammelled right. In cases of emergency, in cases where life and limb are at stake or in cases where the health and safety of others are at risk, the right to strike is properly caveated by those considerations. The question might be: Is that the case in the power industry? The answer is no it is not. The power dispute in Queensland, as in all power disputes traditionally, contained the proviso that essential services were exempted, so that those services that were necessary to protect life and limb and to ensure that the public good was not put at risk continued. That was the case in Queensland; it was a self-imposed decision by the union. In the narrow confines of what else is left to them, the power workers are conducting a battle on an industrial matter. What is that industrial matter? It is the right to resist contract labour. There is no greater travesty in industrial relations than the introduction of contract labour. Employers sit down and freely bargain with the unions to reach an agreement on certain wages and conditions that should apply in the work place and then as soon as they can get out of that they introduce contract labour at lower rates and lower conditions in order to undercut the people with whom they have bargained in the first place. That is what was happening in Queensland-an absolute travesty of proper negotiation, as the introduction of contract labour always is. If the Arbitration Commission were able to deal with the dispute on contract labour it would find, as it does in all cases of this nature, that if contract labour is artificially or excessively introduced it should not be permitted. What should be permitted is the proper basic negotiation, the agreement or the award that prevails and that covers the workers who are in permanent employment in an instrumentality rendering a permanent service. In the end, in analysing the basis of the right to strike there are many who might properly argue that this strike, in their views, is not justified or that strikes are too numerous. But what is being argued here is not just a particular view of this strike or of the number of strikes generally but the very right to exercise the strike weapon. Earlier Senator Bjelke-Petersen said in an interjection that as a member of a union she had chosen not to exercise the right to strike. So be it. She had a choice. That is what is at risk here; there is no choice in the legislation in Queensland. That is why the legislation is corrupt and that is why it should be thrown out. Those are the concepts and the principles. What has happened on the ground as to the facts in Queensland? Let me quote from a report of Electrical Trades Union members who offered themselves for employment in Queensland and went to the Taringa Depot of the SEQEB. They confronted the industrial officer, Brian Ash. I quote from their report: The men were informed that there were three ways in which they could be considered for re-employment. I ask honourable senators to bear in mind the right of freedom of association, the right to strike and the right to be regarded as an independent and respected individual. The report continued: Firstly men would have to make a Statutory Declaration which would be reviewed by a Tribunal or Appeals Committee. The Statutory Declaration should contain information such as: Were you forced to go out on strike? Who forced you? Evidence of harassment and by whom? Were you on sick leave, compensation leave, on holiday, etc, at the time of the strike? In particular, they were informed that they wanted names of men who caused any harassment, names of pickets, names of any work mates who have urged them to remain on strike. Then the men were required to sign a lengthy declaration agreeing not ever to go on strike again. If they did not agree to this they would not get their jobs back. They also had to agree to a 38-hour week, 10-day fortnight-a worsening of the conditions of employment which they had enjoyed previously. They had to agree to no bans, no limitations and no demarcation disputes. That was a travesty of the conditions that had applied previously, yet they were expected to consent freely to the abrogation of these. If that is not a basic abrogation of freedom of association and the right to negotiate, nothing is. It reminds me of the concluding words of the Ballad of 1891 which say: To trial in Rockhampton, a dozen men were brought, The judge had got his orders, the squatters owned the court. But for every one who's sentenced, a thousand won't forget, When you gaol a man for striking, it's a rich man's country yet. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(4.37) —I am glad to have the opportunity of speaking on this matter of public importance before us today. As all honourable senators will know, I have been closely associated with the Government of Queensland and the Premier of that State for many years. The Government chose its Assistant Deputy Whip to lead this debate. We listened to a long harangue from him last week about the same subject in the Address-in-Reply debate. If Senator Cook thinks that this matter is so important to the whole of Australia, I wonder why some of the Ministers in the Senate did not feel compelled to enter the debate. Then again, perhaps I can offer a little suggestion, because I read in the Australian on 22 March that the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) refused to back the Australian Council of Trade Unions war on Queensland. The article said: The Federal Government yesterday refused to support a lengthy industrial campaign planned by the ACTU to sway public opinion against Queensland's anti-strike legislation . . . Mr Willis said the Federal Government believed the issue was essentially a State matter and that it would be 'inappropriate' to introduce overriding federal legislation. Mr Willis is sensible enough to know that this is not something that we should really be debating in the Senate. He said that he acknowledged that the Government was not confident of winning a High Court challenge. That is Mr Willis's idea, and of course we all know about the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). He has not said anything about it and I think that shows that he is sensible. Halfway through Senator Cook's address I began to think that instead of debating industrial issues we were talking about the economy of Queensland. One thing I would like to know about the economy of Queensland is why that State is able to balance its budget whereas the Federal Government always has this tremendous deficit. Perhaps someone can tell me at some time because I would like to know. As for the unemployment figures, all I can say is that Queensland is a nice place to be unemployed. That is why so many people come to Queensland to try to get a job: When they cannot, it is very pleasant to relax there. Honourable senators should look at the figures for Cairns, for the Gold Coast and for the north coast. That is where the people are who are not employed. Senator Boswell suggested that fools rush in where angels fear to tread. I would not class Mr Willis or Mr Hawke as angels, but most certainly I say this to Senator Jones: If the cap fits, he should wear it. We have been given the reasons for the strike by many Queensland senators, told from a different angle depending on which side of the Senate chamber they sit on. The South East Queensland Electricity Board wanted contract labour because it wanted to get the work done more cheaply. As I pay electricity bills from time to time-in fact, I just paid one on the weekend-I know how high they are. Naturally people want to get their electricity at the cheapest rate possible; nobody wants to pay any more than he has to. The Electrical Trades Union members were told a number of times by the Industrial Commission to go back to work. They did not obey. They defied the court and so it is no wonder that the Government's patience ran out. The jobs were there; they could have gone to them if they wanted to but they said no, they would stay on strike. It seems to me that it would be better if the ETU members realised that it is the Government paying them, not their mates or the union. The ETU organisers and leaders are well paid while the men are on strike. They do not forgo their wages. Perhaps Senator Cook knows that, having been a union organiser. He would have got paid while the men he asked to go on strike did not. The power industry provides an essential service. Many industries are essential; there are no two ways about that. Power is necessary for essential services such as Telecom Australia services, transport, health and sewerage. They all need electricity. A group of irresponsible union bosses defied the law and created a situation that caused the loss of many hundreds of millions of dollars and great suffering for many people. They wrecked hundreds of businesses. I wonder whether honourable senators from the other side who have spoken today have thought about that. Thousands of people were put permanently out of work. This is the sad part about it, as I see it. The history of this section of the union movement is one of continual strikes, defiance of the law and disrespect for the rights of the long-suffering public. It is sad indeed and it is no wonder that the Queensland Government said 'No more, enough is enough'; it was going to try to do something about it. Certainly the strike brought about one of the saddest and most costly periods of Queenland's history. I certainly hope that the end result will be a strike or dispute settling procedure enshrined in law to give a strike-free electricity powered Queensland. Senator Gareth Evans —It was; the State Industrial Commission, and look what you did to it. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —The State Industrial Commission has not been able to get the men to go back and give us essential power all the time. We would be one of the few countries in which there is not strike-free electricity. It is important that we have such a strike free service. I am glad to know that everybody is so interested in what I am saying that they continue to keep on trying to interrupt me. I have some very good facts and I want to put them over. The estimated loss to industry as a result of the strike totalled $600m and the revenue cost to the Queensland Government was at least $25m. Around 6,000 jobs were lost, an unknown number of businesses were closed and 2,000 firms applied for loans under the Government's assistance package. The unions in Queensland should be sad to think that they caused so many people to lose their jobs, and many of them will be lost permanently. The strike exposed the untold hardship and suffering that the union bosses inflicted on people, including old people, sick people and pensioners. The Australian Labor Party did not ask the unions to go back to work; that is something that members on the other side ought to realise. The State Government is acting to ensure that the people of Queensland have a stable, strike free electricity industry. It is a sad situation. We have industrial lawlessness in Australia today and, as far as I am concerned, that is the basic issue involved in this strike. If the Senate supports this matter of public importance it will be seen as supporting industrial lawlessness, not only in Queensland but right throughout Australia. We have had strikes in many industries. The Public Service strike cost the Government billions of dollars because it was not brave enough-unlike the Government of Queensland-to say to the public servants 'You go back or else'. We have also a dispute involving the coal miners in New South Wales. Just yesterday I found a quite interesting comment attributed to Neville Wran in one of Queensland's papers. The article states: . . . NSW Premier Neville Wran . . . told his Caucus recently that the party would have to jettison some of the Shibboleths of the past in industrial relations-including their practice of not sacking strikers. It seems to me that Premier Wran is going to do much the same thing as the Queensland Government. The article went on: Timing is of the essence in politics-the fact that New South Wales was bedevilled by rail and teachers strikes and the Commonwealth with public service bans at the time Sir Joh struck was immensely to his benefit. We definitely need leaders who are willing to take on the unions when the unions stand up to people and say 'We are the bosses, not the Government'. That is what it is all about. The unions are jolly well trying to run the country, but it is governments that are elected. If the people do not like the government that they have elected, they can put it out. The strike by the ETU men caused heartache to families. Serious accidents occurred. People were killed at intersections where traffic lights were not operating. Homes were burnt down, small businesses were burnt out and some were robbed, and of course we had very many health problems as well. They are just some of the problems caused by this strike. Now we see in Queensland union members going around threatening people. They are going to burn down houses and beat up people. They are terrorising women and children. These are facts. When workers are up poles, strikers come around and try to get them down. These are the sorts of things that are happening. I would not be at all surprised if something has to be done in Queensland to prevent this. I do not wonder that the Queensland Government might bring in further legislation. As I said earlier, I belonged to a union when I worked before I was married. I paid my union fees, but what did the union ever do for me? Nothing. Senator Cook —You could have gone on strike. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —Senator Cook says that I could have gone on strike had I wanted to. I would be ashamed to go on strike; I certainly would never have done that. The unions have been asking for higher and higher wages and that has led to a higher consumer price index. It is like a never-ending circle-you go round and round. The unions have asked for redundancy pay and they want a 17 1/2 per cent holiday loading. They have made Australia lose her international competitiveness. Senator Cook —That is your Government. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —I am talking at present about Australia. Some 10 years ago the then Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, was asked by a journalist what was the biggest problem facing his Government. His response was-Senator Cook should listen to this: . . . the trade unions. They are so greedy. This electricity strike was about the greed of the ETU in trying to prevent other people getting jobs on contract. The ETU was greedy, wanting top wages and a 36 1/2 hour week. They brought havoc to the community by not obeying the Industrial Commission's order to return to work. They are matters that I see as being very important. I recently received a copy of a letter written to the Professional Officers Association, which contains something that is really quite good. The letter said: It is absolute hypocrisy for the P.O.A. to object to possible loss of jobs if a Government instrumentality uses contract labour to carry out certain projects. The P.O.A.-- that is, the Professional Officers Association-- uses a modern method of technology to process its accounts etc. obviously depriving many clerks of a job. I would point out that the Brisbane City Council uses 100 per cent contract labour for its garbage collection. So, there are many other angles to this dispute. No State of Australia is more politically aware than Queensland. I feel that the legislation the Government has brought in has been absolutely necessary. Indeed, it has been welcomed by very many people. Not only the people who vote for the Government but also many Labor people in Queensland have rung my home and said: 'Good on Joh. Tell him to keep on going because we want a strike-free electricity industry'. Many people, including the cattle men in Queensland, will back the Premier, so that they can feel that the State is run by the Government, not by the unions. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(4.52) —I wish to join this debate. I have sat here for the last two hours or so and listened to a mishmash of mistruths by Senator Reynolds and Senator Jones. Firstly, I would like to clarify the percentage by which the Bjelke-Petersen Government wins office because there seems to be a misunderstanding amongst those on the Labor Party benches. When the Labor Party gets 50 per cent, or over 50 per cent, of the votes it will go into government, but it will not when it gets 43 or 45 per cent. Fifty per cent is a majority. We are in a coalition and we went into the election with a coalition policy. Senator Reynolds —You did not go in with a coalition policy. Senator BOSWELL —We did. When you get 50 per cent of the vote, you will get government, but that will not be for a long time. During the power strike the National Party polls went up by 3 or 4 per cent. Senator Reynolds —Rubbish! Where is your evidence? Senator BOSWELL —That is shown in the Morgan gallup poll that was conducted after the dispute. I want to tell the Senate what this dispute is really about. We are debating here a matter of public importance. It is about who controls the destiny of Australia; whether it is the democratically-elected Government or the power brokers in the Australian Council of Trade Unions. That is why Senator Cook is jumping up and down. He can see his power base being eroded. In one fell swoop the Premier of Queensland put the Government back where it belonged-with the democratically-elected representatives of the people in the Parliament of Queensland. That is what we will do on this side of the chamber in three years time. Where do we end up? We have fallen from No. 3 to No. 21 in international competitiveness. Senator Cook said earlier that we have done well under consensus. I will tell Senator Cook how well the Labor Party has done under consensus with its industrial program. The railway strike the other day cost the Australian economy $300m. If that is consensus, you ought to govern and tell the unions that you were elected, but you are too frightened to do that. You are too frightened to stand up to Mr Dolan and Mr Kelty. They are the people who give you your riding instructions. They tell you what to do and you sit there like weak lambs, and you know it. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Haines) —I ask Senator Boswell to address his remarks through the Chair. Senator BOSWELL —Let me address this proposition to you, Madam Acting Deputy President. Those jobs are still available in Queensland. The Electrical Trades Union workers only have to apply for those jobs and they will be taken back, provided they have not indulged in thuggery or standover tactics. Honourable senators should not say that that has not happened, because it happened in my district of Wynnum. When people went back to join the work force they were attacked. Senator Cook —The Gulag Archipelago of Australia. Senator BOSWELL —It is not the Gulag Archipelago. In Queensland we believe the democratically elected Government is there to govern, not the ACTU or the unions. In three years time we will go to the polls again and we will be judged by the electors of Queensland. They will make their judgment as to whether they want that type of government or this wishy-washy Government which gets its riding instructions from the ACTU. That is not what Queensland wants, that is not what Australia wants. Senator Reynolds —It is what Australia wants. Senator BOSWELL —It is not what Australia wants. In the next election the people of Australia will desert the Government in droves, because they are sick of these strikes. They want leadership. They want people to say: 'This is our stand, this is where we are and we are prepared to stand up and fight on this'. Senator Gareth Evans —Tell us how the voters liked you in Rockhampton. Senator BOSWELL —I am not particularly worried about Rockhampton. I do not think the Government performed particularly well on the north shore of Sydney. If the Government wants to isolate things, we can do that. Overall, in Queensland the Government wins the majority of seats. Members of the Australian Labor Party have been crying like little babies, they cannot get to the post. They never will get to the post because they are weak and ineffective. They will never govern Queensland. In three years time the Labor Party will not be governing Australia, because it is getting its riding instructions from the ACTU. The unions are governing Australia, not the Government. The ETU defied the Industrial Commission nine times. Nine times it was told to go back to work and nine times it refused. What is the Government of Queensland expected to do? Senator Reynolds —Listen to the Industrial Commission. Senator BOSWELL —The Industrial Commission told the workers nine times to go back and nine times they refused. Even now the Queensland Government, in its benevolence, has said that jobs are available. Any one of those ETU strikers can get his job back today or tomorrow. Senator Reynolds —As second-class workers. Senator BOSWELL —They are not second- class workers. All they have to do is sign a no-strike clause. Senator Reynolds —That is being a second-class worker. Senator BOSWELL —It is not being a second- class worker. Senator Cook —They have to sell their birthright. Senator BOSWELL —They do not have to sell anything. If they are wise, they will go back and accept their jobs. They should know now-and I hope they are listening to me-that they are being used. The honourable senators opposite are encouraging them. They see their power base being eroded because one man in Australia has the guts to stand up and lead the way. They are frightened that it will be a watershed. One day the elected government of this country will have enough vision to lead the way and govern this nation. It is the only way for Australia to come back. It is the only way we will ever achieve the standard of living that we have been used to. The Government can rely no longer on the rural industries and the primary industries to pick up the economy. We have to lift productivity in this nation. Once we lift productivity we may be able to get the one in four of our youth who are unemployed back in work and reduce unemployment. But everyone has to give a full day's work for a full day's pay. We cannot keep giving these benefits away. We must draw economies where we can to give the highest level of production for the least amount of money. That is the only way we will ever be competitive internationally. That will happen only when unions are prepared to pull their weight and give a fair day's work for a fair day's pay. No one is suggesting that the ETU never got a fair day's work for a fair day's pay. It got more than a fair go. It had a thirty-six-and-a-quarter-hour week and a nine-day fortnight. That is money well and truly in excess of the average weekly wage. These men had good jobs and they wanted more-I do not think they wanted more, I think the majority of the working men on the shop floor are happy with what they get. Every time the unions force them to strike for another benefit and another wage rise they see that their jobs are on the line. We cannot keep increasing wages and benefits and remain competitive because every wage increase and every benefit that we give costs someone's job down the line. For goodness sake, it must be clear to honourable senators opposite, who have some influence on the unions, that as more and more people are being put into the dole queues, put into the unemployment lines, the only way that unemployment will be solved and Australia will ever reach the position it deserves to be in is by people getting out and giving a fair day's work for a fair day's pay. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales) -Madam Acting Deputy President, under the provisions of standing order 408, I seek the indulgence of the Senate to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator PETER BAUME —This morning's newspapers, especially the Canberra Times, carried a story concerning the preference of a large minority of Canberra government school parents to have their children in non-government schools. The story arose from a Press statement I made yesterday, based on a report which in fact was released by the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority today. On the mid-day Australian Broadcasting Corporation news I was criticised in the following terms-I will quote the item from the ABC news: The ACT Schools Authority this morning has criticised an Opposition Politician for breaking the embargo on an unpublished Authority report. The report found that about 24 per cent of parents of children of ACT Government Secondary schools would prefer to send their children to non Government schools. A summary of the report was embargoed until lunch time today, but the Opposition Spokesman on Education, Senator Baume, revealed the contents last night. The Chairman of the ACT Schools Authority, Dr Richard Campbell, said he hoped a figure of public responsibility would not make public comments again before having read the full report. An open session of the Authority is being held today at the Garran Primary School. I understand the position in which Dr Campbell finds himself and I understand his comments, but I would like to set the record straight. An embargo is an arrangement of honour made between parties whereby a document is made available on the basis that it will not be used publicly until a given, agreed time. The Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority did not, at any time, make any document available to me either on an embargoed basis or on any other basis. I have not breached any embargo because, in fact, I made no agreement, I was offered no document under embargo and no embargo agreement was sought from me. The document in question which I used came to me anonymously, without evidence of embargo, and I felt free to use it as I did. I finish by observing that had the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority thought to provide me with a copy under embargo, as the Opposition spokesman on education, my Press statement would not have been issued and this morning's story would not have appeared. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(5.04) — I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This is the eighth annual report of the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations. The Council was first established in 1976 and this report is in respect of the 1983-84 year. Of course, the Australian Federal system is a very complex system of government, with three levels of government-Federal, State and local. Hence, I see a need for machinery, such as that provided by the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations. However, it should be pointed out that the Council is an advisory body only. It has no executive powers as such. It can only advise governments and make recommendations about courses of action to improve government relations in Australia. Its designed function is to help improve inter-governmental co-operation in our country. The body is a council comprising 24 members from Federal, State and local government. Several prominent Australian citizens are also members of the Council. It is jointly funded by the three levels of government in Australia-45 per cent paid from the Commonwealth Budget, 45 per cent from the State Budgets and the remainder from the local government. The Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations can undertake its own investigations into matters involving the various levels of government or it can obtain and investigate references from other sources, such as Premiers Conferences. Recent activities by the Council, as documented in the report, include extension activities, trying to make the Australian community and Australian governments more aware of various reports that it has prepared and make them more aware of the need to undertake reforms in certain areas. The Council does this by giving more publicity to its activities, by holding seminars and workshops, to try to increase the visibility of its research reports. I refer particularly to its sixth report into the provision of services for the aged, which was produced during 1983-84. In February 1984 the first workshop was held in the House of Assembly chamber in Adelaide to discuss that report. According to the report, seminars were also held in Hobart, Perth, Wollongong and Queensland. One of the interesting papers that were prepared by the Council during 1983-84 was its report into the reorganisation of local government boundaries, a most interesting document. It has also looked, importantly, at areas such as Australian housing policy and its relationship to the various Australian governments because all three levels of government, to some extent, are involved in Australian housing policy. The first reference which was given to the Council back in its early days was to look at the relationship which should exist between the three levels of government in Australia; not the relationship which actually did exist, but the desirable relationship. Of course, that is a very big study indeed; it will take many years. Initially the Council decided to look at a reference involving the relationship of local government to State and Federal government. Work is proceeding on that at the moment. Currently a research project in this particular area, a very important subject, is the inter-governmental aspects of the provision of services for immigrants. It must be very daunting indeed for new arrivals, particularly from countries with a unitary system of government, to be confronted here by not only local authorities but also a State system of government in between the local authorities and the federal system of government. Certainly I know from my experience that that can be very confusing for people arriving in Australia. It makes it very difficult indeed for them to sheet home to the appropriate politicians the blame for the poor provision of services in a particular area when they do not know which level of government is responsible. The Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations has a secretariat, a permanent body located in Hobart. I see that as an important-if I can use the term-decentralised industry. I think there should be more of these Commonwealth authorities and bodies located in the outlying States. I refer to all States except New South Wales and Victoria in that context. It is important that white collar industries and government services are located, in significant number, in the outlying States. I certainly applaud the initiatives which lead to bodies such as the Advisory Council secretariat being located in Hobart. I hope that more can be done in this area because research I have done in the past has suggested that the less populous States have not actually got their share of Commonwealth government employment located within their borders. I think it is very important that this employment is located in these States. I certainly welcome the recent moves to centralise Australian National activities in Adelaide. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(5.10) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I rise to speak to the report of the Fishing Industry Research Committee because we do not get enough debate in the chamber on issues that are vital to Australia, particularly those to do with the production of the wealth of the country. While we spend so much time waffling about all sorts of nebulous issues, we do not get around to looking at the people on whom the country depends. The Fishing Industry Research Committee is a modest body. In its report this year it has devoted only half a page to itself. I urge it to open up a little more and to give more of a description of what it is endeavouring to achieve and its philosophy of operation. It is vital that more people should have information about the Committee. In fact, others may wish to participate in the scheme of things if they had more information. I plead particularly for a revision of the personnel of the Committee. There has been a lot of change in the fishing industry over the last five years. The emphasis now is very much on the regeneration of species, merchandising and presentation of the catch, operating economics, aquaculture and in particular-the one I think of most of all-the Australianisation of the industry. The Committee needs to have greater representation from the industry in both the catching and marketing sectors. The scientific and government ends are a bit heavily weighted at present. I believe that there needs to be a better balance. The product presentation is not good enough in the market place. Much needs to be done get a better quality and price. So often I see fishermen use great skills to catch fish and then fail to get a reasonable price because of inadequate presentation or because the system of marketing arrangements is less than it ought to be. I would not go so far as to to cry corruption about it, but I will go so far as to say that the management and operation may be significantly less than is adequate, and it is at the expense of the catching sector. The Committee should prepare and circulate a schedule of the cases suggested for research. There may even be such a schedule. If there is, I have never heard of it and I do not know where it is. I have never heard anybody refer to it. The Committee should be giving a lead as to where it would like more research done. I have absolutely no complaints about the work the Committee does. The report produces a very full and adequate description of the work the Committee has done and it is of a universally high quality. The only doubt I have raised from time to time is that the Committee's priorities may be somewhat astray. Over the next few years Australia will be depending more and more on fishing and, accordingly, on the research that goes with the industry. The Australianisation question is absolutely essential. We have had fishing by the Koreans, the Taiwanese and the Japanese in our waters for many years now. We have a lot of research material. We know what is there and we know how to catch it. I believe that with greater co-ordination between the Australian fishing industry and the visitors to our waters we can achieve a much better result for Australia. The Fishing Industry Research Committee Account has a very healthy surplus. Accordingly, I urge that a larger program be engaged upon. It is neither desirable nor necessary to continue to build up the total in the account, particularly if we can spend it on Australianisation, promotion, presentation and quality, aquaculture and fishing economics generally. I commend the report and congratulate the people who are giving so much time and effort to seeing that the Committee's work continues. I urge more honourable senators to take more interest in this productive sector of our economy. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(5.13) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The report of the Capital Territory Health Commission is a very substantial document which sets out in full and in very pleasing detail the activities of the Capital Territory Health Commission during 1983-84. The Commission is responsible for the provision of health services with the Australian Capital Territory. Its Chairman, Dr Ken Doust, is to be congratulated on the activities of his Commission. I must say that Dr Doust's position is quite difficult at present, the Commission having been restructured. I would like him to know that many members of the Parliament are very grateful for what he has done for Australia and the service he has given. Because the report is a comprehensive account of the medical service activities in the Australian Capital Territory it is not possible to review them comprehensively in just a few moments. However, I draw attention to one part of the report and remind honourable senators that when we looked at the same report last year we were able to observe that the Capital Territory Health Commission was trying to lay down achievement goals for each of its divisions and sub-divisions and these provided a yardstick against which a particular part of the Commission could be judged in terms of its performance. I seem to recall that a number of honourable senators were very laudatory about what the Commission was trying to do and were very pleased to see that kind of goal-setting exercise go on. It is something that occurs very seldom in government. The danger of setting goals, of course, is that one can be called to account as to whether one has achieved them. It reflects great credit upon the Commission that it has these goals. I draw attention to just one of the segments of this report of the Capital Territory Health Commission, part 4, which reports on what the Alcohol and Drug Service is trying to achieve and the services it operates. On the heading page is set down the following: The aim of the Alcohol and Drug Service is to prevent or minimise the health impairing effects of self-administered drugs, including alcohol and tobacco. There is no mucking around by the Capital Territory Health Commission. When it talks about drug use it includes alcohol and tobacco because these are, by any definition, chemical substances that alter behaviour. They are drugs in the same way as anything else is a drug. If we are talking about drug problems in our country, there are many drugs, and alcohol and tobacco are included among them. It is when we go to the substance of the report, however, that the very positive approach of the Commission becomes clearer. It has laid down for achievement a series of outcome goals. I applaud it for that. I pick out just one division of the Capital Territory Health Commission to illustrate to the community the kind of thing that can be done. It may not be unique, but it is certainly noteworthy. The Alcohol and Drug Service lays down the goal that by 1990 there should be a 10 per cent reduction in the Australian Capital Territory of the following series of events: drug related deaths; morbidity attributable to drugs; per capita consumption of drugs; the proportion of the population 'at risk' from drug taking (compared with 1980). Also by 1990 there should be an increase in: awareness of the health risks associated with the misuse of drugs; provision and use of precautionary measures which allow people to avoid being 'at risk' from the consumption of drugs. So it goes on. It really is a very praiseworthy approach to the way in which this Service operates. Anyone working in that Service now will have a very clear idea of the objectives which the Service is seeking to achieve and of the kinds of outcome goals which it is prepared to declare and pursue and against which it is willing to be judged. For many years I have known Dr Keith Powell, who was previously Director of the Drug Dependence Unit at the Woden Valley Hospital and who is now Director of this Service. I place on record my praise for what Dr Keith Powell has done, for what he is doing and for the kinds of goals he has set in the Australian Capital Territory in relation to his Alcohol and Drug Service. I do not believe for one moment that when we talk about drugs we can confine our discussion to legal drugs. At the same time I do not believe that one can confine one's discussion to street drugs. I do not believe one can forget therapeutic substances. In our community it will do us all much good to be prepared to discuss drug use in the way that Dr Powell is suggesting, without feeling threatened, and with the kind of suggested outcome goals that will allow us to determine in a few years' time whether the program in the Australian Capital Territory is well directed and achieving the results that are being sought. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(5.21) —I also wish to comment on the section in the Australian Capital Territory Health Commission annual report for 1983-84 wherein it mentions the Alcohol and Drug Service and its Director, Dr Keith Powell. It warrants a tribute from this chamber to the manner in which the Service, as Senator Baume quite rightly commented, has set itself goals and targets by which it will be judged. This is a very praiseworthy and indeed courageous attitude on the part of those who are involved in the provision of the service. Indeed this chamber, having had that put to it as a goal, will no doubt judge the Service by the way in which it achieves, falls short of or exceeds the target it has set itself. What is very important is that there is a recognition and listing within the aims of the Service of the fact that priority has to be given to preventive measures as well as to the early detection and treatment of drug and alcohol abuse. The linking of drug and alcohol abuse can be expressed in various different ways. Senator Peter Baume —Alcohol and other drugs. Senator TATE —I was about to say that, insofar as it mentions alcohol and drug abuse, a better phrase or terminology would have been 'drugs, including alcohol abuse' because it is the abuse of the full range of legal and illegal drugs which fills our hospital beds and graveyards with its victims. Indeed, I pointed out to the chamber in a debate last week that, referring to the 1983 national figures, some 200 deaths can be attributed to abuse of drugs derived from the opium poppy and some 20,000 deaths can be attributed to the use of alcohol and tobacco within the community. Those sorts of statistics require us as a society to counter them and to try to prevent the abuse of both legal and illegal drugs. If we do not, we are putting to one side a tremendous portion of human suffering, of illness, of medical and hospital costs, and indeed of deaths, and concentrating obsessively on those deaths and that illness which can be attributed to opiate abuse. I am not saying that that is not important. Of course, the whole criminal syndicate operation and the cash flows into more nefarious activities generated by the peddling of those illegal drugs are things to which this chamber in other debates will want to address itself. But this comprehensive look at the whole question of drug abuse is essential in order to get the total picture-not only to get the proportions right and the picture right but also to enable our preventive and educative programs, whether through the schools or the various media, to have their effect on the target groups, particularly the young, because the young will not listen to such programs if they believe that society is being hypocritical. If we talk obsessively about marijuana and heroin abuse and at the same time shower honours on the brewery barons and the tobacco tycoons and allow them to conduct the peddling of legal drugs in the way that they do, the eyes and the ears of young people will be closed to the message that we are trying to get through about drug abuse in general. It is very important that the comprehensive picture be given. That has been done in these few pages that I have selected from this report. I commend the Alcohol and Drug Service of the Australian Capital Territory Health Commission for setting itself these goals and I hope that under Dr Keith Powell it enjoys the success that it deserves. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(5.24) —I wish to refer to the annual report of the Capital Territory Health Commission for the year 1983-84. Early in the report it refers to management changes which occurred during that financial year. Of course, since the time of this report the Commission has in fact been abolished and we now have some health authority or some other such body. I find it remarkable that the Government would proceed to abolish a health commission of this kind without first having thought through exactly what it would do in the area of health and then be forced to put in some temporary body in the meantime while it thinks it through. This community is entitled to question whether the Government has its priorities right and in fact knows what it is doing with health in the Australian Capital Territory by having allowed this to develop as it has. The abandonment of the Capital Territory Health Commission seemed to come at a time when there were union difficulties. One wonders whether it was intended that we should feel that it was the Health Commission's fault entirely that it was abolished at that time. One really wonders whether the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) was taking as much interest in this area of his portfolio as he should have been. I would have thought that long before thinking that the only solution was to abolish the Health Commission he should have taken some interest in solving the dispute. Disputes affected the administration of health care in the Australian Capital Territory during the financial year under question, and continue to be so. We are now faced with considerable waiting times for surgery in our hospitals-a situation which otherwise would not exist. We have problems with the care of the elderly in the Australian Capital Territory. We are spending considerable sums of money in the maintenance of health centres. It is not my purpose to suggest that more money ought to be spent on health in the Australian Capital Territory but I seriously question whether the money available is being spent to provide the best service when we see the number of elderly people waiting for nursing home care and other services. Honourable senators will find, when the information about the cost of health centres is really available, that they are extremely costly. There is information about patient attendances and there is information about the finances of the Capital Territory Health Commission. But actually to put them together and know what the real relationship is is difficult indeed. The Alcohol and Drug Service has been referred to and is mentioned in the report. However, there are some people in the community who had been providing voluntary services who felt very disappointed indeed at the way the Health Commission set up the Service and in a sense cut out the volunteers. On can only hope that it will work in the way intended. But to remove the service which was being provided by other people seems rather a pity and I hope that we will not suffer as a result of that service no longer being available. The report also refers to the construction of a detoxification unit at the Woden Valley Hospital and states that it was expected to be completed late in 1984. In fact it has been completed and I guess honourable senators will be very aware of the recent problems in getting the detoxification unit opened. I understand that it was to have opened today. That is yet one other thing in Canberra that has suffered from industrial disputes and problems, as did Ward 12B which was covered by the Mental Health Ordinance and which did not open for some considerable time as a result of union bans-something from which we suffer in many areas at present. I urge the Government, before the next report becomes available, to let the people of the Australian Capital Territory know what its policy is for the provision of health care, to let the people know exactly what sort of commission is to run health care in the Territory and what is to replace the present authority. There are too many areas in Canberra which have been left with people acting in positions and where no real attention seems to have been given to the proper administration and management of facilities. I refer to the Canberra Development Board, the appointment of the Tourist Commissioner, the failure to appoint a Chief Magistrate, the previous one having resigned on 29 February 1984, and as yet no appointment of a Chief Justice to replace the present chief judge who retires on Friday of this week as some examples in Canberra where ministerial attention to detail is required. I hope we will not have to wait too much longer before we get answers to some of these questions, including in the very important area of health to which I have referred. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(5.29) —There are some matters in connection with the health care centres in Canberra which cause me concern. In particular, I am concerned about the services of a few-I mean a very few-salaried medical practitioners in the health care centres of Canberra. I have been seeking information from the Minister's office about those services. Not all of the information I have sought has yet been provided to me. In the circumstances, I should like this debate to come on at a later stage, so, Mr Acting Deputy President, I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(5.30) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. In the 1960s there was much industry and community pressure for the establishment of a national school to provide professional production training in film and television. An interim council was appointed in 1969. The Australian Film and Television School Act was passed in 1973. The last report of the School certainly points out the international success achieved by some of its students. It offers the hope that new premises at North Ryde will vastly improve the often primitive conditions in which work and training now take place. It raises the problem of antiquated equipment which is continually breaking down. There just is not enough money to buy new equipment, given the fall in real value of the School's funding allocation. Yet this is an area in which there are many new developments in technology, an area in which Australians have proved their ability. What can be done to give us a chance of developing the local television industry, of which the stations spoke glowingly in the 1950s and 1960s? The report points out that in 1981 a cost recovery policy was imposed on the Australian Film and Television School. This means that if the School drums up funds from private enterprise, there is no guarantee that the extra money gained will go towards new equipment or for funding new courses. The School cannot risk diverting staff time to chasing dollars from financial institutions in the community and from the film and television industry itself, simply because under this financing arrangement the money might have to be returned to the Department of Finance. The School has a rapid staff turnover. There are 500 students applying for 25 full-time television course positions, and a record 2,700 people from within the industry are participating in the Open Program seminars, workshops and courses. It just does not have the money to attract the top creative people needed to do the teaching. If we really want to encourage a local industry instead of depending on imported material, we must give money to this area. For the financial year 1982-83 the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal put the total after-tax, after-licence fees profit of the commercial stations at more than $51m. Commercial radio stations earned more than $19.5m. In the accounts in this report we find that the princely sum of $8,072 was donated as part of the twenty-fifth birthday endowment by Channel 9 in Sydney. Surely the commercial media can do better than this. They are happy to employ the well-trained people produced by the School. They ought to have the foresight to make a slightly more impressive contribution. If we want a local television industry, we need a local training school. In order to have that, the School needs funds. Debate interrupted. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Townley) —The time for presentation of papers has expired. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —I seek leave, Mr Acting Deputy President, to make a brief statement as to the order of papers on the list. Leave granted. Senator HARRADINE —A paper entitled 'Remuneration Tribunal-Annual report 1983-84' is placed at item 10 on the list of papers before us. I just raise the question of who decides the order of these papers. The Remuneration Tribunal annual report is very bland. It states, briefly, that certain determinations were made. We all know that one of those determinations intruded into an area of major public policy of a most serious and contentious kind; that is, it granted a direct equality of status to de factos as compared with married spouses in its determination concerning overseas travel entitlements for members of parliament. Yet that paper is listed at No. 10, below the Anglo-Australian Telescope Board, Statement of Reasons for the Delay in Tabling the Anglo-Australian Telescope Board Annual Report, below the annual report of the Australian Capital Territory Architects Board, and below the annual report of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Authority. I wonder whether we have our priorities right. I do not want to overstep the leave that I have been granted. I simply raise the question of who determines the order of these papers when they come before us, because, as we all know, we do not have enough time to deal with Government papers. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Townley) —I am advised that the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet determines the order of these papers as they are presented to us, and it lists them. But we shall find out and advise Senator Harradine on the exact way that these papers are listed. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(5.37) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave, Mr Acting Deputy President, to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.36) — by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Motion (by Senator Jack Evans) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to provide assistance and encouragement for the employees of corporations to acquire ownership of the corporations and operate the corporations on behalf of the employees, and for purposes connected therewith. Bill presented by Senator Jack Evans, and read a first time. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(5.39) —by leave-I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have my second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill provides a legal framework and financial assistance for existing corporations to undergo a transition to become co-operatives. The Bill does not seek to replace existing corporate structures. It seeks to provide a class of organisational structure which will allow businesses to be responsive and responsible to employees and other interest groups and thereby to create businesses which are more durable and efficient, and of greater benefit to the country as a whole. If jobs and businesses are to be preserved, then it is essential that corporations have recourse to a legal framework such as is provided under this Bill. Likewise, if grass roots industrial democracy is to occur, then incentives as contained here need to be implemented. Australia has been undergoing a period of economic recession which has resulted in the failure of many businesses, the loss of thousands of jobs and the dispersal of expertise. While it may be argued that recession prompts much needed rationalisations within business, there are many corporations which cease trading to the detriment of the community. Often, companies with a potential to operate profitable and efficiently are squeezed out of business by short term external factors. In some cases, transfer of control and ownership of the firm to the employees and other concerned parties would enable the business to grow into a profitable operation. If a company has no reasonable hope of being successful, then market forces should be allowed to have their way. If, however, a company is potentially profitable and it would benefit from transferring ownership and control to its employees and others, then there should exist a legal framework for this to occur. The Bill establishes an employee-owned corporation board, to which a corporation may apply if it wishes to be registered as an employee-owned co-operative. A corporation is qualified as such if its memorandum and articles provide that- (a) a majority of the members of the corporation are employees of the corporation. (b) all employees of the corporation are eligible to become members, (c) no property or income shall be transferred to the members, except for remuneration and dividends, (d) a majority of employees of the corporation control or have a right to control a majority of the votes at a general meeting of the corporation, and (e) on dissolution or winding up, no remaining assets shall be distributed amongst the members. A corporation is not eligible if it employs less than 10 persons. The above criteria also allow respresentation of other interested parties. For example, creditors, suppliers and customers would have an opportunity to become members. Under this Bill, a corporation may place before the board, a proposal for re-organising itself to enable it to become an employee-owned co-operative. Such a proposal would have to be approved by a majority of the employees of the corporation. It would contain: (a) particulars of the existing structure of the corporation; (b) particulars of the business carried on by the corporation; and (c) particulars of any arrangements which would enable the corporation to carry on business during the transition period. It would also discuss the need for, and availability of, financial assistance and the need (if any) for the corporation to operate for a period under official management. The board may approve or refuse the proposal with regard to factors such as: (a) the prospects of the corporation carrying on its business profitably; (b) the prospects of the corporation operating successfully as an employee-owned co-operative; (c) the proportion of employees in favour of the proposal; (d) the provisions to be made for protecting the rights and employment prospects of employees opposed to the proposal; (e) the need for, and availability of, financial assistance; and (f) the desirability of the corporation operating under official management for a period of time. If the board approves a proposal, then the corporation may be provisionally registered as an employee-owned co-operative. As a provisionally registered co-operative, the corporation must report the things it has done each year in fulfilment of the proposal, and of its business activities. The board may de-register the corporation if it fails to fulfil the terms of a proposal. The board may grant financial assistance to a provisionally registered corporation, if, in its opinion, it is proper, in all the circumstances, to do so to enable the corporation to develop as a co-operative on a sound financial basis. Financial assistance may be by way of loan guarantees. (Loan guarantees to an individual corporation may not exceed $250,000 or an amount as prescribed). The board may, if it is of the opinion that it is proper to do so, resolve that a provisionally registered corporation be placed under official management. In general terms, the official management process operates as though a resolution of creditors had occurred under the provisions of the companies code. These powers and conditions provide a framework to enable and assist corporations to survive a transition period between their original state and their becoming employee-owned co-operatives. Co-operatives offer a grass roots form of industrial democracy. They offer a form of business organisation which is responsive to the needs of those groups most affected by an organisation's activities. Employees, creditors, customers and other groups will be keen to play a meaningful role in guiding the organisation. Co-operatives are particularly suited to small business. In many cases, small businesses are already co-operatives by definition. The employees are frequently the owners and controllers, and vice versa. This bill will provide assistance for small business of this nature. Co-operatives, as a result of being responsive to employee needs, are likely to provide more stable employment conditions than a normal corporate employer. A co-operative is unlikely to be eager to retrench or to lay off employees. It is unlikely to attempt to exploit its employees and it is unlikely to pursue excessive profits to the detriment of its workforce. Profit, however, is not undesirable. Co-operatives should be healthy and efficient organisations. It is likely that profit would, as in any other commercial organisation, be an important measure of success. It is likely that in hard times, the owner-employees of a co-operative would strive to keep the organisation viable and to maintain it as an ongoing concern. There would be little incentive to close a business and cut one's losses. Jobs will be maintained and businesses will continue as ongoing concerns with the attendant benefits for the entire community. This Bill will preserve jobs and business and will provide benefits to the community as a whole. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Debate resumed from 22 March, on motion by Senator Aulich: That the following Address-in-Reply be agreed to: To His Excellency the Governor-General May it please Your Excellency- We, the Senate of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled, desire to express our loyalty to our Most Gracious Sovereign, and to thank Your Excellency for the Speech which you have been pleased to address to Parliament. upon which Senator Chaney had moved by way of amendment: That the following words be added to the Address-in-Reply ', but the Senate is of the opinion that the Government's program outlined in the Governor-General's Speech fails to address critical problems facing Australia in that- (a) it fails to reassure the Australian people that the country's defence arrangements within the Western alliance will be preserved and strengthened following: (i) the Prime Minister's capitulation to internal party pressures on the issue of Australia providing logistical assistance to the United States for its testing of the MX missile, and (ii) increasing uncertainty as to the future of the ANZUS Treaty fuelled by members of the Labor Government, including a Cabinet Minister; (b) it contains no coherent economic strategy at a time when recovery is threatened by: (i) record government taxation and spending, (ii) continuing pressure within the Government for new taxes on assets, (iii) growing demands for higher wages and other extra cost burdens on industry, (iv) the level of public debt repayments, and (v) loss of value of the currency reflecting world concern about Australia's competitiveness and government instability; and (c) it endorses a rigid, centralised wage determining structure which imposes the same cost burdens on commerce and industry regardless of ability to pay'. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(5.41) —In the Weekend Australian of 23 and 24 February there was a large item which posed the question: 'What's gone wrong with Australia'? I read on and started to research the question more fully. It was fairly easy to see that Australia's position is slipping. Domestically and internationally we have slipped. Our comparative standard of living not so long ago was fifth in the world and has now dropped to twenty-first. We have taken all the soft options and we will pay for it until we stiffen up again. According to Mr Dawkins, in a speech that he made to the Insurance Association on 19 February, Australia is now ranked only twenty-first in world trade terms in the value of services exported in 1980. That twenty-first position is behind such countries as Italy, Spain, Austria, Singapore, Korea, Mexico, Yugoslavia and Greece. The latest figures show that a mere 27 per cent of jobs are now in the primary and secondary sectors and that over 70 per cent are in the tertiary or service sector-this is still according to the same speech of Mr Dawkins; that is, for every person doing something productive, producing wealth, there are two people in the community living off that work. What of 1985? How strong is Australia's trading position? Where do we stand in relation to metals and minerals, to primary production and to manufactures for export? I was looking very hard to find the good news. I ask again: What has gone wrong with Australia? Are we competitive in international markets? I find that we are not, according to Sir Roderick Carnegie's address to the National Outlook Conference, when he was reported to have said that Australia had become uncompetitive on the international trade market and needed to review its whole approach to agriculture and that fewer and fewer Australians were directly engaged in competition with the rest of the world in their daily employment. The Director of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Dr Andrew Stoeckel, according to the same report, said that Australia needed to keep the lid on wages, reduce inflation and aim to reduce Budget deficits and that this would result in a lower exchange rate. I ask: Are we reliable suppliers of commodities? Again, we would have to answer no. I instance coal, uranium, live sheep, meat and wood chips where our record has not been good. How often do we have to give the world's best customers reason to look to see who else they can buy from more easily while we, lemming-like, are rushing to push ourselves over the end into oblivion? I also ask: Can Government decisions be taken as secure? The answer to this has to be: Good heavens, no! We need look only at our decisions on uranium, the pensions assets test, on land rights, on taxation and on the MX missile to see that. Next, I ask: Do our allies see us as totally dependable? I doubt that also. To see that one has to look only at our relationship at present with the Association of South East Asian Nations, our real position in ANZUS-if anybody can tell us-and, again, at the MX fiasco. I think we all understand why United States House of Representatives member Richard Cheney of Wyoming introduced legislation suggesting that the United States should ban the imports of Australian and New Zealand lamb, wool, beef, and uranium yellow- cake. Why would he not think in that way? One can hardly blame him for wondering whether we are friendly. Are we as friendly as other potential suppliers and/or allies? How do we rate in the United States compared with countries such as Japan and Korea, the United Kingdom and Canada? Of course, we know that this is the lucky country. It is rich in resources. We can produce enough food for ourselves and for much of the world too, if we have to. We have resourceful, energetic people of character and independence, but, however we look at it, we have a declining comparative standard of living. Sir Roderick Carnegie said that Singapore's income per head would exceed Australia's in less than 15 years. According to the January 1985 balance of payments figures, we now spend more than we earn. As of January 1985, our exports were worth $15,622m while our imports were worth $17,186m, a decline of $1,920m in the 12 months. We are running up debts that this generation will not be able to meet. It is with despair that I read that our deficit for 1984-85, according to Mr Kenneth Davidson-if his information is correct-could be of the order of $10,000m to $11,000m, thus one of the largest in the world relative to our gross domestic product. If our dollar does not improve from its present record low, that alone will add about 3 per cent to the inflation rate over the next year or so. So what is the problem? Is it one of subsidies and protection? Frankly, the only conclusion that we can come to is that it is. The only totally protected item and the one most highly subsidised is, of course, wages. Clearly, the country can no longer afford total wages protection when there is no relationship between those wages and those internationally marketed goods and services that this country produces. This probably applies particularly to the tertiary sector. There is a total conflict between the concept of domestic money and international money. It just so happens that our currency is a commodity currency-an international commodity. Our wages and costs system is based on domestic prices, but what we get is based on world markets. The two things are totally incompatible, and the second item has the most importance. If one is a dentist, a taxi operator, a valuer, a producer of corn flakes, a seller of milkshakes, or a union official, it does not matter. If the money received for wages is spent on other goods in the same currency, that is okay; but if one adds a component of international competitiveness, if we buy the raw materials from overseas, get equipment and machinery from overseas, or compete with other countries which have access to Australian markets, suddenly all the little reds lights come on. Again I ask: What has gone wrong with Australia? We used to have a dried fruits industry, a canned fruits industry, an export car industry, a clothing and textiles industry, a ship building industry, a dairying industry and a sugar industry. Where are they? How safe are the wheat and meat industries from going down exactly the same road as these others? Simply, our domestic costs are higher now than those overseas competitors have to pay for the same goods and services. We refuse to admit it or to do anything about it. We are dealing in an international commodity currency. I shall quote Arun Abey from the Australian Financial Review's 'Investors Diary'. He said: . . . the value of Australia's exports is falling below that of its imports. Low commodity prices and declining international competitiveness have been the main causes of the growing balance of trade deficit. Commodity prices are unlikely to recover significantly in the near future and, unfortunately, Australia's attempts to improve its international competitiveness have lagged well behind that of rival economies. A turnaround in this position is unlikely in the near future. What are we doing about it? The factors which have caused the dollar to decline are Australia's growing failure to export and its growing failure to attract foreign investment. Mr Abey went on to say: A sustained recovery can only be expected when government policies are implemented which genuinely increase the competitiveness of the Australian economy. Does the Government want to see us improve our international competitiveness? If so, when will it introduce the sort of legislation that will bring that about? Protection for labour is clearly provided; it is not provided for goods. Dr Stoeckel, at the Bureau of Agricultural Economics Outlook Conference, said that the basic productive sector, the rural sector, would earn 17 per cent less than last year. At the same time, according to the Department of Industry and Commerce publication, 'Recent Trends in the Economy', wages went up 10.8 per cent. How can one go down and the other go up at that rate? I will, and the country should, support all those industries in which productivity is good and production per person per hour rates in the world standard of production, or in which production per cow, per acre or suchlike is there, but I would not expect anybody to support those industries for which this clearly is not the case. The February 1985 'Industrial Review' of the Confederation of Australian Industry brings it all home. What is our national productivity? The review states: . . . output increased for all industrialised countries except Australia, Italy and Switzerland. Honourable senators may well ask why. The productive sector in Australia never did accept the justification based on equity and profitability for things such as the 35-hour week, the 17 1/2 per cent loading, severance pay, superannuation portability and the like while they were granted without being totally tied to productivity and the capacity of the country to pay. We went wrong in that we brought in all those things without ever looking to see whether the country could afford it. Statistics published by the International Monetary Fund show that the decline in the Australian economy between 1981 and 1983 was the greatest amongst all industrialised nations. The CAI 'Industrial Review' also states: It is simply no longer possible to avoid facing up to the certainty that something particularly Australian was responsible for the massive decline, that 'something' being the tremendous increase in labour costs which took place at the end of 1981. . . . . . . . . the two previous National Wage Case decisions have more than obliterated the effects of the wage pause. As at June 1984, real labour costs were at the highest level in the economy's history . . . Food, all the while, is becoming relatively cheaper and cheaper. Who pays? Again I refer honourable senators to the BAE Outlook publication in which it is made fairly clear. It says: Farm income is expected to decrease in 1984-85 to a level of $12,000, or about $7,000 per work-year of family labour. Meanwhile, the average annual adult male wage in Australia is plus or minus $20,000. One section of the community has an earning expectation of $7,000 a year so that we can have cheap food. Other countries now compete with us, even in Australia, on things such as meat and dairy products, confectionery, fish and even fruit and vegetables. We may ask how this could happen. The answer has to be that we are just too dear. With high costs, the non-food producing sectors of our economy are driving out the producers, all the while clamouring for more and more for themselves to assist the speed-up of driving out the others. The Governor-General's Speech covered this very well when it said: The Government believes that economic growth is not an end in itself, but a means to greater ends-a means towards the achievement of high social goals of equity and fairness. It gives me great heart, because I have not yet found that equity and fairness being applied to those who feed the nation. I have reached the stage at which I have started to question seriously Australia's capacity even to feed itself in a few years. The industries we lose cannot readily be replaced. We used to have a dried fruits industry. We had peas, beans and corn; we are watching them go. What about dairying and the sugar industries? What other country in the world just writes off these food producing industries and lets them go? Self-sufficiency in food production is the goal of every other country, developed or developing. Why is that not Australia's goal? How does the current situation facing food producers tie in with the Governor-General's Speech about the high social goals of equity and fairness? Our food producers starve and consumers buy produce overseas. Some imports are dumped on our markets. The food is often of a lower grade. Whatever it is, it is always to the detriment of Australian producers and the nation as a whole. The political attitude is in favour of the supply of cheap groceries. Certainly there are more consumers than producers. The index for food produced is rising at a little over half the rate of that for the overall consumer price index. I do not see why food producers are left to subsidise the whole of the CPI. I quote Dr Stoeckel once again: Changing a foreign country's internal domestic policies is no easy matter . . . It's the consumers, the taxpayers, the unemployed and other sectors who must tip the political balance if major change is to be successful. People are sensitive to rising food costs and because of that, they can influence outcomes. All I can say is that that is tough luck for the producers. Still worse, the manufacture and sale of groceries is in very few hands. Australia has only four or five major producers and about seven major retailers. This is a terribly unhealthy situation, probably the least desirable in the world. I will certainly move at an appropriate time that there be a Senate inquiry to study retailing practices in Australia. I turn briefly to taxation. I find the Government is displaying an extraordinary attitude, If I understand it correctly. Employment comes from development; development is funded from capital; and capital is generated from savings. The Government looks like promoting a policy of thrashing Australia's savings and capital which, in turn, ensures that we destroy the desire to save, the source of capital and the basis of employment. Where is the money to come from? Our taxes generally, including capital taxes, will be used to shore up deficits in the day to day business of running the country. In other words we will eat our capital. Australia, more than any other countries, is short of capital. We should be trying to build it up, at all costs. Just to prove the rest of the world wrong, we will eat our capital. What has gone wrong with Australia? The Government has introduced vengeance taxes. It has dredged up new taxes from past operations of business, from items which were never taxable and from others which never involved evasion. The Government has destroyed all confidence in government and has encouraged the destruction of savings. Therefore, the Government should accept responsibility for destroying employment opportunities. Our country depends on productivity, development, progress, trade and work and employment. The productive sector is important and everyone in the community should know and respect the position of the productive sector. A couple of weeks ago, I listened to two commentators on early morning television, Robert Haupt and Laurie Oakes, fawning over the great job done by this Government in the course of its two years in government. They said that all promises had been fulfilled, that inflation and unemployment were down and that the Government had done a good job. I could imagine the smug looks from Government members Australia-wide as they said it. Those two people would be typical of the non-productive sector of the community. They chanted about superficial issues and made fools of themselves by ignoring the real issues. What is the state of the country? What is our currency worth? What is the medium to long term reaction to that? Sir Roderick Carnegie gave us an example when he said at the Outlook Conference: . . . we should recognise the declining value of our money for what it is-a cut in the nation's living standards. Our inflation rate is about double that of many of our main trading partners. It is still 50 per cent higher than the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average. I think that is important. The Victorian Chamber of Manufactures, in its publication 'Towards the Regeneration of Australian Manufacturing', stated: Forecasts for 1985-86 suggest that consumer prices in Australia will increase by 7.6%, compared with 5.2% for the OECD as a whole, and the difference between Australian and OECD inflation could be even greater by 1986/87. What about the money supply? It was once very important and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) made much of the fact that it was going to be held at between 8 and 10 per cent. We are now told that it is between 11.3 and 11.8 per cent and that it is not important any more. What about the deficit? The deficit has trebled in the last five years and we are told by Kenneth Davidson that it could easily be $10 billion to $11 billion. What of that? What about the declining balance of trade? We are buying more than we are selling. We must be careful that we do not run out of money because that is the inevitable end unless things change. What about the outflow of foreign investments? Our investments are no longer seen as being totally secure. Our currency, long since having been seen as stable, has suddenly gone into a decline. International investors seldom invest in currencies that appear to be unstable or possibly even a little insecure. But, of course, Haupt, Oakes and the rest of the non-productive sector of the community still continue to get their salary rises, their benefits, cheap groceries and Sunday afternoon cricket with the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), and the country looks lovely. At the same time newspapers are headlining the fact that Canberra backs the wage push for a further 2.7 per cent, which the country cannot afford. We know that the country cannot afford it. Again I ask: What has gone wrong with Australia? Clearly every commentator, every politician, every businessman knows the symptoms, has diagnosed the complaint and wants a miraculous and painless cure that simply does not and should not exist. The complaint will not go away if we are to survive economically. I am not yet sure that we have enough national fortitude to even want to do so. The fact is that the pains have to be faced and the sooner the better. Australian manufacturing must be stepped up. So many commentators, including the Manufacturers' Bulletin and the Business Council of Australia, say that we simply cannot survive on an export level of 8 to 9 per cent when all the other competitive countries have an export level of approximately 30 per cent. What has gone wrong with Australia? I look over the ridiculous issues and often sheer trivia that have occupied the Senate for days, weeks and months in recent times-disruptive issues, interferences, pet foibles and grandstanding-while all the time the country runs out of money, while people become more and more selfish and self-interested, while our relative prosperity compared with that of the rest of the world continues to decline alarmingly, while we are hardly competitive with any other major trading nation and while there are disincentives to effort, savings and investment and they grow week to week. We have to sit here through drivel instead of getting down to the business of the country. Australians need to be made more industrious; they need to be made more keen. We should encourage them to invest and employ people and become more Australia minded. The Government is busy changing the colours of the funnels of Australian National Line ships, abolishing the national anthem and taking down photos of the Queen. These are the matters which the Government sees as important. There must be a stop to these ridiculous summits and the Government which has been elected to govern must govern. The country at large, responsible for the cosy circumstances that started in more profitable days, must now face up to the realities and altogether meet the challenge of the nation's maladies. The Government must lead and the country must again become productive and competitive. That is the way to gain investment, employment and international respect or we will continue to lose investment, become more dependent on government, have fewer jobs, fewer markets, import more and build up even larger deficits and higher inflation. This is the choice and the only choice. The productive sector-the export productive sector in particular-must be encouraged and unfettered if a return to overall prosperity is to be achieved. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Before I call Senator McKiernan, I inform the Senate that this will be his first speech in this chamber. I ask honourable senators to afford him the usual courtesies. Senator McKIERNAN(Western Australia)(6.05) —I speak today as an elected parliamentary representative of the people of Western Australia. Honourable senators will note, even at this early stage of my speech, that the accent with which I speak is not one of a sandgroper. I am, like so many thousands before me, a migrant to this wonderful land. I was born and spent my childhood in Ireland. It is opportune at this time to refute a report that appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald on 22 February this year. The reporter stated that I was from Northern Ireland. The truth is that I was born and reared in a place called Cavan in the Republic of Ireland, some 10 miles from the artificial border that divides that country. Honourable senators would be aware of the struggles of the Irish people over many hundreds of years, a struggle for freedom and the right to self-determination. It is a struggle that continues to this day and one that is certain to continue until Ireland is a nation once again. It is a struggle that I give qualified support to. I do not support, or indeed condone, the often apparent senseless waste of human life and damage to property for which all sides in the conflict are responsible. It is often said that Ireland's greatest export is its people. This country has been one of many throughout the world that have benefited as a result. It is estimated-because of past methods of collecting statistics it is no more than an estimate-that some 33 per cent of the population of this country are Irish or of direct Irish descent. Until recently we were all lumped together as one-British and Irish. A cursory examination of the parliamentary records revealed that 24 of my predecessors in this place were born in Ireland. I am not the first. I was only 16 years old when I left my homeland to carve out a future. I did not dream then, in 1961, that eight years later my wandering would take me to the opposite side of the globe. In 1969 I arrived in Perth as a #10 tourist with my first wife, Jean, and my son Steven, who was then 18 months old. I did not contemplate then that one day I would be elected to serve in the Parliament of my adopted homeland. If I had speculated on that possibility, I would have been publicly laughed at. Who was I to think such grand thoughts? I am the second son of an Irish labourer and concluded my formal education or schooling before I was 14 years old. I started my first full time job just nine days after my fourteenth birthday. The authorities in Ireland turned a blind eye to this fact because of the desperate plight of my family. My father was confined to hospital when I was 10 years old after he was involved in an accident in which he suffered massive head injuries. The oldest in the family was 14 at the time and the eighth child had yet to be born. An inferior social service system ensured that our family subsisted on charity from organisations such as the St Vincent De Paul Society and handouts from friends and relatives. I have spent some time in giving the Senate a brief outline of my history and background. I have not done so in order to waste time or to embark on an ego trip. The suffering in my childhood has coloured my attitude to life and for this I make no apologies. My formative years exposed to me the classes that exist in our society. I learned, through bitter experience, how unjust and inequitable our Western style societies can be. The rich and wealthy command, control and walk all over the weak and disadvantaged. They organise and exert control so that wealth is further maximised and then blame the poor because they are poor. When the disadvantaged seek to redress the imbalance, those of influence and power use all the forces available to them-forces which include the parliaments, the judiciary and the police-to repress and beat them into submission. The only real organisation outside the political sphere which can or is willing to do anything for the working class is the trade union movement. It does not surprise me now, on reflection, that I became involved in that great movement. I was lucky, because of my trade qualifications, to become a member of Australia's best and most democratic union, the Amalgamated Metals, Foundry and Shipwrights Union-the Metal Workers for short. This union concerns itself with issues that affect all aspects of the lives of working people and their dependants-issues that go beyond wages, hours and conditions. It is a union which is not selfish or sectarian, concerning itself with its own members to the exclusion of everyone else. It concerns itself with the impact of its decisions on the wider community. Because of its size and position in industry, it has a voice that can and does make itself heard. I am proud of my association and involvement with the metal workers. It is an association which I hope will continue and develop in future years. Because of the policies and actions of that union, my liaison with it will mean involvement with the rest of the union movement. I am speaking on and supporting the motion that the Address-in-Reply to the Governor-General's Speech be agreed to, a motion moved and seconded by my colleagues Senator Aulich and Senator Cooney. I congratulate both of them on their first speeches in the Senate and look forward to hearing many more in the future. I remind myself and the Senate of the terms of that motion: That the following Address-in-Reply to the Speech of His Excellency the Governor-General be agreed to: To His Excellency the Governor-General May it please Your Excellency- We the Senate of the Commonwealth of Australia, in Parliament assembled, desire to express our loyalty to our Most Gracious Sovereign, and to thank Your Excellency for the Speech which you have been pleased to address to Parliament. I would be less than honest if I gave the Senate the impression that I give 100 per cent support to the loyalty part of the motion. Indeed, some of my Party and union colleagues back in Western Australia would accuse me of being hypocritical if I did so. That is because at a special Western Australian State conference of the Labor Party in 1981 I moved a motion which was carried there and ultimately became part of the basic principles of the national platform and constitution of the Australian Labor Party. I quote the relevant part which appears under 'B, Objectives', clause 13. Reform of the Australian Constitution and other political institutions to ensure that they reflect the will of the majority of Australian citizens and the existence of Australia as an independent republic. I do not intend in this speech to canvass all the reasons why I hold these views. Perhaps it is because of my birthright or perhaps it is because I never want to see the disgraceful and disgusting events of 11 November 1975 recur in this country. As we move closer to the bicentennial celebrations of white settlement in this country, the debate on Australian independence will reach new heights. More and more people are questioning the validity of our links with the Crown and the movement to cut the 200-year-old apron strings is consistently gaining support. This must be so. The reactions of the supporters of colonial-type rule can be used as a guide. We even had a Queensland National Party senator recently quoting figures saying that in excess of 50 per cent of people supported the argument that the present Australian flag should be retained-desperation indeed. Everyone knows that one needs only 27 per cent or 40 per cent to be representative of the majority opinion in Queensland. One of the difficulties in which I found myself in preparing this speech was that of determining priorities. Should these be Aboriginal land rights, Australia's role and actions in the nuclear arms debate, distribution of wealth in Australia, the forthcoming taxation summit, health care and the current dispute with specialist doctors, uranium mining, the draconian attacks on workers' rights in Queensland, the visits to our shores of nuclear-powered and/or armed warships, the ANZUS debate or the myriad of other important issues? All these went through my mind as possible subject matters. Because I have not developed themes on those and other issues, it should not be taken to mean that I believe they are secondary or of little importance. Because of my involvement with the metal workers union and the metal unions' campaign on industry restructuring and job creation, I have decided to give emphasis to that part of the Governor-General's Speech in which he said: The Government remains committed to developing a strong and competitive manufacturing industry The most important prerequisite for achieving this objective is, without doubt, that of ensuring that the industry operates in a strong economic environment. The Governor-General, in his Speech, spent some considerable time on detailing the economic achievements of the last Hawke Government. It is worthwhile expanding on his words. Before I do so, I remind the people of Australia that what I am about to relate was achieved in just 20 short months, despite the efforts of a few survivors of the discredited and disgraced Fraser Government. Australia's economy grew at an annual rate of 6.6 per cent, the highest in the world. At the same time we halved our inflation rate. Unemployment, expressed in percentage terms, was reduced from over 10 per cent to 8.3 per cent; 270,000 new jobs were created and with the release of the latest unemployment statistics, and using them as an indicator of economic recovery, the people of Australia can look to the future with confidence. Just how bad was the economic mess that Labor inherited in March 1983? I shall confine my remarks on this question to the manufacturing industry and particularly to the metal and engineering sector of that industry. Figures indicate that since 1974, 152,000 metal engineering jobs have been lost. That is a frightening set of statistics. But just for a moment let us look beyond the statistics. It should never be forgotten that they are more than just figures or lines on a graph. That figure of 152,000 in this case is represented by people, real people, even if they were, in the main, blue collar workers. The livelihood, needs and aspirations of these people were deemed to be of little consequence to the conservative government led by Malcolm Fraser. Why would he or his Government care? They governed on behalf of the privileged few. They governed to redistribute the wealth of this country. They ensured that the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. They certainly went a long way to achieving their goal and that is proven by the fact that more than two million Australians now live-no, exist-below the recognised poverty line. Apart from the economic cost of unemployment, there is also the psychological impact on individuals. Work is important to people. It is more than just a means of earning a living. It gives a person identity. Mike Cooley, in his book Architect or Bee, expresses it much better than I can. He said: Work is very important to people. Not the grotesque alienated work that has developed over the last 50 years, but work in its historical sense which links hand and brain and which is creative and fulfilling. We express ourselves through our work. We relate to society through our work and we are creative through our work. The psychological suffering of those without jobs can never be expressed in dollars and cents. Is it any wonder then that the people voted in such numbers in March 1983 and again in December last year? An international comparison of Australia's performance is proof of the neglect of our people and industry. Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development labour force statistics indicate that only five of the 17 major OECD countries had a worse record than Australia in the provision of jobs in the manufacturing sector in the last 10 years. The decline of the Australian manufacturing industry can be further illustrated by some more statistics. Apart from the reduction in employment, there were fewer establishments, a declining gross product and less capital expenditure. The metal industry was hardest hit. Between the years 1981-82 and 1983-84 gross product of the metal engineering industry declined by 21 per cent compared with a decline of 9.7 per cent in the manufacturing industry as a whole. Our trade figures provide a similarly dismal picture. In the early 1970s Australia's manufacturing exports made up 22 per cent of our total exports. That figure has since fallen to 18 per cent. Further, this country's share of the world market for manufactures fell from a low 0.6 per cent in 1973 to 0.4 per cent in 1981 and our world ranking fell from 13 to 21. The crisis in manufacturing was not unique to Australia. It was international and affected other developed and developing countries. While our overseas counterparts were developing responses to similar crises by formulating and implementing policies to further develop viable, competitive manufacturing industries, Australian policies were ad hoc. We responded to crises as they arose and in many instances succeeded only in creating problems for the future. While other nations were giving research and development a high priority, our short-sighted conservative government was effecting a transfer of resources to the internationally competitive exporting sectors like agriculture and mined raw materials rather than to the equally necessary, but less developed, manufacturing sector. Manufactures is the fastest growing area of world trade. World manufactured exports grew at an average rate of 13.8 per cent between 1963 and 1983, increasing their share of world trade to 60 per cent over the period. A lot of noise was made about what the Liberal and Country parties in Government were doing to develop the export potential of Australia's manufacturing industry. The shallow promises they gave were not supported by action. It is estimated that the direct after tax value of export support to manufacturing, over the last 10 years, was only $30m to $40m per year. Support to the domestic manufacturing market by way of tariffs and quotas is estimated to attract subsidies to the value of $4,000m per year. In spite of this, 25 per cent of all export related employment in Australia is generated in the manufacturing sector-providing a total of 187,000 jobs. What was the cause, or causes, for the decline in Australia's manufacturing industry? If that question were directed to honourable senators seated on the Opposition benches, even now in the enlightened days of 1985, I would bet-and I am not a gambler-that I know their answers. Indeed, just a short time ago Senator Archer actually spelled out some of them. They would say, firstly, that Australian workers' wages are too high; secondly, that Australians do not work hard enough or long enough; and thirdly, the conditions of Australian workers are too good. Those and other slogans will be repeated parrot fashion over and over again. The few in the Liberal Party who would seek to examine and analyse the problem are quickly hung out to dry by the free marketeers that appear to dominate the coalition. I suggest that the truth of this matter lies elsewhere. I quote Joe Ceaser, the National President of the Metal Trades Federation of Unions-a person who could hardly be described as a left-wing radical who takes his orders from Moscow or Peking-in that organisation's publication Australia on the Brink: Australian workers, particularly metal workers, are sick and tired of listening to theories that 'free markets' will be the saviour of our industries. The stark, cold fact is that more than 75 per cent of world trade is 'managed' or government-controlled trade and is no way free. Workers are blamed by these theorists for our non-competitive situation in world trade. In fact, the root cause is ad hoc decision-making by management and lack of support by successive governments. Australian research and development have been allowed to wither. Consequently, we now import more and more overseas technology and as the technological gap between Australia and overseas countries widens, valuable trade and technological skills are being lost. I commend that publication and congratulate the MTF on its initiative in publishing it. I would urge all workers, particularly those in the manufacturing industry, to read it and suggest that it be compulsory reading for all members of parliament. It is argued in some quarters that there is not a single item manufactured in this country that could not be produced more cheaply elsewhere and imported economically into this country. Indeed many Australian manufacturers have profited greatly by moving the point of production to, for example, the South East Asian region. They established factories there to produce goods previously made in Australia. By exploiting working people in low wage, free trade zones, places where trade unions are banned by law, they achieve the results they desire-larger profits, bigger dividends and gigantic salaries for themselves. But who else profits by this enterprise? Certainly not Australia. We get the same goods, manufactured at a fraction of the cost, at the original price. The total cost to this nation is horrific. We lose jobs directly, and we lose jobs indirectly through the spin-off effects. The corporation gains but the country loses. In this Government's first term in office positive steps were taken to revitalise the Australian manufacturing industry. The Government set about soliciting industry solutions to the problems which it recognised have to be faced. Avenues of consultation were established between government, unions and employers. Their aim is the developing of a manufacturing sector which is more specialised, more innovative, more outward looking and more internationally competitive as well as, and equally as important as, the provision of job security for its employees. Special attention has been directed to the steel and motor vehicle sectors and some positive results have already been recorded in that area. There is still a long way to go but with all sides-government, employers and unions-working together the chances of success are greatly enhanced. The Government is also tackling some of the more difficult problems confronting the industry. State preference purchases could be one of the harder of these to solve. I make that comment as a parochial Western Australian. Training and retraining of the employees in the industry is also receiving concerted attention. The Government is looking for long-term solutions. The reliance on imports, as opposed to locally produced products, for short term gains will have long-term consequences for us all. Even top industrialists warn on this. In the interests of conserving time I will pass over a quote I had from Mr I. E. Webber, Managing Director of Mayne Nickless Ltd, in an article in Business Bulletin, dated November, 1984. Foreign ownership of plant, equipment and points of production is one thing that has led to the crises we have seen in Australian manufacturing industry. Australian-based subsidiaries of transnational corporations function as outposts of the parent rather than as autonomous units. They are protected by patents and patterns of production, and are not subject to the same import pressures as Australian companies. Forty per cent of Australia's imports and 20 per cent or our exports are traded on an intra-corporate basis. This is used by many to control key technology therefore ensuring exclusive markets for their products and no competition. Another technique used to exclude local industry when calling tenders is to impose unnecessary specifications and unrealistic delivery times. An appalling example of inter-corporate protection happened recently on the first stage of the giant North West Shelf project in my home State. The contractors stuck rigidly to the Dutch specification for insulation sand in the epoxy filters. Three tons of chlorine free silica sand was imported specially from Houston, Texas. That same sand is produced in Western Australia and exported from there to the rest of the world. We have heard of coals to Newcastle, fridges to Eskimos, and now sand to sandgropers. Just to stay with the shelf for a moment, the joint venturers were persuaded, before the project started, to maximise Australian content in the construction phase of the project. They boast about this, the latest incidence being in next week's Australian Business dated 5 April 1985. It is said that 71 per cent of the value of the $2.1 billion domgas stage is being sourced in Australia. A lot of this must be true. The earthworks, the holes in the ground, could not be imported. After having sand kicked in our face, are we now having the wool pulled over our eyes? Part of that local sourcing is an office on the 16th floor of a building in Perth which houses a man with two support staff. They are registered as a company and will supply a particular type of orbital valve for the project. That supply is recorded as being Australian content despite the fact that this tiny company's only involvement is that it imports the valves from overseas. The article from Australian Business allows the deception of the people of Western Australia to continue. The general manager of Woodside Offshore Petroleum-the project operating arm-in defending the company against a charge that the project technical adviser, SIMP, a Dutch subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell, was standing in the way of technology transfer or restricting access to local engineers, pointed out that Woodside was surveying seven hundred local contractors to pinpoint maximum local opportunities. Woodside is doing this with the main on-shore contractor, KJR, a consortium of Kelloggs, Japan Gasoline Corporation and Raymond Engineers. The questionnaire being circulated to local contractors is a survey on the contractors' ability to bid for contracts. The questionnaire is the toughest seen in the industry, one that will be expensive to complete and, according to engineers employed by the local contractors, it guarantees only one thing-that the majority of local contractors will not even be able to bid on the project. The North West Shelf project provides an excellent opportunity to learn from the mistakes of the past. I am referring particularly to its implications for Australia's industry, but it is also worth remembering that it was only weeks ago that the Commonwealth and Western Australian governments had to take dramatic action to save the project and protect Western Australian energy consumers. I hope that the Defence Minister, Kim Beazley, will ensure that more diligence is exercised when the Royal Australian Navy submarines contracts are being awarded. This project-the submarines-has enormous potential for the Australian metal and engineering industry. Whilst it is not the panacea for all the industry's ills, it will provide a much needed impetus. Minister Beazley and the Government must ensure the maximum Australian industry participation directly in the construction of the submarines and indirectly through the use of offsets. The Government must direct that all the specifications are to Australian standards. It can direct; after all, it is our money and we are the customers. The Government must ensure that Australian industry at the very least is given the opportunity to compete for work on the project. I have confidence that the present Government will show leadership and will not act, like the former Western Australian Premier, Charles Court, did on the North West Shelf, as servant of the multinational corporations. Mr President, I congratulate all those new senators who took office on 21 February this year. If their respective selection procedures were as intensive and exhaustive as the one I went through, I am confident that each of them earned his or her place in this chamber. Being a parochial Western Australian for a moment, I particularly congratulate Senator Knowles on her election. As a woman she must be endowed with exceptional talents; talents that enabled her to overcome the Neanderthal type thinking that pervades her party in Western Australia. One can hope that her endorsement is a signal that the Western Australian branch of the Liberal Party is at last recognising that women have a role to play in politics. I welcome in advance and congratulate Senator-elect Vallentine on her election. I admit I campaigned against her and her Party, and would have preferred that my trade union and political colleague, John Crouch, had won the seventh position in my State. Nonetheless, I congratulate her. I owe a great debt to my friends and colleagues in the metal workers union. It was their encouragement that gave me the confidence and skills to represent working people in a variety of positions, which culminate now in the Parliament of Australia. I look forward to an on-going relationship with the union, particularly its shop stewards. They are the backbone of the metal workers union and it is they who will continue to remind me of my working class origins and who will ensure that I do not get carried away with my own importance. Mr President, my thanks are extended to you and all who were involved in arranging the orientation seminar held prior to the opening of Parliament. The staff seminars are also of great value. I owe my very good friend, Jean, mother of our three children, Steven, Donna and Jimmy, a debt that can never be repaid. Jean endured my absence from home for weeks on end attending union and political meetings and conferences while she was mother and father to our children. When I was at home she was an unpaid secretary, social organiser and had her home turned into an office and a meeting place. As I said, it is a debt that can never be repaid. Last but not least, I mention an extraordinary woman whose advice, support and assistance during the pre-selection battles and the election played a key role in ensuring my success. Jackie Watkins, the member for Joondalup, a northern suburbs Legislative Assembly seat in Western Australia, is truly an exceptional person. When she won pre-selection to stand as a Australian Labor Party candidate in that electorate she gained 90 per cent of the vote, one of the highest votes ever in the history of the Party. She won the seat of Joondalup from a sitting member, a seat graded by some of our top pollsters as being unwinnable for Labor, with a swing of almost 16 per cent. Obviously when a person like Jackie Watkins offers advice, one listens to it and acts upon it. Jackie and I were married two months ago, on Australia Day. She is seated in the gallery at the moment and I have no wish to embarrass her so I will conclude. Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned. Sitting suspended from 6.35 to 8 p.m. The PRESIDENT —I wish to inform the Senate of certain steps I have taken to protect the privilege of the Senate and its committees, as I did on 23 August 1983 when it was necessary to take similar steps in relation to the Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies. Under Article 9 of the Bill of Rights of 1688, as applied to the Senate by section 49 of the Constitution, proceedings in the Senate, including proceedings in Senate committees, may not be impeached or questioned in any court. This means that evidence given before a parliamentary committee may not be referred to in any court proceedings in such a way that that evidence is commented upon, used to draw inferences or conclusions, analysed or made the basis of examination or submission. This is a matter of law and the immunity cannot be waived by the Senate. This afternoon two witnesses appearing before the New South Wales Local Court in the committal proceedings relating to Mr Justice Murphy were required to produce documents, and documents were produced, including statements made to the Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge. Because of the possibility of the evidence before that Committee and the Senate Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge being referred to in a manner contrary to the immunity I have mentioned, I have arranged for counsel to appear in the court tomorrow to make a submission to draw the attention of the court to the limitations which the law imposes on the use of parliamentary evidence in court proceedings. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(8.02) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. I seek leave to continue my remarks later, Mr President. I do not seek, in any way, to debate it or to question what you have said, but I think at some time it may be a matter that the Senate would wish to discuss and that is my purpose in moving this motion. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Debate resumed. The PRESIDENT —Before I call Senator Knowles, I draw attention to the fact that this is the first speech by the honourable senator in this chamber. I ask that the usual courtesies be extended to her. Senator KNOWLES(Western Australia)(8.03) —May I begin by expressing my sense of honour at being elected to this chamber as the first female senator on the coalition side from Western Australia for 23 years, and as the second woman from my State to represent the Liberal Party of Australia in the Senate. It would be remiss of me not to recognise the effort and support of a number of State and Federal parliamentarians, members of the Party and close friends who assisted me prior to and during this campaign. I am proud to be a member of a chamber that must function not only as a traditional House of review but also and, most importantly, as a States House. As a Liberal senator I am firmly committed to both of these roles. I am a federalist simply because I believe that it is the only system of government that will enable Australia to reach its full potential. Concentration of power and decision making not only leads to inefficiency, but also threatens freedom itself. It is never healthy for legislative power to be centralised at one source and we have seen the majority of Australians agree with that belief by their overwhelming rejection of referenda proposals to do just that. State parliaments with full power to legislate in certain well-defined areas are an essential balance to the national Parliament, no matter how good its intentions. It is a balance that can continue to operate even when governments of the same party hold office at both levels. The majority of matters closer to our daily lives have traditionally belonged with State parliaments. It is very unlikely that personal freedom will be advanced by transferring more of these functions to this Parliament. As a Western Australian, moreover, I am highly conscious of the role of the States in developing our country. Because of pressure from a former Liberal Government of Western Australia, the embargo on the export of iron ore was lifted in 1963, to the enormous benefit of Australia as a whole. The Western Australian governments led by Sir David Brand and Sir Charles Court possessed the entrepreneurial skill to attract the capital to get projects off the ground. State governments to a large degree stand or fall by their success in economic development and it makes sense for the Federal Parliament to let them get on with the job. We need only ask the question whether the State of Western Australia would have achieved the same level of growth in the 1960s and 1970s had resource development been centralised in Canberra to receive the obvious answer. Whenever in recent years the people of Western Australia have been asked by way of referenda whether they wish to hand greater power to Canberra over the States, or the House of Representatives over the Senate, they have returned a decisive no. I intend to keep faith with their wishes as their Senate representative. There is something fundamentally undemocratic in the current trend of eroding federalism by indirect means, by legislation rather than by referendum, by manipulating the external affairs power of the Commonwealth and by executive action. One area where it is essential for State parliaments to make their own decisions is in the area of Aboriginal land rights. As a Western Australian Liberal senator I have been elected on the policy that land in this country should be available on the same basis to all Australians regardless of race and according to State laws. If we believe in one land and one law, we simply cannot consent to the granting of at least 47 per cent of the land area of Western Australia to 2.4 per cent of its population because of their racial origin. Let there be no mistake, we are not opposing land rights merely because there was a suggestion they may restrict exploration and mining, important as this industry is to my State. We are reflecting the view of the great majority of Western Australians who see land rights as unjust, divisive and wrong in principle. It is wrong for racially identified groups of Australians to have ownership of such national symbols and assets as Bungle Bungle in the Kimberleys and Ayers Rock, and to be in a position of dictating who can even take photographs there. We are truly living in a divided country when permits are required to enter large parts of it, such as the Pitjantjatjara land, and the problem changes little if permits are forgone but the law of trespass operates over this same public owned land. The fight to maintain equal rights for all Australians is a matter of social justice and should be a high priority with all of us. Division has already been sown among Australians by the 1984 Aboriginal heritage legislation that seeks to protect the traditions and beliefs of one group of Australians above those of their countrymen. The Federal Government has claimed the power to pursue this goal by depriving Australians of the commercial use of land or of access to it through a ministerial declaration that a site and surrounding area are 'significant'. It is not in the interests of Aboriginal Australians that they be set apart from the general community, trapped and frozen into a pattern of collective title and living that may not meet their wishes in the future and that will preclude individual advancement. Some Aboriginal Western Australians are already saying that they do not want collective rights that will only arouse resentment among their fellow citizens. Their need is for assistance in raising their health and education skills, acquiring property and taking their place in our society. Least of all do they want governments to uphold and prolong the influence of tribal law that is profoundly alien to our fundamental concept of justice. There is no place for a system of law that ignores individual intention and personal moral culpability and inflicts mutilation and other savage punishment. Land rights cannot assist those Aboriginal Australians living in a detribalised state in the general community, and may prove a hindrance to those receiving them. The majority of Australians realise that there is no justice in basing policy on compensation for alleged past grievances. Two wrongs have always equalled two wrongs. One section of the Australian people cannot be given special treatment because of deprivation suffered by earlier generations. It needs, and should receive, special assistance in such areas as health and education, but it must be on the basis of present day need, not historical wrongs. The Liberal Senate team in Western Australia campaigned on the theme of equal rights to land and received the highest vote in Australia. I shall resist any legislation that divides Australia on racial grounds, in full accord with the policy of the Western Australian division of the Liberal Party. In the pursuit of justice for the people of Australia, any new senator must pay special attention to our system of taxation, as it stands now and as it may be changed in the near future. Too often it is somehow assumed that taxation is a morally neutral area, a simple exercise in the practicality of raising necessary revenue. I, however, recognise that taxation policy can have a profound social impact for either good or evil. For that reason, it would be an appallingly retrograde step for probate or capital gains taxes to be introduced as part of a scheme of tax 'reform'. Probate is a nice word for a tax on death, a time of private grief that should be free of all tax demands. The seizure of assets by the state at such a time has correctly been called a moral obscenity. It is a matter of great pride to me that a Liberal government after 1977 abolished this immoral tax at a national level. Those who now seek its reintroduction are not merely concerned with increasing the revenue. Their objective is the enforced redistribution of wealth. In pursuing that, they are prepared to deny a person's fundamental human right to acquire wealth and bequeath it to his children or to anyone near and dear. Death duties have a particularly destructive effect on the members of the rural sector, whose assets are seldom readily convertible to cash, yet who most need to maintain continuity of ownership. If we want to eradicate the family farm, death duties are the surest means of doing so. Equally, as a Liberal I believe that there is no shame in inheritance. Similarly, the threat of a capital gains tax bears hardest on the person-often an ordinary wage earner buying a block of land-who has the courage to take a speculative risk. As it stands now, our taxation system gives the individual or the small business little help in acquiring and amassing modest amounts of capital. Death duties, wealth taxes and capital gains taxes will make this almost impossible. Australia needs the taxation of capital as badly as it needs a typhoid epidemic. Australia needs a sound taxation system that gives incentive to individuals to provide for themselves and their families, rather than one which creates a disincentive which ultimately weights heavily on all taxpayers in the form of social welfare. The assets test has a similarly destructive effect in discouraging Australians from building up capital and other assets for their own enjoyment in retirement and to pass on to another generation. Most insidious is the option that allows a pension to be granted at the price of plundering an estate by the government after death. The assets test has involved the greatest denial of choice in its treatment of farming couples who enjoy little income from a property worked by their children, but who have been forced to resume control of farms, sell them on the open market, or forgo needed pensions. Taxation can be socially destructive, but it can also have a positive effect in promoting real social justice. The last election campaign saw this attempted in the policy of the Liberal Party that advocates the averaging of income between husband and wife for taxation. I am sure that one day this will become law, giving true freedom of choice to wives and mothers, and to some men too, as to whether they enter the work force or remain at home, or at what stage of their children's development they may seek work. This kind of reform gives real help to the single income family that too often gets left behind in the 1980s economy. In accordance with the philosophy on which I was elected, I will be fighting to increase freedom of choice for the people of my State and country in all areas of government policy. A most pressing need is in the field of health, where, under Medicare, our freedom of choice has been savagely eroded. If we rely on Medicare we lose the right to treatment by our own doctors in hospital, or we lose the ability to have so-called elective surgery because of outrageous queues in public hospitals. If we are unlucky enough to live away from big cities and hospitals with salaried doctors, as do some 300,000 Western Australians, we cannot be guaranteed public hospital treatment and have little choice but to pay for private hospital cover in addition to the Medicare levy. I might add that this lack of free choice among rural Western Australians falls hardest on the lower to middle income group or those who are really suffering under declining profitability on the land, both of whom were promised better and cheaper health care under Medicare. If we decide to take private insurance, paying more in total in an effort to maintain our standard of health care, our freedom of choice is still limited. We do not currently enjoy fundamental free choice to insure for the difference between the fee and the 85 per cent rebate. I simply do not believe that governments should dictate to anyone what they can and cannot insure. To that end, I wholly support the Liberal policy to allow gap insurance and ultimately restore true freedom of choice so that those privately insured may opt out of Medicare. For those who are old and chronically ill and have maintained private cover, Medicare limitations hit them when the 35-day rule forces them out of public or private hospitals. Care and recuperation of patients should be given paramount priority instead of this inhuman approach. By denying freedom of choice, by encouraging the over-use of some medical services and by discouraging self-provision, governments have decreased the quality of health services and increased their cost to the community, which pays the ultimate bills through taxation. All too often, health policy is inspired by the wish to destroy the traditional independent practitioner and the close doctor-patient relationship, by stealth if not by direct assault. Better health care for all Australians, particularly in country areas, is currently a secondary consideration, when it should be the object of the system. As a Liberal senator, I shall be looking to maximise freedom in the private sector of the economy, both in the cause of personal liberty and in order to create wealth for all Australians. Economic growth was never enhanced by high taxes and heavy regulation, and government attempts to protect inefficient industries through tariffs cannot but damage both efficient manufacturers and the export industries that are so vital to Western Australia. In the long run, one cannot go on restricting economic freedom without, one day, also threatening political freedom. The free market is a source of knowledge and a warning system that becomes blunted when governments over-regulate. It is also the means of allowing not only the entrepreneur but also the consumer to have the maximum amount of choice in deciding how and where his money is to be spent. An over-regulated economy works to the detriment of us all, including the poorest. Having worked in the small business sector, I am conscious that over many years it has been the recipient of much vague goodwill but little net positive assistance from governments. A cynic might say that governments so love small business that they are determined to keep it small! While it is acknowledged that the small business area is the largest employer in Australia, not enough is made of its potential as a vehicle for economic recovery. In the United States of America the value of goods and services produced by small business alone is greater than the gross national product of West Germany and is exceeded only by the GNP of Japan and the Soviet Union. Small business can be more flexible and adaptive than large business and meets market demands more quickly. It produces more efficiently when demand is either abnormally high or low, and it attracts innovators. Here in Australia there is a desperate need to assist small business by providing greater flexibility in negotiating wages and wage related costs, including penalty rates; a dual assessment of company and direct personal tax; incentives for increased research and development; deregulation of interest rates and generally getting government off the back of small business. In addressing the Senate for the first time I must place on record my concern at the erosion of traditional values and standards of behaviour in the Australian community. This is far more than a mere matter of regret on the part of those who would class themselves as social conservatives. The decay of family life, of courtesy and of the sense of obligation and responsibility is a major cause of our national welfare bill and of the lawlessness that afflicts the streets of hitherto quiet cities like Perth. Sadly, this is an area where it is far easier for governments to be destructive rather than to restore the situation. We will require a change of national will before progress can be made. At a most basic level community leaders such as parliamentarians can at least play a part in trying to re-instil the courtesies of life among young Australians. The young may then grow up with a sense of consideration for others, without which callous indifference or even violence can become a habit of mind and of conduct. We need to ensure that while education systems are broad, they are based on traditional disciplines and ethics, instilling a real sense of both civic and personal reponsibility. The value of Christian ethics is appreciated far beyond the ranks of church-goers, and we should cease apologising for them. Too many Australians are being taught to demand rights rather than accept duties, and the agencies of government must often bear part of the blame. Only a revived sense of individual responsibility will prevent the desertion of spouses and children, the failure to provide for families after separation, the rejection of adolescents by their families, and the neglect of the aged. Governments must walk a fine line in assisting the victims of this moral disintegration while avoiding action that fosters the abdication of personal responsibility. I add here, Mr President, that such legislation as the Sex Discrimination Act falls into the trap of regulating social conduct by law. Proponents of affirmative action would have the manner of acting towards a person of the opposite sex removed from the area of individual courtesy to become a matter of public law. In turn zealots anxious to impose their own social values gain comfortable jobs regulating the lives of their fellow Australians. The freedom of choice of employers, whether business people or voluntary bodies, is compromised when they are threatened with expensive litigation should they refuse an unsuitable applicant for genuine reasons. There certainly have been, and in some cases still are, areas of gross discrimination against women, but any attempt to supposedly 'even the numbers' by law as opposed to ability should be totally rejected. The Liberal Party is a firm advocate of freedom of choice and believes that freedom should also apply without equivocation to whether women pursue a career in the work force or remain at home. This personal decision should be made without any intervention from either governments or pressure groups. Another major concern of Western Australians is the defence of our nation and in particular of its western third. A State and a nation so dependent on overseas exports needs far more than a coastguard service to protect its sea communications. Above all we have to be conscious of the reality of Soviet naval power, enjoying the support facility of Cam Ranh Bay in Vietnam and now concentrating on expanding her capability in amphibious warfare. Any study of history shows that Soviet power is exercised free of the moral constraints observed by Western democracies. In the quest for world domination the Soviets have never hesitated to employ brutality and force, and the record of Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan must not be forgotten. These unappealing truths are avoided by those talking glibly of neutralism, as though Australia were in the more comfortable strategic position of Switzerland or Sweden. There is a far greater wisdom among the masses of ordinary Australians who realise that we need to maintain alliances that are based on a community of purpose and outlook besides basic self-interest. Anti-Americanism only cheapens genuine Australian nationalism; it is an intellectual disease. No alliance can bring total security, but the United States is the only power with the will and the ability to assist us. In turn this relationship as a firm but independent ally gives Australia the effective means of contributing to the solution of world problems. Finally, Mr President, I must express the profound hope for a renewed sense of patriotism in Australia. I refer to something deeper than mere rejoicing over sporting triumphs; rather the quiet affirmation of the values, and the belief in law and liberty, that have sustained our nation for 85 years. These values are so aptly symbolised by a national flag that most electors support in its time honoured form, and that should be the focus not of debate, but of pride and unity. I extend my congratulations to all the other new senators and wish them well in their endeavours in the years to come. Mr President, I thank you and all honourable senators for the courtesies extended to me on this occasion. The PRESIDENT —Order! Before I call Senator Black, I remind honourable senators that this will be his initial contribution to debates in this chamber and I ask that the normal courtesies be extended to him. Senator BLACK(Queensland)(8.28) —I wish to begin my initial speech in this place in the traditional fashion by expressing my thanks to those persons responsible for assisting me in my political career. Accordingly, I wish to thank the person responsible for providing me with the motivation to enter the Federal Parliament. Until his death last year, my grandfather, Albert Rees Tanner, served as an example to me of all that is good and decent amongst the many thousands of Australians who constitute the Labor movement in this country. I thank my family for its unstinting patience with the byzantine preselection procedures so often employed by the Queensland Labor Party to select its Senate candidates. In this context I also record my thanks to the Queensland branch of the Australian Workers Union and to its Secretary, Errol Hodder. Finally and most importantly, I wish to thank the electors of Queensland. I intend to work hard in this place to ensure that their trust, their confidence and their support are rewarded. During the past three years I have worked as an industrial advocate for the Australian Workers Union and this experience has shown me the difficulties that are faced daily by the many thousands of ordinary Australians forced to feed, clothe and house their families on $12,000 a year or less. These people are the backbone of the Labor movement and of the Australian economy. They have a right to expect that the Australian Labor Party in government will introduce reforms to provide everyone with the opportunity for a decent living wage to provide for a steady source of employment, for public housing should they need it, for high standard health facilities, for good effective schooling and for chances of employment and advancement for their children. I intend to concentrate my energies in this place on these issues, which arise from the struggle that average Australians have to make ends meet and to keep their families together. In this context, I would not be doing my job if I did not register my grave concern about the current economic problems confronting workers in my home state of Queensland. To the extent that Australia used to be considered the lucky country, Queensland was justifiably considered to be the luckiest State within that country. Over the last 10 years the Queensland Government has run a very strong and successful publicity campaign to convince the people of Queensland that we are in the middle of an everlasting boom. It was not true then; it is even less true now. This economic miracle that never was has been fuelled by State Government expenditure at the expense of social services and real job opportunities for the people of Queensland. In Queensland there is no attempt to deal with the plight of the unemployed and the working poor in a constructive way. That is why there are now 42 unemployed people for every job vacancy registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service in Queensland. There is no good place for job hunting in Queensland; only degrees of worse, worse and worse. In Bundaberg there is one job vacancy for every 60 unemployed. In Cairns there is one vacancy for every 70 unemployed. In Maroochydore there is one vacancy for every 75 unemployed. In Maryborough there is one vacancy for every 109 persons unemployed. In Gympie there is one vacancy for every 110 unemployed. In Mareeba there is one vacancy for every 134 persons unemployed. On Thursday Island there is only one job vacancy for every 177 persons unemployed. Before anyone can fight unemployment effectively we must first understand what is wrong with the Queensland economy. We can isolate two main structural economic problems. Firstly, we have a heavy dependence on agricultural and mining industries, and secondly, we have a small, decentralised and largely unskilled population. The State Government's policies have done nothing but exacerbate these problems. Queensland is heavily dependent on the export of agricultural and mining products. My State is, by world standards, a relatively efficient producer of these commodities, but the market prospects are not encouraging. The continued expansion of the European Economic Community into world agricultural markets and the debt problems faced by many developing countries-which have prompted them to expand their mining industries to earn foreign exchange-are just two reasons why heavy dependence on agriculture and mining exports will continue to pose problems for the Queensland economy. Let us look at how these problems arise in particular industries. Queensland produces 93 per cent of Australia's sugar, but the world sugar market is chronically over-supplied and the prospects are for no short to medium term significant improvement. Queensland produces a third of Australia's black coal, but there is significant world excess in coal productive capacity because of weaker than anticipated demand and new supplies coming on stream. The world alumina market has remained weak because of continued excess productive capacity in the major producing countries. A notable feature of the Queensland economy is the absence of substantial manufactured export industries. World trade in manufactured goods has, in the post-war period, expanded much more rapidly than national outputs. Currently Queensland has very little secondary industry because the State Government has not taken appropriate actions to develop manufacturing industry in areas where we have a natural advantage. As a result, Queenslanders have missed out on significant opportunities to increase their real living standards. These lost opportunities can be attributed in large part to structural problems in the Queensland economy, problems that the State Government has refused to face. Queensland has a small, relatively decentralised population with a low level of technical training; investment has gone into areas of development that are not labour-intensive; and the State public sector is too small to service effectively Queensland's population growth and its economy. In Queensland, despite an abundance of natural resources, our economic problems continue to worsen because the State Government does not have the talent, the interest or the political will to tackle the structural problems of the Queensland economy. In fact, the actions of the Queensland Government, its dependence on overseas capital and the emphasis it places on large scale development projects that create few jobs and repatriate most of their profits overseas, has produced the situation where Queensland is in a state of pronounced economic decline while the rest of Australia is prospering from the sound economic management of the Hawke Government. I now turn to some recent indicators which show the current condition of the Queensland economy. Unemployment is rising in Queensland while it is dropping in the rest of Australia-the preliminary figures for February 1985 show that Queensland has an unemployment rate of 11.3 per cent, up from 10.2 per cent at the same time last year, while the Australian unemployment rate is presently at 9.3 per cent, down 1.1 per cent from the same time last year. Inflation is also running at a higher rate in Queensland than it is in the rest of Australia. Over the last 12 months the consumer price index has increased by 3.4 per cent in Brisbane compared with a national increase of 2.6 per cent. One of the major factors in Queensland's high level of inflation is State Government charges. Government charges, increased by stealth, with no public announcement, have added an extra point to the Brisbane CPI in the last half of 1984 alone. Electricity prices in Brisbane are the most expensive in Australia. They have risen by 77 per cent over the last five years and the State Electricity Commission has already warned consumers that prices will rise by another 33 per cent over the next five years. Services have not improved for consumers. They have got worse. Connection fees are astronomical and there is no pensioner discount. Average weekly earnings in Queensland are $20 below the national average, which simply means that skilled workers are leaving the State to get a fair wage and the skills of the work force are, as a consequence, in decline. The State Government often tells us how many people are moving to Queensland each month, but it fails to mention also that three-quarters of that number are leaving each month. People come to Queensland to spend their retirement in our wonderful climate, but people are also leaving to avoid forced retirement as the result of our economic and political climate. Business confidence in the State is abysmal. A recent survey by the National Australia Bank and the Australian Chamber of Commerce reported that 74 per cent of Australian businesses said they had good or satisfactory trading in the December quarter compared with a mere 48 per cent in Queensland. Seventy-two per cent of the businesses surveyed said they expected good or satisfactory results in the March quarter while not one Queensland business said it expected a good March quarter and only 36 per cent expected satisfactory trading in the period. This lack of confidence is reflected in a range of economic indicators. In December 1984 new motor vehicle registrations in Queensland declined by 5.2 per cent when compared with the previous December while Australia-wide they rose by about 2 per cent. Private capital investment is another indicator of the lack of business confidence. It declined by 20 per cent in Queensland in 1983-84 and a similar decline is expected this year. The future is indeed bleak. The building industry is also in decline. In the December 1984 quarter building approvals in Queensland dropped by one per cent while they went up by 7.4 per cent Australia-wide. Bankruptcies rose to record levels in Queensland last year. They increased by 27.1 per cent when compared with 1983, while the number of bankruptcies in Victoria fell by 19.3 per cent and in Western Australia they fell by 24 per cent. I am indebted to Senator Maguire for compiling some of these figures. Industrial disputes are obviously out of control in Queensland because the State Government refuses to allow the normal processes of negotiation and conciliation to apply. The President of the Industrial Court of Queensland, Mr Justice Matthews, has commented on the State Government's ineptitude in the industrial relations area. He made a statement in Brisbane on 5 March which expressed concern at the disparaging remarks the State Premier had made when announcing State Government moves to take the electricity industry out of the Industrial Commission's jurisdiction. Mr Justice Matthews said the Premier's statement was hurtful, a denial of years of upright and strenuous service and absurd. Even before the power dispute was pushed out of control by the Premier, Queensland had an appalling record in industrial relations. In the 12 months to November 1984 the number of working days lost because of industrial disputes Australia-wide declined by 20 per cent while the number of working days lost in Queensland in the same period went up to 65.8 per cent. Let me say by way of summary of this statistical material that the Queensland economy is in a state of rapid and dangerous decline because of the State Government's total disregard for the welfare of the Queensland people. The Queensland Government's accounts are a complex maze designed to allow the State Government to do exactly what it likes whilst at the same time claiming to balance the budget. The State Government is fond of calling itself a low tax government, but any analysis of the facts shows this claim to be incorrect. Registration fees for motor vehicles, electricity charges and other State government revenue raisers are the highest in Australia. If this was not bad enough, the present State Government is lumbering future generations of Queenslanders with an immense interest bill and continual repayment headaches. The gross contingent liability or burden of debt that the State must bear has grown enormously over the last few years. It presently stands at $8.2 billion and rose by almost $3 billion last year alone. What do the people of Queensland get for this massive debt? It certainly is not improved services. Analysis of Grants Commission figures for 1982-83 shows that Queensland has the lowest spending on social services of any State, with the lowest spending on education and welfare. These low expenditures mean that people are trapped in a cycle of poverty which ensures an under- educated, unhealthy and vulnerable work force which is not as productive as it should be. Their employment prospects are not improving because that debt is going into development that will provide few long term job opportunities. The Tarong power station, Hay Point coal loader and the electrification of the Bowen Basin rail lines all require huge expenditure but produce very few ongoing jobs. Just in the last couple of weeks the University of Queensland Department of Regional and Town Planning produced a paper which is very critical of the State Government's economic strategy and budgetary practice. Among other things the report says: Queensland's industrial base is ill-equipped, ill-supported by technological training and research, and insufficiently diversified to cushion the State's economy against external market fluctuations and provide its future citizens with broadly-based employment security and equitable share of community wealth. Referring to the State Government's accounts, the report says: Prevailing budgetary practices and financial administration procedures in Queensland are ill-adapted to parliamentary scrutiny. Incremental allocations to line departments rather than program budgeting and corporate planning remain accepted practice, while the statutory authorities are virtually immune from effective scrutiny. It is probably a fair comment that the State Treasury is more concerned with the government's economy than with the State's economy. While the State Government dithers, attempting to create diversions by chocolate wars, child prostitution investigations and industrial confrontation, the human suffering continues. As I said before, unemployment is much higher in Queensland than it is in other States and it is getting worse while it is improving elsewhere. Some 30 per cent of young Queenslanders are unemployed and the Queensland Government is doing next to nothing about it. While the New South Wales Government has allocated $52m to provide programs for the young unemployed, the Queensland Government has allotted a paltry $1m and most of that appears to be set on ministerial advertising campaigns. The community pays the difference in high levels of crime, property damage, alcohol and drug abuse and increased police surveillance. The Queensland Government has just set up a committee to look at youth unemployment, years after the rest of Australia realised what an important issue it is. As the Premier would say, they are just putting a wet blanket on the tip of the iceberg. Poverty in Queensland has reached desperate proportions. Wayne Swan, a lecturer in public administration at the Queensland Institute of Technology, recently released a report on unemployment and poverty in Queensland which showed that almost one in four Queenslanders depend on social security benefits as their principal source of income and that nearly half a million Queenslanders live below the poverty line. There has been much discussion in recent months about why the Australian Labor Party lost some of its support among young people in the last Federal election. As the youngest person in this place, I think I have a contribution to make to this discussion. The anti-nuclear movement was, of course, a major factor in this loss of support. The post-nuclear future is a bleak and disturbing possiblity that must be avoided at all costs. But that was not the only reason the Labor Party lost the support of some young people at the last election. There was also a feeling that the Labor movement had in some way lost its sense of vision and direction, and that we no longer were concerned with the bread and butter issues of how people survive in the hostile economic environment of high unemployment, slow job growth and the disappearance of much work overseas or as the result of rapid technological change. What that means to the one in three young people in Queensland who are unemployed is that if we do not act to redirect the national economy in a way that generates jobs then on one else will and those young people will stay unemployed for the rest of their lives. It is these people and their future that I am concerned about. It was their justified concerns that led them to leave their ballot papers blank at the last election. We all got a clear warning then: If the established political processes cannot supply some concrete answers then there are a lot of people ready to withdraw from the process. Results for us all would be tragic. I understand that by my membership of this place I have a responsibility to do what is best for all Australians, but I want to make it clear from the outset that my paramount responsibility in this place is to the people who elected me-the workers, the battlers, the young and the disadvantaged people of Queensland. Like everyone else here, I am proud to be an Australian and I think this is a great country with unlimited opportunity; but the reason Australia is a truly great country is because working people have organised to ensure that all power and wealth does not sit in the hands of a few rich people interested only in themselves and that average people have access to the political process so that they can do something about improving their own position. Two weeks ago I was in Goondiwindi and I met Joe Bauer who recently resigned as Secretary of the ALP branch there after many years service. He always said that he would resign as branch Secretary when he was so ill he could no longer hold a pen. That time has come and Joe has stepped aside, but he still is well informed about Australian politics and continues to make a contribution to debate in the Labor Party from his hospital bed. He is a great example to young people everywhere because he still will not give up his lifelong battle for economic equality and social justice. I salute Joe Bauer and all the great but unknown Australians who keep the Labor movement strong and in touch with our ultimate goals. The Labor governments of the past introduced reforms which make Australia a relatively fair society, a society where average people can participate in the great opportunities that our natural resources provide. I will strive in this place to continue the work of Joe Bauer and others like him in the Labor movement by representing the interests of the battlers in a realistic way that will produce results for them. In closing, Mr President, I thank those honourable senators who have extended to me the courtesy of listening in silence. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(8.47) —I should like to congratulate the two honourable senators who tonight have completed their maiden speeches, Senator Knowles of the Liberal Party and Senator Black of the Australian Labor Party. I am sure that having cleared this first hurdle so well they will both make a notable contribution to our deliberations. Tonight we are debating the Governor-General's Speech. Every word of it, of course, was prepared by the present Labor Government. It is a very odd speech. A new speech writer is obviously called for. It is rather like boarding school blancmange, difficult to get a grip on and leaving a queasy aftertaste. Even where there are sensible remarks in the Speech, they are destroyed by nonsensical remarks elsewhere. As an outline of the Government's approach to dealing with the inevitable difficulties that will confront us in the coming three years the Speech is, to use the favourite expression of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), pathetic. The problem is that the Speech does not seem to bear any relation to the world we live in. Let us look at this statement: 'The Government intends to maintain the approach to economic policy which has been so successful in its first term of office'. God help us all! This statement is made at a time when the value of the Australian dollar has almost been in free-fall. That event is completely ignored by the Government, yet by the value of our dollar the rest of the world judges our economic performance. Four years ago the Australian dollar was worth $US1.15. At the end of last year it had dropped to $US0.85, this year it plummeted to an all-time low of $US0.65. What is the reason for this fall? It is a reflection of our trading performance. A free-floating dollar is a self-correcting mechanism to balance any trade deficit. With our deficit on current account under this Government now running at $11 billion a year, a fall in the dollar was inevitable. Of course, the sudden fall in the dollar was affected by other factors too, and it is possible that the dollar is now undervalued. It may have been affected by speculation. It was undoubtedly affected by the vacillating performance of the Government in regard to money supply and foreign policy-the MX issue, ANZUS, Vietnam and so on. Overseas investors are not very impressed with the prospects of our economy under this Government. So much for the Government maintaining the approach to economic policy which has been so successful in its first term of office'. The rest of the world does not see any such success. The Government is seen as 'wimpy', too wimpy to take any hard decisions in the coming three years. With our mammoth current account deficit, failure to control the money supply is like throwing petrol on a fire. Our money supply has been expending at an alarming rate. Over the seven months to January this year, trading bank deposits increased at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 18.4 per cent; that is, far above the original Budget target of 8 to 10 per cent. Trading bank lending is increasing even faster than deposits. In the face of this, the gay abandonment by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) of any monetary target was just an invitation to people to speculate against the dollar. It is urgent that we re-establish a responsible monetary policy. Where is that mentioned in the Governor-General's speech? Yes, that is right; it does not rate a mention. The assessment by the rest of the world of our economic performance as appalling means that we must make every effort to get our act together. It is a challenge which must be faced and this needs leadership. The smug, self-satisfied and turgid statement which the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) gave the Governor-General to read gives no leadership and no direction. It can be done. Consider what happened in Sweden. Sweden was heavily hit by the 1979 oil price explosion. The Swedes did not sit around congratulating themselves for the good times in the past. They acted. They embarked on a policy which I recommended to this Government. They reduced demand by a sharp reduction in the Budget deficit. At the same time they held down wages. Real wages fell, with community support. The consequence was massive switch from income to profits, particularly profits in the international trading sector. The reward was low inflation and a low level of unemployment of about 3 per cent, compared to an average of about 10 per cent in the Western European countries. It can be done, but the Government must give leadership. Leadership could not be further from the performance and intentions of this lowest common denominator Government. We are a country with great assets, compared to almost any country in the world. We have enormous mineral resources, we have a continent to ourselves. We have no immediate military threat. We have a homogeneous and well educated population. Perhaps most important of all, we have a stable political system in which all the principle political parties agree on the essential ground rules. Yet we are not doing nearly as well as countries with much greater problems to overcome. It may be an economic version of Toynbee's Challenge and Response; I do not know. For 40 years, from 1865 to 1905, we were, per capita, the richest country on earth. At the turn of the century we were rivalled only by Argentina. We all know what happened to that country. At the start of World War I we were still 10 per cent richer than the United States, which has long since passed us by. As late as 20 years ago, we were still ninth on the international table in terms of per capita wealth. In 1970, we were overtaken by Holland; in 1975, by France; in 1980, by Iceland and Finland; in 1984, by Japan. We now rank fourteenth in the world table-fourteenth and still dropping. No nation can continue to run current account deficits of $11 billion a year, as this Government does. For years we have been living beyond our means, borrowing overseas to pay for our current standard of living. That is bad business in anyone's terms. We are heading towards our bicentenary to celebrate our stewardship of this rich continent over the last two centuries. All we have to show for this stewardship is our inability to pay our way in the world. How have we got into such a mess when even a country like Singapore, with no resources except the hard work of its people, seems likely to be richer than we are within a few years? With only slight exaggeration, it has been said that we are heading towards Third World status, the only difference being that we will be able to drink the water here. There are many causes of our relative economic decline. I will enumerate them all in a moment. Anyone looking coolly at Australia from the outside would have to see that our fundamental problem is our system of wage fixing and industrial relations. Our system is unique. For more than 80 years, despite repeated tinkering, it has proved a disaster which has harmed all Australians. It was well intentioned, an interesting experiment if you like; but it has not worked. Consider what has happened under the conciliation and arbitration system. A suitable union system has not evolved. We are plagued with demarcation disputes, the most intractable of all industrial problems. Consider the recent dispute between two unions over who should provide an unnecessary crew member for New South Wales trains. That dispute cost millions of dollars in coal exports and was yet another blow to our reputation as a reliable supplier. One can give almost endless examples of this type of crazy and terribly damaging strike. The conciliation and arbitration system has not stopped strikes. The procedure all too often is strike first and, if the union does not like the arbitration decision, strike again. Our wage fixing system is absurd. The so-called comparative wage justice does enormous harm to many businesses which simply cannot afford to pay the increases which flow on to them from more prosperous areas of the economy. So they go broke and their workers go on the dole. The Australian Council of Trade Unions has the impertinence to call that wage justice. The balance between profits and wages is seriously distorted, with the result that the levels of research and development, and investment in new plant and equipment, are much lower than they should be and must be if we are to compete with the rest of the world-and compete we must. The power balance between employers and unions is totally out of line. Awards are enforceable on employers; unions defy them at their will. An elaborate structure of minimum wages, penalty rates and other labour restrictions has been built up. This structure seriously curtails growth in employment in the service industries, where the growth in new jobs must come, and are a cruel fraud on the unemployed. Perhaps worst of all, the system has encouraged a confrontational legalistic approach between employers and unions-them and us-rather than employers feeling involved in the success of their enterprise, as American or Japanese workers usually do. This terrible catalogue of defects stems directly from the uniquely Australian system we adopted 80 years ago. How much longer must we go on before we realise that we have one of the worst industrial relations systems in the world, one that is harming all of us, and that a much better system is possible? We do not have to be stuck with a proven failure. Yet what is the Government doing? It says: The Government maintains its commitment to the policies in the Accord and will give particular emphasis to the maintenance of an effective wage fixing system to protect real living standards whilst ensuring moderation in labour cost increases. That sounds fine, but it does not begin to tackle our deep seated problems. The Government is now supporting a 2.7 per cent increase in everyone's pay. Firms will have to pay up whether they can afford to or not. There is even talk by the ACTU-and the Government jumps when the ACTU whip cracks-of a further productivity bonus to all workers later in the year. Senator MacGibbon —A what? Senator HAMER —A wage rise based on a slight improvement in productivity. We desperately need increased productivity to improve our international competitiveness, but if every time we improve productivity we whack up the costs of employing labour and thus lose the advantage we have just gained, we will continue to spiral downwards in the international table of living standards. What must we do? What is the answer to these problems? We will certainly not find any answers or solutions in the Governor-General's Speech. First we must bring the unions back under the rule of law. We have stringent laws and regulations-too many really-which are strictly applied to the business world, such as the Companies Act and the Trade Practices Act, but no such stringency is laid upon unions. Instead, we have the extraordinary situation of unions being able to defy the law, and this is condoned by this Government. The former Attorney-General set up the National Crime Authority but strictly forbade it to investigate serious crimes committed by unions in the pursuit of industrial action. The attempt by the Government to repeal section 45D of the Trade Practices Act was another attempt to legalise secondary boycotts and put the trade unions beyond the effective reach of the law. Why are trade unions exempt from the provisions of the Trade Practices Act, so that they are permitted to breach the Act? This is an iniquitous exemption and very damaging to the interests of the community. It is vital to everyone's interests that trade unions be brought under the law. It is as important as it was to do the same to employers a century ago. Secondly, when we have the unions securely under the rule of law, we must decentralise the whole industrial relations system. We must have enforceable labour contracts between employers and employees away from the centralised conciliation and arbitration system, which simply has not worked. It is absurd to say that any of this is difficult. Other countries are doing it and they seem to find nothing impossible in enforceable contracts and decentralised mutual agreements between employers and employees. We must stop this nonsense of crying 'too hard'. If we fail to do it we will inevitably sink to Third World standards, as has Argentina, and it will be our own fault and the consequence of lack of leadership by the Government. The third thing we must do is face up to the necessity of a complete and fundamental restructuring of the whole system of wage fixing. It must be flexible and it must be realistic. This Parliament can give the lead in this matter and it must. However, it must be argued that if the Commonwealth frees up the labour market it will be sabotaged by some of the States. We must on no account allow the States to reinstitutionalise what we free up. We probably have power, under the corporations section of the Constitution, to prevent the States from doing that. If this head of power fails, there is another one. I do not like the use of the external affairs power to extend Federal control into areas better left to the States, but I would be prepared to see it used to prevent maverick States from destroying a vital economic reform. Since Australia is a signatory to the International Labour Organisation conventions and has ratified some of the relevant ones concerned with wage fixing, we must recognise that we do have the necessary power to prevent the States from setting up organisations which would destroy a free labour market. Economically essential though decentralisation of wage fixing is, it will not necessarily result in full employment. We used to be a leader in social experiments, though some of them such as the conciliation and arbitration system, did not work; we used to be an innovator. We must not be hog-tied by systems which were fought for and won in the 1890s or whenever. We must be prepared to look at new approaches which would result in full employment and would involve workers in the success of their work place. We keep talking about wage fixing, just as we have done for the last 80 years. Perhaps we should begin to talk about an entirely different concept-revenue sharing. How would it work? Let us say that under wage fixing a firm pays its workers $24 an hour in wages, including on-costs. If the firm wants to take on an extra worker, the net revenue earned by the extra output of the new worker must exceed $24 an hour, otherwise the worker would not be taken on. With revenue sharing, a firm could agree to pay its workers a fixed share of its net revenue, say, two-thirds. If the total net revenue per worker is $36 an hour, each worker would still continue to receive the same $24 an hour. This sort of labour market virtually guarantees full employment through work sharing because revenue sharing ensures that it will always cost a firm less to employ an extra worker than it gets back in extra revenue. So firms will continue to recruit workers until nobody who wants to work is left to recruit. In addition, there will be every incentive to increase output per worker, because the revenue per worker will increase and the worker's share of the revenue will be worth more. Because revenue sharing contracts alter the way that firms decide how many people to employ, they also change the way communities react to economic shocks. If, for example, General Motors-Holden's Ltd suffered a sudden drop in demand for its cars, its response at present would be to cut output and shed workers. Most of them would go on the dole. Under a revenue sharing contract, GMH would be much more likely to hang on to its existing workforce. In the long run, if the drop in demand persisted, workers would still have to go. But under a revenue sharing agreement they would go voluntarily, because they would find that their pay at GMH had fallen below what they could get elsewhere and they would not have been unemployed in the meantime. This is a radical approach but it is the sort of thing we must look at if we want to have a growing economy and full employment. Of course, wage rates and wage fixing, although the most important, are not the only problems which affect the Australian economy and which have caused our fall in affluence relative to that of other countries. One is beyond our control-our terms of trade. The value of our major exports-wool, wheat, meat, coal, iron ore and sugar-has declined relative to the costs of manufactured goods. In other words, what we get from our exports has fallen in relation to what we have to pay for our imports. There is nothing that we can do about that at the moment, but there are other problems which we can do something about, and indeed we must in order to prevent our further economic decline. I congratulate the Government on what it has done to deregulate our financial system, following up the pioneer work done by Mr Howard and the Fraser Government. This freeing of the financial system is fundamental to our economic progress. However it does have one short term problem for the Government. It shackles it to reality, which is an unusual position for this Government, but this link with financial reality is essential, if we are to prosper. There is another problem area about which this Government-and previous governments-talked from time to time, but took no action, and that is trade barriers-quotas and tariffs. We must tackle this problem and we must reduce these barriers. In the long run this is the only sensible option. There will be no leap up in the level of real income in Australia unless we concentrate on reducing the protection on things we do badly. There will be consequences if we lower these barriers and encourage increased imports. Some industries will grow and others will wither away. But this is happening anyway and the consequence of doing nothing about trade barriers will be much worse-high inflation and low growth. Of course, I do not advocate any sudden or abrupt changes to our tariff policies. We all learned that lesson after Mr Whitlam's clumsy across the board 25 per cent tariff cut. There would have to be exceptions. We would have to exempt defence industries which may be uneconomical in peace time. We might have to protect for a limited time new industries of economic importance and we must protect our industries against dumping and other unfair trade practices. If we phase in on a predictable basis a reduction of trade barriers to, say, half their present level, first, there will be a rise in real incomes in Australia and, secondly, there will be a diversion of our scarce resources of capital and skilled labour to the most productive areas of the economy. Put simply, we would have a healthier and a more efficient economy. The Prime Minister was a member of a committee that said: 'Yes, we must reduce protection, but no, not until unemployment is below 5 per cent'. This is like a doctor refusing to prescribe treatment until a patient has recovered. While I am talking about things we do badly, I want to stress that governments must get out of businesses which they do not do well. We must privatise as many government businesses as we can, particularly those which are central to our economic efficiency. One of the businesses which the Government obviously does not run well is Australia Post. Not only does the mail not get through-unlike the old days of ponies and mail coaches which defied all weathers and all dangers to get the mail through on time; unlike the old days of the postie who delivered household mail twice every weekday and once on Saturday; unlike the old days when a letter from Melbourne to Sydney cost twopence and arrived within one or two days-but also despite better conditions, higher wages and new technology, now we have deliveries once a day on weekdays only, mail is now very expensive and totally unreliable, unless we pay exorbitant priority paid rates, which means that a letter from Melbourne to Sydney now costs $1.13. The growth in private courier services is a clear indication that the Government-run postal services are not meeting the needs of the community. There is a good case for privatising those sections of Australia Post which do not have a natural monopoly. The same should be said of Telecom, of the Australian National Line, of Trans Australia Airlines-the list goes on and on. Why are governments so bad at running businesses? It comes down, really, to two things: The system stifles entrepreneurial flair, and because the organisation cannot go bankrupt there is no normal limit to the demands of labour or the weakness of management. I repeat, we must get the Government out of as many business activities as possible, in the interests of the efficiency of the Australian economy as a whole. Finally, we must do something about education, for the future prosperity of a nation is directly related to the efficiency of its education system. We are in the terrible position of having a Minister for Education who has said publicly that she does not believe in the pursuit of excellence in education; presumably she believes in the pursuit of mediocrity. We seem to be totally dependent for new ideas on the Americans, but we follow them 10 years late, so that just when America is abandoning an unsuccessful new idea, we are adopting it. The retention rates of students in secondary schools in Australia are almost the lowest in the Western world. It is notable that the retention rates are much lower in government secondary schools than they are in Catholic secondary schools, although there is no evidence of any significant difference in the socio-economic standards of the two groups. I am all for freedom of choice, but I am appalled that people have to opt out of the government system because their children will not get a proper education there. I believe that the greatest problem in government schools is caused by a lack of discipline and a lack of quality and authority in school principles. These two factors are directly linked. Government school principals are generally of a markedly lower standard than independent school principals. If we want to improve government schools we must allow parents to choose which government schools they send their children to and to vote with their feet if they are not satisfied. We must give principals of governments schools the right to hire and fire their teachers. Of course, this is primarily a matter for the State governments, but we must set the example in our area of responsibility, the Australian Capital Territory. All these areas of essential reform are difficult-deregulation of the labour market, reduction of protection, privatising government businesses and improving our government schools. They are all very difficult and would all offend sectional interest, which is why they have not been seriously tackled in the past. But we have desperate economic problems ahead and we must face up to what we have to do to maintain and improve our quality of life. What sort of vision of the future does our present Government have-if vision is the right word for its myopic squint? It has not grasped the fundamental truth that it must create wealth before it can distribute it. It seems to envisage a society in which the education system will achieve equal outcomes, with the brightest being held down to the level of the dumbest; where there are no rewards for enterprise or initiative; where the direction of our businesses is determined by the trade unions; where no one works harder than anyone else, so the pace is that of the slowest; where no one does any community service for love or desire to serve the community-no volunteers must be ridiculed and the services professionalised, which means that the services are much more expensive and much less effective. A brave new world indeed, yet this is the path the present Government is leading us down. It is up to the Opposition to point out the economic perils ahead, and to produce a coherent program to tackle the problems I have mentioned. And that we will do, for if we face up to our problems and tackle them boldly we can restore this very well-endowed and fortunate country to its proper position as the wealthiest, freest and most tolerant society in the world. But it will take a change of government to do that. Senator SIBRAA(New South Wales)(9.07) -We are addressing ourselves to the Governor-General's Speech to Parliament on 21 February-an excellent speech and a comprehensive documentation of the wide range of initiatives introduced by the Labor Government. First, I wish to congratulate those senators who were elected in December and who have already taken their places. I also extend congratulations to those senators-elect who will take their places in the Senate from 1 July. We heard some excellent maiden speeches tonight and by tradition there were no interjections. However, after listening to a couple of those maiden speeches I think that that is a situation that will not occur in the future. As Senator Maguire pointed out in his speech on 20 March, the six-year term is becoming a rarity and it is only the President of the Senate, Senator Douglas McClelland, amongst the present senators who has ever served a six-year term. That happened in the 1960s. This is an indication of the turbulence that has occurred in Australian politics since that time. I am not confident that this Parliament will see out its full term despite the claims made about not rejecting Supply by both the Liberals and the Australian Democrats. This fear has been enlarged, rather than diminished, by the speech made by Senator Mason on 22 March. I will examine some of the issues raised by Senator Mason later in my speech. I wish to turn to the results of the general election held last December. Any result that returns a Labor government is a good result, no matter what the majority. The Liberal and National Party senators will realise as time progresses that there are no prizes for running second, no matter how happy they were about the result. Senator Walters —You must be joking. Senator SIBRAA —It might take some time for this to seep in with Senator Walters, but the fact is that as a result of the last election she is still on that side of the chamber in opposition and we are still here in government. I have been involved in every Federal election since 1961. In 1961 and 1963 I was a Party member organising campaigns and in 1966 I was a Federal candidate for the House of Representatives. In every election since then I have been a Party official or a Senate candidate. I well remember the elections in 1961, 1969 and 1980 because they were great results in that the Labor Party made large gains in the House of Representatives, yet in the end we were still in Opposition. The sweetest victories were in 1974 and last year because those were re-election victories. The re-election of the Hawke Labor Government, whilst not having the icing on the cake, as was so aptly put by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), still demonstrated that the Australian Labor Party enjoys the confidence of the majority of the Australian people. Whilst the majority in the House of Representatives decreased from 25 to 16, the swing against the Government was of the order of only 1.5 per cent. When the final figures are available after the distribution of preferences, I believe that the swing could be lower than one per cent. I also believe that when the final figures are available on the informal vote in the House of Representatives they will indicate that at least three and possibly four or more seats should have been won by the ALP, thereby giving us roughly the same majority that we had in the last Parliament. In the next election the informal vote in the House of Representatives will be much lower and thus seats such as Petrie in Queensland will be regained by the Labor Party. Close examination of the figures in Victoria indicates, when they are compared with the figures for 1983, that the Liberal Party went further backwards, by approximately 2 per cent on top of the 2.2 per cent loss suffered in 1983. Only the swing to the National Party saved the Opposition parties from a disastrous decline. Yet the Leader of the Liberal Party, Mr Peacock, claims to have reversed the trend towards Labor in Victoria. One feature of the last election was the excellent showing made by the Labor Party in some rural and provincial seats in New South Wales. For example, in the seat of Eden-Monaro, Jim Snow, the sitting member, despite having a redistribution that worked against him, held the seat and increased the Labor vote by approximately one per cent. In Calare, David Simmons, the sitting member, increased his vote by 1.4 per cent. I mention that because both these seats need to be won by the National Party if the Opposition parties are to win the next election. Both Jim Snow and David Simmons are proving to be traditional New South Wales rural Labor members in that they are good local members, they are increasing their vote and they will hold their seats while the Labor Party remains in office. The New South Wales seat of Gilmore also gave an excellent result to the Labor Party. Another feature of the result in New South Wales is that the electorates of Cowper, Richmond and Page, on the far north coast of New South Wales, continued to show an historical long term swing to the Labor Party. The Richmond by-election result, which did not get a lot of publicity at the time because of the number of candidates who stood, showed perhaps the best by-election result that the Labor Party has ever achieved in office. In the State seat of Byron, a part of the Richmond Federal electorate, which used to be one of the safest National Party seats in Australia, despite a swing against the State Labor Government in the last State election the Labor Party went within 500 votes of winning the seat. I believe that following the next Federal redistribution, when there will possibly be a fourth Federal seat on the far north coast of New South Wales, at least one of those seats will turn out to be a Labor seat. The Commonwealth Electoral Commission deserves congratulations for the fine job accomplished in last year's electoral redistribution. Equity of electoral redistribution has been achieved. Equity now exists between States and also within States. In the 1983 election the Labor Party gained 53.2 per cent of the two-party preferred vote and won 75, or 60 per cent, of the seats. The Liberal-National Party coalition gained 46.7 per cent of the vote and won 50, or 40 per cent, of the total number of seats. In the 1984 election the Labor Party gained 51.7 per cent of the vote and took 55.4 per cent of the seats while the coalition, with 48.3 per cent of the vote, won 45.3 per cent of the seats. Given that we have a preferential system of voting for the House of Representatives, this was a fine result, and a very fair result. Leading up to the last election the Electoral Commission encouraged people to take an interest in the electoral process, something that has not been done during the time of previous Liberal-National Party governments. Despite the excellent job done by the Electoral Commission in reducing the Senate informal vote, the informal vote in the House of Representatives was very disturbing. Clearly the Government and the Electoral Commission made an omission by not explaining the importance of numbering all squares in the ballot for the House of Representatives. However, if our error was the result of the unforeseen, how does one describe those members of the House who forced the Government to amend its Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill so as to prevent the extension to the House of Representatives of optional preferential voting? The damage done by that can be seen in the figures to which I shall refer later and for which I thank the statistics group of the Department of the Parliamentary Library. I also point out that in New South Wales at the State election level there is an optional preferential system of voting, so it was doubly difficult for people in New South Wales voting in the last House of Representatives election. They were used to an optional preferential system of voting in the State and they now had it in the Senate; in the system to operate in the Senate; the system that operates in the Senate had been described to them by the media and I do not blame them for thinking that the system operated in the House of Representatives. A simple example of how the informal vote affected the Labor vote can be seen in the results for the safest Liberal seat in Australia, Bradfield, which is on the north shore of Sydney, and comparing it with the safest Labor seat, Gellibrand, in Victoria. In Bradfield the informal vote was one of the lowest, if not the lowest, in the country-a mere 3.5 per cent. In Gellibrand, the safest Labor seat, we had an informal vote of 12.2 per cent, one of the highest in Australia. More significant are the figures for the informal votes in the marginal seats. If we look at those seats in New South Wales described as marginal we see that in the Liberal-National Party seats such as Bennelong, Cook, Cowper, Gilmore, New England, Page and Richmond-I think that is a fair spread of both Sydney and rural seats-the informal vote averaged only 3.97 per cent. Meanwhile, in the designated marginal Labor seats such as Barton, Calare, Hunter, Lowe, Macquarie and Phillip-again I have tried to include rural seats-the informal vote was 5.6 per cent. Certainly if there is any reason why we did not enjoy the icing on the cake it is in figures like those. Indeed, around the country the informal vote was 4.5 per cent higher than that recorded in 1983. In New South Wales it also became apparent early on polling day that many of the Nuclear Disarmament Party voters, particularly young people who were probably voting for the first time, were voting only in the Senate election and were discarding their House of Representatives ballot papers. I now wish to turn to the Senate results. I am especially pleased to see the Senate informal vote drop from the traditional 10 or 11 per cent in New South Wales. In some instances in some areas it has been as high as 17 per cent in the past, especially when in one Senate election in New South Wales we had 73 candidates. We did have a traditional 10 to 11 per cent informal vote, which I believe was a disgrace, and that has declined to a much more acceptable 5.6 per cent. It is still high but it is certainly a promising start to a new system of voting. At the declaration of the poll Senator Mason, who is now in the chamber, complained about the long wait for the result in New South Wales and Senator Chipp made references to the use of computers in achieving a quicker result in the future. I agree with the comments made by both Senator Mason and Senator Chipp. However, there were longer counts under the old system. For example, in 1975 the count in New South Wales took from 13 December 1975 to 6 February 1976. The winning margin in that case was a total of only 854 votes, not the difference of thousands of votes that was the case on this occasion. It was certainly much closer, but it was an excellent result because it was the result on which I was elected to the Senate. I was extremely disappointed by some ill-informed comments during the campaign made by both the media and candidates over the preference distribution on the ALP Senate how-to-vote card in New South Wales. As late as last Friday Senator Mason stated: Let me say initially that in recent New South Wales Senate elections the ALP has been quite scrupulous in directing its preferences to parties it perceives as having ideologies close to its own. Senator Mason —Don't misquote me; I said 'effective preference'. Now go back to Hansard and have a look. Senator SIBRAA —It makes no difference, Senator Mason. Senator Mason —If you are quoting what I said, I would rather you used the words I did. There is a big difference, as you know, Senator Sibraa. Senator SIBRAA —Let me start again. He said: Let me say initially that in recent New South Wales Senate elections the ALP has been quite scrupulous in directing its preferences to parties it perceives as having ideologies close to its own. I refer to the fact that in the last two elections the ALP has directed its effective preference-- I was right in quoting Hansard, because I now get to the part that says the 'effective preference'- to the Liberal Party, presumably in support of its fellow conservatives. Let us examine the real situation. The New South Wales Senate ticket preference allocation was a unanimous decision at both the national and State levels of the Labor Party. The decision was to direct our preferences through the Liberal-National Party to the Australian Democrats. There was never any chance that ALP preferences would elect a Liberal-National Party candidate to the Senate. New South Wales State Secretary, Steve Looselys and National Secretary, Bob McMullan, examined all possible results and ultimately concluded that the ALP preferences would elect Senator Mason, not Peter Garrett, or a Liberal candidate. Even though at one stage the opinion polls put the Liberals at a disastrous level-I think it was only about two and half quotas-it was always our opinion that they would obtain three quotas, and that judgment proved to be correct. With no previous experience to guide us in the new voting system, we had to attempt to avoid a large number of informal votes from those voters who chose to fill out all the squares on the ballot papers. These voters were about 17 per cent of all Labor Party voters. Previous experience showed us that if only one column was out of sequence, thousands more informal votes could be expected. One of the great myths of the last election campaign is that the Nuclear Disarmament Party candidate, Peter Garrett, was not elected because the Labor Party gave its preferences to the Liberals-a statement made by him during the campaign and, incredibly, repeated by him after the poll. As I said, he was defeated because the Labor Party and the Liberal-National Party gave their preferences to the Democrats. When Sue West, the last ALP candidate, went out with a total of 133,709 votes, her preferences went to Senator Mason, who picked up 116,748 votes, and to Peter Garrett, who picked up only 16,477. Unfortunately, the real situation received only superficial coverage from the media. I think it was a case of 'We have a good story, do not confuse us with the facts'. When I spelt out the situation at the declaration of the poll, it was not reported. This is the third time I have mentioned it since the declaration of the poll-twice in speeches here-and probably it will not be reported again. The Labor Party of New South Wales was pleased at the high percentage of people who used the simplified system of voting. Approximately 83 per cent of our voters used the box system. We believe this will be higher in the future because there will be no adverse publicity like last time when there were suggestions that somehow the Australian Democrats and the NDP were being dudded by the Labor Party. At the next election we will be able to direct our preferences on strict ideological grounds. My reference to this at the declaration of the poll, and again in the Senate on 26 February, seems to have upset Senator Mason, who spent some time attacking me last Friday, saying that I had rather arrogantly- Senator Mason —I just gave you a warning about it. Senator SIBRAA —I realise that, and I would like him to listen to what I have to say now. Senator Mason said that I had rather arrogantly threatened the Democrats over preferences in future elections. I said previously that the NDP, at the time of the next election, could be an established party with an identifiable party platform, and that the Labor Party could well direct its preferences to the NDP. This is correct, although I personally would not want that to happen. I also said that preferences could now be directed much more tightly than in the past and could differ from State to State, according to the number of candidates, the number of parties and local circumstances. I acknowledge that the Democrats could do the same thing; I realise that. I was making the point that it is a whole new ball game under the newly simplified voting system in the Senate. Senator Mason thought it was threatening. However, I believe it was simply a statement of fact. I would expect that the same result would occur in New South Wales in future Senate elections as occurred this time; that is, if the Labor Party does not win the final seat its preferences will elect Senator Mason or a Democrat senator. That has been the historical pattern since the Democrats came into existence, and I would expect that would happen in the future. The Senate result in New South Wales showed that, despite other parties competing to the left of the Labor Party on some issues, we continued to poll strongly, with approximately 43 per cent of the total vote on the first count. This was an excellent result, I believe, in view of the 9 per cent polled by the NDP. One disturbing feature of the vote in New South Wales, however, is that in some rural areas, particularly in Riverina-Darling, the Labor Party vote in the Senate exceeded that received in the House of Representatives. The vote in the House of Representatives in Riverina-Darling was approximately 45 per cent, yet in the Senate it was in excess of 47 per cent, and that is not the only example in rural New South Wales. The results require some careful research and a lot of work by our Party before the next election. The Hawke Labor Government has now the opportunity to be the longest serving Labor Government in Australia's history, with the next election possibly being held as late as April 1988. It is also the first time in history that the Labor Party is presiding over an Australian economy which is on the up-swing as opposed to being elected to government in time of crisis. For the record, almost 400,000 more Australians are now in work since the historical National Economic Summit Conference in April 1983. We are well on the way to achieving our campaign promise, a target of 500,000 more jobs in the first three years of a Labor government. At the same time, we halved the inflation rate inherited from the Fraser-Howard years. Australia's inflation rate is now only 5.3 per cent. Further, the number of days lost during industrial disputation has falled to its lowest level for 16 years. Senator Walters —Come on, come on. Senator SIBRAA —If Senator Walters does not like those statistics that is tough, but that is the record at the moment-we have the lowest level of industrial disputation for 16 years. It is clear that the wish of the Australian people at the last election, to have a Labor Government in Canberra, has been fulfilled. With such a fine record of achievement in the previous 20 months, this is not surprising. If the Labor Government is allowed to do what it was elected to do and implement its program of reform, the Australian people, so clearly benefiting from the policies of the Labor Party, can again be expected to return a Labor Government in 1988. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.38) —I start by congratulating my colleague Senator Knowles for a very fine maiden speech. I also congratulate Senator Black for giving his maiden speech tonight, as well. There are several issues I will address in this debate on the Governor-General's Address-in-Reply, and they all relate to the performance of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the problems that it has caused our country. I refer to the area of foreign affairs, an area that is vital to Australia's security. I look at the Prime Minister's credibility. I do not believe he is left with any credibility whatsoever. I believe his actions have indicated that he is a numbers man. There is no indication at all of Mr Hawke having any principles. In 1976 the present Prime Minister was the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. It was then a matter of principle-or was it numbers-that he signed an advertisement, which appeared in many newspapers, headed 'For An Independent and Non-Aligned Australia'. It states: We, the undersigned, consider that: Military alliances are a source of international tensions. They lead to subordination of weaker nations to bigger powers, and often involve the aligned nations in military interventions. Foreign military bases on our soil are detrimental to Australia's safety. They constitute a threat to other nations, make this continent a potential nuclear target, and could be used by the USA contrary to our wishes and safety. USA-Australian alliance dragged us into the Vietnam War. Australia's military arrangements with the USA, Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia could involve us in military actions in South East Asia in support of unpopular regimes . . . in new Vietnams. Therefore, we the undersigned, support the campaign for an independent and non-aligned Australia which stands for: Mutual respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of all nations; equality of national rights; opposition to military alliances, foreign military bases and military interventions; and support for national and social liberation. This was signed by the Prime Minister who was then the leader of the ACTU. He was in good company. I will read some of the signatures which accompanied the signature of Mr Hawke. We have Laurie Carmichael, Joe Camilleri, Pat Clancy, George Crawford, Bill Hartley, John Halfpenny, Bill Landeryou and so it goes on. This was signed by the Prime Minister. What is one of his latest comments? In an article under the headline 'I won't be Prime Minister where those issues of central and continued importance to our security are at risk' it is stated: Mr Hawke said he would not want to be Prime Minister if central elements of the alliance, such as port access for nuclear ships and Australia's hosting of joint facilities with the US were repudiated. He is backing the United States bases in Australia and the United States Navy into our ports. What has occurred since he made the two statements? He has become Prime Minister. In 1976, as leader of the ACTU, he was seeking numbers. He was seeking power in the ACTU and he found his numbers needed him to repudiate all alliance with America, to get rid of the American bases on our soil, be a non-aligned country and all the other rubbish that he spoke about then. Now he is Prime Minister and he looks at the polls. Again, he does not go for principles but goes for the numbers. Let us have a look at the results of the latest poll reported in the Bulletin: Three in four Australian electors favour a mutual defence alliance, of the same kind as ANZUS. A total of 75 per cent of Australians want a defence alliance with the United States. Of course Mr Hawke, being a numbers man, goes for the numbers and repudiates everything he said in 1976. Indeed, when questioned about it, although not in depth by the media-the media at that time last year were still rather on Mr Hawke's side-he said: 'Look, if you read that advertisement properly you will find it doesn't really commit me to a non-alliance stance'. The article which refers to the non-alliance stance says very clearly: . . . we, the undersigned, support the campaign for an independent and non-aligned Australia . . . What is the man talking about? His latest stance is: What about it on principle? He is manoeuvring over the MX missiles. We know that in 1984 and early 1985 he was in favour of America's MX missile requests. There was a simple request from America. It said that it wanted to try to see how far the MX missile would go over a large ocean area where it would not be crossing any land. The simple request was: Could Australia just make sure that it refuelled the United States planes monitoring the trials? The Prime Minister was very much in favour. Was that a matter of principle, or was it a matter of numbers? Let us have a look at it. The Prime Minister was overseas when the story broke, when the leak occurred-that Australia was giving the okay to America. His henchmen contacted him and said: 'You haven't the numbers, boss, so withdraw'. This great man of principle changed his stance once again and said to the American people: 'Sorry, it's not on. I agreed before, but I haven't the numbers back home'. So he withdrew Australia's meagre help in that area. Now he is trying to sit on the fence amongst the group which the Australian put so clearly today is 'kind of centre right but sort of left a bit'. We find that Mr Hawke, who previously felt so strongly that he was going to put his job on the line, is now deciding not to push that too strongly. Indeed he said that he would not pressure New Zealand, that it was New Zealand's decision whether it allowed the American ships into its bases and harbours, and that it had nothing to do with Australia; that New Zealand was an independent nation and he was not going to pressure Mr Lange. I thought Australia, New Zealand and the United States were part of the ANZUS Treaty, and that Australia had a great deal to say in that regard. It certainly is very much to our detriment that the ANZUS Treaty is now in tatters. Yet Mr Hawke has said that he will not try to apply any pressure on New Zealand. Is that a matter of principle or, again, of numbers? I think it is very obvious to all that it is a matter of numbers. What has been the result of the debacle over the MX missiles and the ANZUS Treaty? The first result we have is that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Senator Chipp both congratulated New Zealand; they were the first to congratulate New Zealand on its stance. That was followed up by the United States cancelling the ANZUS naval manoeuvres and severing its intelligence links with New Zealand. Mr Hawke is saying that the ANZUS Treaty is virtually non-existent, but he still will not pressure New Zealand for the safety of Australia, the security of this Australian nation. Why? Is this a matter of great principle, or for his numbers? Let us move on to the Prime Minister's support of Mr Hayden's recent sojourn in Asia. Mr Hayden was led up that Ho Chi Minh garden path to see that the pigs might fly in that area. Mr Hayden was, to say the very least, rather naive in his sojourn in Vietnam. We are told that he fully understood its situation; while he did not agree with every detail, he really could understand why Vietnam needed to go ahead in Cambodia. What did Mr Hawke say? He refrained from saying what Mr Hayden had said about him, which was that Mr Hawke had carried on in the MX missile debacle to the best of his ability. Mr Hawke refrained from making that sort of comment and gave blanket support to Mr Hayden. Mr Hayden so desperately wanted to believe in the puppet state of Vietnam. He told not only the Australian audience but also our Asian friends. What a fool he made of Australia while he was there. What an absolute fool he made of Australia in foreign affairs. When he reached Thailand he made an incredible statement, a report of which, appearing in the Australian on 11 March 1985, states: . . . Mr Hayden agreed last night that the Vietnamese leaders now appeared not to have told him the truth about Vietnamese incursions into Thailand. What an incredible statement for a Foreign Minister to make! He said that his visit to Vietnam was a fairly emotional visit to a country whose rights to independence he had backed during the Vietnam war. He so desperately wanted to believe Vietnam that he was willing to believe that pigs might fly. When he reached Thailand he found that it was all a pack of lies. It was there that Australia was made to look such a fool in foreign affairs. Why did the Prime Minister support this stupid man? Was it because of principle or numbers? He needed the Centre Left and the numbers. There was another claim for numbers-not principles-when Mr Hawke rejected the United States of America's research into strategic defence initiatives; that is, the Star Wars program. Star Wars is a non-nuclear research program that aims to destroy missiles as they are set off. It is no threat to anyone. Why would anyone oppose his ally adopting or researching a non-nuclear defence mechanism? Yet the Prime Minister has played for numbers with the Left and the Centre Left and has refused to assist or join America in any role involving the Star Wars defence mechanism. We are told that the Soviets are well ahead with Star Wars defence. Only a couple of days ago two reports were released which claim that the Soviets have a substantial lead over the United States in the development of Star Wars strategic defence, yet our Prime Minister is not backing United States research in this area. Senator Button —Is your Party backing it? Senator WALTERS —Of course it is, wholeheartedly. We are completely supporting the United States in this area. Senator Button —That is good to note. Senator WALTERS —Senator Button should do so; he needs to. A further action, in 1981, by Mr Hawke again showed him as a man of numbers, not principle. In 1981, before Mr Hawke was Leader of the Labor Party, there was a debate in the House of Representatives on whether Australia should send a peacekeeping force to the Sinai. Many people thought there was a great principle behind Mr Hawke's support of Israel during that period. He was meant to be a great supporter of Israel. At that time our Government wanted to send peacekeeping troops to Israel at the request of Israel and Egypt. The Opposition, with Mr Hayden as Leader, was voting against it. What did Mr Hawke do? He made a very emotional speech. Indeed, he cried in the House of Representatives as he crossed the floor and voted against Israel. Is he a man of principle or a man of numbers? He needed the numbers to rise to the position of Leader of his Party. Again this month he is bowing to numbers and withdrawing the troops we sent to the Sinai, against the wishes of Israel and Egypt. Again, there is a lack of principle. For the sake of numbers he is willing to betray Israel. Further evidence of the Prime Minister's lack of principle and his seeking of numbers, again in relation to Israel, is the change in Australia's voting pattern in the United Nations. Australia has agreed in principle to allow the Palestine Liberation Organisation to have equal representation in the United Nations with other Middle Eastern members and has refused to second a Scandinavian resolution in an attempt to block the Iranian move that was the first step in having Israel expelled from the United Nations. Who needs enemies when one has friends such as Mr Hawke? If we look a little further we find that Mr Hawke's pandering to the Left involves Senator Button. We find Laurie Carmichael and John Halfpenny being appointed to the Australian Manufacturing Council. Senator Button —I did that. Senator WALTERS —I said it involved the honourable senator. Not many Australians are not well aware that these two gentlemen were members of the Communist Party of Australia. Not many people are unaware that John Halfpenny resigned from the Communist Party and joined the Labor Party after the required number of days. I do not think anybody would argue about Laurie Carmichael's leanings. Yet we find that the Prime Minister-for numbers alone; it has nothing to do with principle-allows Senator Button to appoint Messrs Carmichael and Halfpenny as members of the Australian Manufacturing Council. Senator Button —Don't blame him; it was me. I did it. Senator WALTERS —Apparently we should not blame the Prime Minister for anything that happens in the Labor Party as he is not its leader. He is just the leader of one of its factions. An article which appeared in the Australian on 27 March 1984 stated: Questioned about the appointment of Mr Carmichael and Mr Halfpenny, a smiling Senator Button said the two officials were nominated for council membership by the ACTU 'and quite frankly, in view of what I believe they have to contribute I think it is very sensible'. Senator Button —How did you know I was smiling? Senator WALTERS —I read the papers now and again. We find that this great Prime Minister of Australia, in a ploy with the Left to keep his numbers, is willing to have those two gentlemen given a parliamentary appointment. Let us not misunderstand this matter. It was very recent. It was obviously a pay-off because he wanted a couple of right wing unions in Victoria to join the Labor Party. I believe I have been able to point out tonight the hypocrisy of the present Prime Minister. He is unashamedly a man of numbers. There is no vestige of principle in any stand he takes. He will vote only according to the numbers that will keep him in power. His motto is: The end justifies the means. Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Grimes) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(10.00) —Tonight I wish to discuss a matter which has a long and unfortunate history in this chamber. It relates to the treatment of two citizens by governments in Thailand and New South Wales and, in the last two years, the actions of the present Hawke Administration and in particular, I regret to say, the failures of the Minister at the table, the Leader of the Government in the Senate and Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button. I have given him notice that tonight I propose to proceed to put before the Senate certain facts in the hope of appealing in this chamber to the sense of justice which I have always understood Senator Button to have but which I have found in my dealings with him on this matter has been shamefully neglected. The two people in question are William Charles Sinclair, a citizen of New South Wales and a man who is fairly well known partly because of a book which was written about the travail he experienced as a prisoner in Thailand, and his son, Gregory Sinclair of Melbourne, who is a constituent of mine. I have taken some interest in the concerns and problems of this family in the last few years. I have said that they have suffered injustice at the hands of a number of governments. I remind the Senate that I spoke on this matter back on 15 December 1982, which is recorded at page 3597 of the Senate Hansard of that date. I spoke at some length and produced many documents in this chamber to indicate the way in which attempts were being made to produce and prove the authenticity of documents. I referred to the way in which documents were sent by the New South Wales Government, despite undertakings that it would do other things, and to the circumstances in which William Sinclair was incarcerated in prison. Along with other persons, he was charged with certain drug offences which he vehemently denied at all times and of which he was ultimately acquitted by a court of appeal. He was convicted in a lower court in Thailand and ultimately the Court of Appeal rejected evidence which was false evidence and which was proved to be false evidence in courts in the State of New South Wales. He was freed but not without problem or without losing a great deal of his bail money because of the curiousities of the law of Thailand. That man might have died. I am sure that there are many people in New South Wales who wish that he had died so that he could not continue to haunt them in days to come. But he got back to Australia, is free and has for some years, with his son, been claiming a total of $145,580 which was seized by the then Bureau of Customs on 19 October 1978 in Brisbane under section 229A (2) (a) of the Customs Act, claiming it to be drug-related money, although it has always been contended that it was not so, and substantial evidence shows it was not so. But that money was forfeited and governments have kept that money, have earned income from it and have refused to allow these people to prove their case. I will not go into the past details of this, which were related in my speech in 1982. I remind members of the Senate that the problems which Mr William Sinclair had in Thailand are described very graphically in the book Kingdom of Illusions: The William Sinclair Story by Richard Shears and Isabelle Gidley. They described his efforts there to vindicate himself and be released. He could well have been executed in Thailand because the law of Thailand enables people to be executed without trial for drug-related offences. It took his family a great deal of money and effort to ensure that he was not executed and ultimately could stand trial and be released. The claim to which I refer is one that I pursued firstly with the former Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, who shortly after that handed it over to the now Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. Since that time I have pursued this claim. I have a number of documents which, for the speed of the Senate, I desire to incorporate in Hansard tonight. I will speak briefly about what they display but it is important that the Senate see in the record what has been done in respect of these claims. When Mr William Sinclair returned to Australia he very quickly made a claim for the moneys. He has contended that the moneys which were seized were mainly the proceeds of a sale by his son of a very successful restaurant in Brisbane. There were also some moneys of the father, William Sinclair, which he had accumulated over many years. All that money was being held for some time in trust boxes of his daughter-in-law. They were removed and handed over by another person to the Customs people and seized under the terms of the Customs Act, the claim being that they were drug related. These two men have put themselves and their information entirely at the hands of the Government and the Customs people and have been interviewed. They say that the money bears no relationship to drugs. One can understand that governments might have thought that this was so at the time when he was in gaol in Thailand and charged with such an offence. But they have not been willing to open their eyes to the facts which have been released quite freely by these people. By 20 August 1982 William Sinclair wrote on behalf of himself and his son to the Australian Federal Police, the then Bureau of Customs and also to the Commonwealth Crown Solicitor. I have acknowledgements of that letter. The letter, which I am about to incorporate, does not bear a date, but the acknowledgments of it all refer to it as the letter of 20 August 1982. I seek leave to have this letter which I understand was dated 20 August 1982 incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- 57 Guildford Road, Surrey Hills 3127 Melbourne, Victoria Telephone 836 8416. Dear Sir, Re: $145,580 seized on 19th October, 1978 in Brisbane, Queensland, by reason of Section 229A (2) (a) of the Customs Act As you are no doubt aware I have recently returned from Bangkok, Thailand and am presently residing at the above address with my son Gregory. Further after spending three years and eight months in various Thai Prisons, I was acquitted of all charges brought against me in relation to narcotics trafficing etc. Immediately upon my arrival back in Australia I instructed my son to contact the Customs Department to ask their attitude in relation to the above sum of money and further to advise the responsible offices that I would be pressing my previously lodged claim for that sum. During the past eight to ten weeks my son has been speaking to firstly Mr Moore and thence Mr Keating in Canberra. Mr Keating advised him to contact Chief Superintendent Brian Bates of the Australian Federal Police who recently kindly advised him to address all correspondence to Brisbane as from a departmental point of view the matter should be dealt with in that state. Since my arrival back in Australia, free for the first time since October 1978 of the constraints of strict censorship, being held incommunicado for long periods of time, an appalling legal system, a language barrier and the corruption associated with both the legal system and police of Thailand I have had the opportunity to fully examine the documentation and circumstances surrounding the seizure of the abovementioned sum. I wish to again categorically state that this money is the legitimately earnt property of both my son and myself and in no way represents the profits of any narcotics transactions and as such should never have been siezed under Section 229A (2) (a) of the Customs Act. I can however understand how this seizure did come to pass and would be affected by any responsible police officer, after reading the colourful and highly inaccurate media reports originating both in Australia and Thailand in October and November 1978. I would like to refer you to a letter of mine dated 11th April, 1979 and addressed to ''The Investigating Officer, Federal Bureau of Narcotics, Brisbane, Queensland. In this I claimed the money and unfortunately I have never had an acknowledgement of reply. By way of explanation this document was smuggled from prison at great risk after being typed by a Thai with a bad command of the English language. Also I would like to refer you to a statement given by my son to Investigator J. W. Robinson at the Narcotics Bureau, 82 Eagle Street, Brisbane on the 27th February, 1979. More specifically the answer to Question 27 does have great bearing on this situation. Accordingly I would ask that due to the highly unusual circumstances surrounding this case, time factors involved my imprisonment pending trial, my complete inability to acquaint myself with the facts, my complete inability to lodge a claim until April 1979 either solely or with my son be taken into account when consideration to this matter is given. Further it is generally known that the majority of the money is my property yet I have never been issued with a seizure notice and I would respectfully ask that this be taken into account. My son has also been thoroughly investigated by the Taxation Department and assessed on his correct income for the period 1977-80. The investigation was based on amounts included in his share of the amount seized and this Department is now awaiting payment. At present my only form of income is an old age pension, I am heavily in debt, so I would ask that your earliest possible consideration be given to this matter and our property returned. Yours faithfully, WILLIAM C. SINCLAIR Senator MISSEN —In that letter William Sinclair makes a very clear claim that the moneys were his and that they were in no way connected with drug matters. He points out that he took the first opportunity, on returning to Australia in October 1978, actually to make the claim because he was held incommunicado for long periods and the language barriers and corruption associated with the legal system in Thailand made it impossible for him to make any claim before then. To put it very briefly, the position was that when the moneys were seized the father was of course incarcerated incommunicado and his son was not willing to take any action. His wife had possession of the money. He was warned that if there was a challenge she may well have been arrested. She was six months pregnant and he was not willing to do anything at that time. His main concern at that stage was to save the life of his father and the money, though a very great sum, was not the first thing in his mind. Thus the one month, the 30 days, passed by in which the opportunity arises under the Act to challenge the seizure of this money. What we have been trying to do ever since is to have the Government recognise that these moneys are not drug related and that they should be returned. If it will not do that, it should at the very least agree to obtain the necessary document from the Governor-General to waive the time barrier to enable these people to be able to pursue their claim at law. Senator Button —Why don't you seek a declaration at law that the moneys are yours? Senator MISSEN —The Minister knows quite well, from the correspondence and the opinions of counsel that have been supplied to him, that it is maintained that no legal action can be taken because of this particular problem-- Senator Button —Under the Customs Act; I am talking about a declaration. Senator MISSEN —Well, Senator, I am saying that you and I, perhaps, are not in the eminent position of counsel who have advised-this is the advice that Senator Button has as well-that nothing can be done until this is waived and he is not willing to do that. I was approached and on 1 June 1983 I made an appeal to the Minister in a letter. At the same time I produced a statement dated 30 May 1983 from Mr Gregory Sinclair, setting out why he had not made the claim earlier. We produced then many documents, which have been available to the Government ever since, to justify the allegations that were made and the entitlement that they had to this money. I seek leave, Mr President, to incorporate in Hansard the letter of 1 June 1983, the accompanying letter from Gregory Sinclair dated 30 May 1983, and an additional letter of mine on 2 June 1983, forwarding some further documents. Leave granted. The letters read as follows- PARLIAMENT OF AUSTRALIA The Senate Commonwealth Parliament Offices 400 Flinders Street Melbourne 3000 Telegraphic address: 'Commemroom', Melbourne Telephone: 62 2521 1st June 1983 Senator the Hon. Gareth Evans Commonwealth Attorney-General Parliament House Canberra, ACT 2600 Dear Attorney-General, 2E. Gregory William Sinclair and William Charles Garfield Sinclair-claim for $145,580 seized on 19 October 1978 in Brisbane Queensland, by reason of Section 229A (2) (a) of the Customs Act As you are probably aware, I have for some time in my capacity as a Victorian Senator been concerned with the representations of my abovenamed constituents, relating particularly to the trial and imprisonment in Thailand on drug charges of William Sinclair and his subsequent acquittal. His son Gregory Sinclair also sought my assistance to facilitate the use of evidence in those proceedings, seeking the cooperation of the Australian Government and went to very great lengths to avoid his father's summary execution under the extraordinary provisions of the Thai law. You may also be aware of the efforts that were made to obtain forensic evidence in respect of an alleged statement or confession by William Sinclair of 22.12.78 to NSW police officers (operating in Thailand) and the record of such efforts are set out in some detail in my speech in the Senate on 15th December 1982 (copy enclosed). You may not be aware that, subsequently, the alleged original statement was returned to Australia by the Thai authorities and, before the change of Australian Government, forensic inquiries were set in train and have resulted in a report by Mr Robert M. Harston (copy enclosed) which throws considerable doubt on the genuine status of that statement and its signatures. This is of direct relevance to this submission. Enclosed with this letter are a number of relevant documents listed in Gregory Sinclair's letter to me of the 30th May 1983 (copy enclosed). They describe in detail the course of events and the reasons why neither applicant was in any position to make and pursue claims for the substantial moneys seized, within the time allowed by the Customs Act, indeed for several years thereafter. I might add that it is accepted that there are minor discrepancies as to estimated assets and as to dates (for example Questions 9 and 10 of Document B refer to the year 1979 instead of 1978), but the applicants maintain the essential consistency and honesty of their accounts of these events and are ready to appear before any court or your officers to expand on any statements. I understand that Mr Robert M. Harston would also be available for discussions as to the forensic evidence related to purported statement. My representation to you is that you and the Australian Government should now exercise any discretion available or act on a petition of right to set aside the times prescribed under the Customs Act, and to enable justice to be done to the applicants either: (a) by returning the moneys seized to the applicants forthwith; or (b) by enabling the applicants now to file notices of objection to the seizure. I am informed that at the time of seizure, notices of seizure of the above moneys were served on a number of persons and authorities and the same request is made in connection with those notices. However I believe that no notice of seizure was ever delivered to William Sinclair and it may well be that there was no valid seizure in respect to the portion of the moneys to which he lays claim. This fact should also be taken into account. I contend that it would be unconscionable for the Australian Government to maintain the seizure of moneys in the circumstances revealed in the documents which I now enclose and I trust you will exercise your discretion to see that justice is done. May I also say, as a separate matter, that William Sinclair, who is substantially destitute and on legal aid, continues to seek the additional $41,000 bail money forfeited by the Thailand Court, no part of which has been repaid to him since his acquittal. I trust also that the Australian Government will give support to his efforts to recover these moneys. I await your early reply. Yours sincerely, ALAN MISSEN Senator for Victoria Enc. 57 Guildford Road, Surrey Hills, Vic. 3127 30 May 1983 Senator Alan Missen, Senator for Victoria, Commonwealth Parliamentary Offices, 400 Flinders Street, Melbourne 3000 Dear Senator, Re:$145,580 seized on the 19th October, 1982 in Brisbane, Queensland by reason of Section 229A (2) (a) of the Customs Act. I refer to our previous conversations and meetings and wish to submit to you a number of documents, which I feel will explain fully to you, the situation as it now is and as it evolved. Document A: A 'situation report' made by my solicitors in Sydney (Abbott, Tout, Wilkinson and Creer) some time in late 1979 for the information of my council, Mr. T. Hughes, Q.C., made after my arrest by Det. Sgt. B. W. Dunn and before my committal hearing. Document B: A record of interview between myself and investigator J. W. Robinson of the Federal Narcotics Bureau, where I formerly clarified my financial situation (as best I could). This was in relationship to $25,600 that was further seized and later returned by the F.N.B. It was made after I acquired a set of true accounts from my restaurant. Document C: Seizure Notice relating to document B. By way of explanation, I no longer have a copy of the Seizure Notice relating to $145,580. Document D: A photocopy set of some of the true takings of Neptune's Restaurant on a day by day basis, including (in the handwriting of my former partner, D. A. Taylor) and an accurate summary of actual takings for the restaurant in the calender year 1978. It is worth noting that the takings are well in excess of $1.1 million, mainly in cash. Document E: A copy of the sworn statement made by me in January 1979 when I was contesting payment of my half-share of the restaurant. For obvious reasons, Mr Taylor settled out of court, paying me $90,000 for my half-share of the restaurant, which he claimed made approximately $5,000 per annum. Document F: A photocopy of a claim made by W. C. Sinclair for the confiscated money in April 1979. It is worth noting that it was compiled by me from notes smuggled from the prison, typed by a Thai with little command or understanding of the English language and is inaccurate in parts. It is further worth noting, that it was made after my father had given a statement to Det. Sgt. Dunn but before my father had sighted the photocopy and its contents that Det. Sgt. Dunn alleges is the original statement. Document G: Photocopy of the relevant section of the Customs Act. Document H: Copy of letters written by W. C. Sinclair claiming the $145,580 on his return to Australia and replies from the respective bodies. Document I: Copy of notes taken by a lawyer, Mr Gibson from Legal Aid upon our application for their assistance in this matter. Document J: Copy of a letter sent to you by W. C. Sinclair indicating all relevant information. Document K: Photocopy of statement-please see attached forensic report. Document L: Photocopies of Sydney newspapers indicating the pressure I was under to obtain large amounts of money to stop the summary execution of my father in Thailand. I would like to explain in more detail my reasons for not making a claim for the $145,580 during the thirty day period from 19th October, 1978, allowed under the Customs Act. On being informed by my solicitor that I had thirty days to lodge a claim and that the onus was on me to provide full details as to the source of the money, I was faced with the following problems; 1. The money was held in boxes in my wife's maiden name at the ANZ Bank, Queen Street, Brisbane. My solicitor informed me that if I made the claim there was a very good chance that the Narcotics Bureau would arrest Robyn, ''to make me talk''. My wife was six months pregnant at the time and we were having serious problems with the pregnancy, the stress and strain which could result from this action I would not risk. To this day I still retain the same attitude, namely that had the money been ten times this amount I would not have risked the life of my unborn child or the health of my wife. 2. I was well aware by that stage that ''the name of the game'' in Thailand was neither guilt or innocence but money, bribes and corruption. My father's life depended heavily on just how much financial assistance I could arrange for him in Thailand, in the shortest possible period. I was then informed that if I claimed the confiscated money I risked being arrested. My legal advisors at the time advised that I should remain free and to liquidate the rest of my assets as this would be the only way I could help to free my father. The other alternative was to be arrested and have my assets frozen. 3. I also knew that my father was being held incommunicado in Thailand, although we tried, I could not get near him for a full explanation of his share of the amount-approximately $90,000. In fact his period of confinement did not expire until well after the thirty day period had lapsed. I first saw my father in prison late January, 1979, conditions did not allow for discussion of any type, especially that of a rational nature. As well, I was still pre-occupied with saving my father's life. 4. Due to my absolute look of credibility at the time, the continuing inaccurate and distorted media reports and not being able to acquire any business records (see document D) until January 2rd, 1979 which extended well outside the period allowed by the Customs Act, I had no recourse available to me. This was further complicated by the fact that I knew that my former partner, D. A. Taylor, had told the Federal Narcotic Bureau that, 'He did not know where my income came from.' Please remember that he was a solicitor and the former Mayor of Waverley, New South Wales, whilst I was the son of William Sinclair; hardly a match in credibility. The Federal Narcotic Bureau did finally believe my income when in February/March I was able to produce the figures from the restaurant. Simply by deducting the amounts actually recorded as takings, from the amounts banked in 1978, they could see a very large discrepancy. 5. During the time allowed to claim in late 1978, I had no idea what the future held or at the four years it would take to try my father in Thailand. I was naive in my belief that by working to clear my father's name and achieving his freedom, that the confiscated funds would be automatically returned by the Federal Government. I could not foresee that Det. Sgt. Dunn would also arrest me and force me to spend over one year clearing myself; nor could I foresee this highly questionable statement taken by Det. Sgt. Dunn, containing such a false explanation as to the sources of the money. I have no need to recount to you the difficulty and obstructions we have all experienced obtaining and refuting its contents. Please also note that the Federal Narcotic Bureau had a photocopy of the ''alleged original'' in their possession from late January or early February, 1979, my farther's complaints about this statement were only just being heard. I have been fully investigated by the Taxation Department and have been assessed on a large sum I am unable to pay, based on my income from the restaurant. I have explained the situation fully, however, they still insist on instituting bankruptcy proceedings against me, based on a judgment against me in 1980. One further interesting point to make is that I have been informed that the confiscated money was held, wrapped and sealed in a parcel, at the Reserve Bank in Brisbane and not paid into consolidated revenue until after my father's return to Australia in late May, 1982. We are very indebted to you for your efforts and support, thank you once again for all your interest. Yours faithfully, G. Sinclair PARLIAMENT OF AUSTRALIA The Senate Commonwealth Parliament Offices 400 Flinders Street Melbourne 3000 Telegraphic Address: 'Commemroom' Melbourne Telephone: 62 2521 2 June 1983 Senator the Hon. Gareth Evans Commonwealth Attorney-General Parliament House Canberra, ACT 2600 Dear Attorney-General, Gregory William Sinclair and William Charles Garfield Sinclair-claim for $145,580 seized on 19 October 1978 in Brisbane Queensland, by reason of Section 229A (2) (a) of the Customs Act I refer to my representations by letter to you of 1 June 1983 and my discussion with you last evening in delivering those representations and accompanying documents. I desire to add the following information: (1) Today I have received from my constituent Gregory W. Sinclair a letter dated 31 May 1983 setting out details of the other notices of seizure relating to the above amount, as known to him. My representations to you relate also to those notices and I enclose a copy of Gregory W. Sinclair's letter. (2) You asked me the derivation of the $41,000 bail moneys referred to in the last paragraph of my letter of 1 June 1983. I have checked and found that my reply was not fully accurate. Some $25,000 of the bail moneys came from an advance from the publishers of William Sinclair's book on his prison experience in Thailand, and the balance was substantially a payment from a close member of the Sinclair family. (3) Mr Gregory Sinclair has pointed out to me that, when these matters were being investigated by the Commonwealth Taxation authorities, both Mr Ross Black of the Investigation Section (Sydney) and Commander Max Rogers formerly of the Narcotics Squad (Brisbane) but now retired, questioned Gregory Sinclair at length and their conclusions may be of value to the Government in assessing my constituent's claims. Yours sincerely, ALAN MISSEN Senator for Victoria Enc. Senator MISSEN —I thank the Senate. Honourable senators will be able to see the way in which this claim was made. The representation was that the Government should exercise any discretion available or act on a petition of right to set aside the times prescribed under the Customs Act to enable justice to be done to the applicants, either by returning the money seized to the applicants forthwith or by enabling them to file notices of objection to the seizure. I pointed out in that letter-this is one of the curious things-that Mr William Sinclair was never served with notice of the seizure. It was served on the person who handed over the money to the Customs officers. He has since been sued over it; but I do not think that the man is worth suing. Mr Sinclair was never, in fact, served with the notice and he never received it. At the conclusion of my letter of 1 June I said: I contend that it would be unconscionable for the Australian Government to maintain the seizure of moneys in the circumstances revealed in the documents which I now enclose and I trust you will exercise your discretion to see that justice is done. I repeat that today. What has happened in the meantime is even more unjust and unconscionable. In addition, on 27 June 1983 I forwarded a copy of the notice of seizure, which we had not had originally, and for some considerable time we had no response from the Government. Very often I spoke to Senator Button. I saw him in the corridor and said: 'What is happening on this matter?' The matter was referred almost immediately by the then Attorney-General to Senator Button, and we had a long period of obfuscation and delay, and even at one stage, the loss of the whole file. I wonder whether the file is still lost. Perhaps that is the solution to this matter. Senator Button —You have lost a few letters that your clients wrote; that is your problem. Senator MISSEN —You lost them, did you? Senator Button —You lost them. Senator MISSEN —Did we? I am not aware of that. That is news to me. Whatever my clients say, they may also have tried to get some action from Senator Button. If so, they have had no more success than I have had. Ultimately, on 28 May 1984, Senator Button, who is the Minister at the table, replied. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the reply of 28 May 1984. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Office of the Minister for Industry and Commerce Parliament House Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 28th May 1984 Dear Senator Missen, I refer to your letter of 2 February 1984 concerning the claim by Mr W. Sinclair and Mr G. Sinclair for $145,580 seized under the provisions of the Customs Act 1901. I apologise for the delay in replying to your letter, however the matter is somewhat complex and has required consultation between officers of my own and other Departments. In your letter of 1 June 1983 to my colleague the Attorney-General you sought the opportunity for Messrs Sinclair to object to the seizure or the return to them of the moneys. I note that the Attorney-General in his letter to you on 11 August 1983 expressed the view that Messrs Sinclair should seek legal advice on their position in this respect. I support that view. Whilst the provisions of the Customs Act exclude any late claim under its terms there is, I consider, a genuine question as to whether there are other grounds in law which might be open to Messrs Sinclair in order to establish their claim to the moneys. Whilst the possibility of legal proceedings remains I do not think it is appropriate for the Commonwealth to grant a concession to Messrs Sinclair. Considerations relevant to the making of a recommendation to His Excellency the Governor-General, that he exercise his prerogative of mercy and remit the forfeiture would have to include my being satisfied that there was no doubt touching the origin or ownership of the goods in question. I believe I should also have regard to the existence of any legal right of review of which your constituents could now avail themselves. Having regard to the history of this matter I believe there are proper grounds for doubting the claims by Mr W. Sinclair and Mr G. Sinclair that they are lawfully entitled to possession of the money. With kindest regards Yours sincerely JOHN N. BUTTON Senator A. J. Missen Parliament House Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Senator MISSEN —In that reply, Senator Button herewith referred to the provisions of the Customs Act. He said, among other things, that there was a possibility that something could be done in law. He said: Whilst the possibility of legal proceedings remains I do not think it is appropriate for the Commonwealth to grant a concession to Messrs Sinclair. It will be noted that there was no suggestion that it would not be done, but he said that it should not happen-and this was a reasonable attitude-if there were legal proceedings. He then said: Considerations relevant to the making of a recommendation to His Excellency the Governor-General, that he exercise his prerogative of mercy and remit the forfeiture would have to include my being satisfied that there was no doubt touching the origin or ownership of the goods in question. He said that if there was no doubt in his mind whatsoever-not a reasonable doubt or the balance of probabilities; no doubt in his mind whatsoever-he might return the goods. A little later on it will be seen that the Minister, when exercising his discretion-a discretion that might be not as great as that-did not put on the applicants anything like the higher onus that he put on them at that stage. I wrote back to the Minister on 29 August 1984. There was quite a bit of other correspondence which I have not produced; some of it I do not have in Canberra at present. We had obtained counsel's opinion. Already Messrs Sinclair had obtained counsel's opinion, from Mr Alan Archibald, a noted counsel in Melbourne, and a further opinion from Mr Weinberg, Barrister at Law and Dean of the Faculty of Law at Melbourne University. Their opinions, which I then sent to the Minister, were that there was no way in which they could proceed without this technical liability being overcome so that they could proceed to try to dispute the seizure. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the letter that I wrote to the Minister dated 29 August 1984. Leave granted. The letter read as follows:- PARLIAMENT OF AUSTRALIA THE SENATE Commonwealth Parliament Offices 400 Flinders Street Melbourne 3000 Telegraphic Address: 'Commemroom', Melbourne Telephone: 62 2521 29th August 1984 Senator the Hon. John Button Minister for Industry and Commerce Parliament House Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Minister, Re: W. and G. Sinclair-Claims for Moneys Seized Under the Provisions of the Customs Act 1901 I refer to your letter to me of the 28th May 1984, which I referred to Messrs. W. and G. Sinclair and their Solicitors, for consideration. I have now received, and enclose herewith, copy of a memorandum of advice from Mr Weinberg, Barrister at Law and Dean of the Faculty of Law at Melbourne University. In it he refers to earlier advice which had been received by Messrs. Sinclair from Mr Alan Archibald of Counsel. You will see that there is general agreement between counsel that there is no possibility, in law, of the Sinclairs instituting successful action against the Commonwealth, for reasons that are given in the opinions. I therefore suggest to you that this now answers the question which you raised in your letter of the 28th May 1984 in respect to the possibility of further litigation with the Commonwealth on this subject. I return to my request to you that you, as Minister, should exercise your undoubted discretion either to waive the times within which claims can be made or, preferably, that you should return the money, because there seems to be no suggestion or evidence that these moneys were associated with drug activities. You will note also, of course, that apparently no notice of seizure was given and this should, I would suggest, influence your judgment. The fact that there are some doubts as to the precise extent of ownership of the moneys by the respective parties is a matter that might require more clarification but there seems no doubt as to the amount of money which was received from a third party, which had previously been in the possession of the Sinclairs. I would suggest that there is ample reason why you should exercise your discretion in either of the ways which I have indicated, and it would be a gross injustice on the part of the Commonwealth if it were to hold on moneys to which it patently has no just claim. I should be pleased to hear from you at an early date. Yours sincerely, ALAN MISSEN Senator for Victoria Enc. c.c. Mercer Lewenberg &Pryles Messrs W. &G. Sinclair Senator MISSEN —Within that letter I forwarded counsel's advice. We pointed out that there was no possibility, in counsel's view, of further litigation on the subject. We referred again to the fact that no notice of seizure was ever received by one of the persons concerned. We pointed out that there were some doubts as to the precise extent of the ownership of the money between the two parties; there was some doubt as to how much was owned by the father and how much was owned by the son. It was not a dispute between father and son, but there was a bit of obscurity as to where one's ownership of the money ended and the other's ownership began. We received next, and after a considerable further delay, a letter dated 29 November 1984 from the Minister at the table, Senator Button. I seek leave to incorporate that letter in Hansard. Leave granted. The letter read as follows: Minister for Industry and Commerce Parliament House Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 29 November 1984 Dear Senator Missen I refer to your letter of 29 August 1984 concerning the claim by Messrs William and Gregory Sinclair to money forfeited to the Commonwealth, following its seizure by the Federal Narcotics Bureau in October 1978. You have asked that I waive the time in which a claim might be made for the money or that I return the money to Messrs Sinclair. In considering these matters I have had regard to Counsels' opinion which you enclosed and I continue in the view that it would not be appropriate for me to exceed to your request to waive the time constraint. I do not consider litigation should be facilitated in such a way, unless the situation reliably demonstrates the presence of an arguable claim which would otherwise fail to be heard. Equally, I consider such a claim should be supported by an arguable case as to its merits. Having reached this view I also note that with the full benefit of instructions, Counsel do not consider that a claim would succeed if litigated. I have considered whether I should have a recommendation placed before his Excellency the Governor-General that he exercise his discretion to remit the forfeiture and I have decided that I should not. I reached this view because I am not satisfied that Messrs Sinclair were the true owners of the money prior to its seizure and because I am not satisfied that the money was not narcotic related goods for the purposes of paragraph 264 (2) (c) of the Customs Act 1901. Equally, I do not consider that the forfeiture of the moneys took place in circumstances which were beyond the control of Messrs Sinclair such that they were denied the opportunity to establish a claim according to law, they considered at the time that they were lawfully permitted. I am satisfied that the position was fully understood by them and they took the view that it would be inappropriate for them to do so. Yours sincerely JOHN N. BUTTON Senator the Hon. Alan Missen Commonwealth Parliament Offices 400 Flinders Street Melbourne, Victoria 3000 Senator MISSEN —This letter contains the amazing refusal which then took place. The Minister said that he did not intend to waive the claim. He said that he had considered the counsel's opinion which I had enclosed, and that it would not be appropriate for him to accede to my request to waive the time constraint. He said: I do not consider litigation should be facilitated in such a way, unless the situation reliably demonstrates the presence of an arguable claim which would otherwise fail to be heard. An arguable claim; that is all the Minister contended for, and it is surely all that is reasonable. If there is an arguable claim, surely a citizen of this country should be allowed to exercise it. The Minister went on to say that he had reached the view that he would not place the matter before His Excellency the Governor-General for him to exercise his discretion. He said: I reached this view because I am not satisfied that Messrs Sinclair were the true owners of the money prior to its seizure and because I am not satisfied that the money was not narcotic related . . . Throughout this period we had pointed out a number of witnesses who ought to have been questioned. There were people in the Customs department, people retired from that department and people from the Australian Federal Police who had interviewed those people. A number of people from the Taxation Office had interviewed Sinclair Junior. In fact, he was threatened with bankruptcy. It is extraordinary that he has been charged tax on this money which, it was claimed, he earned and it was also claimed on which he was clearly evading tax. He has paid the penalty for that. He has been charged extra penalties. He has paid those while the money has been taken from him because it is claimed that it is drug related. He has had it against him both ways. So far as I can ascertain the witnesses and investigators who have spoken to these two men have never been questioned by the Minister's Department or by anyone. They have not been seen again. So much for the examination that enables the Minister to satisfy himself that there is no case for him to exercise discretion. It is scandalous that the Department has not bothered to check up on the facts that were made available. That was the Minister's reply, after no real examination of the facts. Mr Garry Sturgess, who now runs the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Law Report and who has taken an interest in this case over the years, and I got together again and I wrote on 11 January 1985 to the Minister, making a further and lengthy demand, setting out the facts and the outrageous conduct which I believe has been carried on. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard my letter to the Minister of 11 January 1985. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- PARLIAMENT OF AUSTRALIAThe Senate Commonwealth Parliament Offices 400 Flinders Street Melbourne, Vic 3000 Telephone: 62 2521 11th January 1985 Senator the Hon. John Button Minister for Industry and Commerce Parliament House Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Minister, Re: Messrs William and Gregory Sinclair - Seizure of $145,580 Under The Customs Act 1901 I refer to your letter of the 25th November 1984 and ask you to seriously reconsider the decisions you have made. You first decided it would be inappropriate to waive the time constraint for claiming the money. The whole history of the Sinclair case 'reliably demonstrates' that what you say is an essential precondition for waiving the time limit; that is 'the presence of an arguable claim which would otherwise fail to be heard'. The Sinclairs have repeatedly claimed the seized money had nothing to do with the importation of narcotics. They are supported in this claim by two Thai appeals courts (including that country's highest court) in relation to Mr William Sinclair, and by a New South Wales Court in relation to Mr Gregory Sinclair. Since returning to Australia in May 1982, not one representative of the Federal or State police, nor any Royal Commission official, nor any official of any State of the Commonwealth Government, has approached Mr Sinclair in relation to the money or any other matter to do with narcotics or anything else. The Sinclairs have, however, made explanations as to the ownership and derivation of the money to various officials and to legal counsel which, at the very least, set up an arguable claim, one which, without your waiver, would otherwise fail to be heard. Mr William Sinclair was not even served with the notice required to be delivered under the Act; and the person who had possession, custody or control of the money upon seizure, Mr Jeffs, who was served with a notice, is currently being sued by the Sinclairs for conversion. The Writ issued in the Supreme Court of Queensland charges that Mr Jeffs failed to exercise proper care and custody of the forfeited money, delivering it to a third party and now being unable to recover it. At the time the money was seized, Mr William Sinclair was being held incommunicado in Thailand and under threat of execution without trial. His son, Mr Gregory Sinclair, was bending his every efforts to avoid this from happening. It was in these circumstances, of which more later, that Gregory Sinclair made the decision not to object to the seizure of the money. He made the decision, backed by legal advice, that to lodge an objection would have led to the arrest of him and his wife (then six months pregnant), the freezing of his assets, and that in all the circumstances the interests of his father's life were best served if he remained free and in a position to capitalise his assets and send the resulting money to Thailand. You say in your letter, having decided not to waive the time constraint, 'I also note, that with the full benefit of instructions, Counsel do not consider that a claim would succeed if litigated'. Counsel do not think the claim would succeed precisely because the Sinclairs are out of time and being out of time can make no claim for the money. If you were to waive the time constraint the whole basis for counsel's opinion would be removed. The opinion of Mr Archibald and that of Mr Weinberg have nothing to do with the merits of the case. Mr Weinberg writes: ''I agree entirely with Mr Archibald that for technical reasons it would be impossible for either of the Sinclairs to recover the moneys seized . . . '' . The technical reasons which he refers to are to do with the fact that no notice of objection was lodged within the time period. I also find it ironic that you have refused waiver of the time limit partly basing your decision on counsel's opinion which you had in fact requested. Mr Weinberg's opinion came about as a direct result of your letter to me of the 25th May 1984. You say there: 'Whilst the possibility of legal proceedings remains I do not think it is appropriate for the Commonwealth to grant a concession to Messrs Sinclair'. On the basis of this, and an earlier letter by the then Attorney-General of the 11th August 1983 which you refer to, the Sinclairs, at further expense to themselves, sought legal advice to the effect that there was 'no possibility of legal proceedings remain(ing)'. This advice you then use against them to choke off the possibility of their objecting to the seizure of the money out of time. But whilst using this against them you at the same time seem to have ignored that part of the advice which is clearly favourable to them when deciding that his Excellency, the Governor-General, should not exercise his discretion to remit the forfeiture. Mr Weinberg, who in addition to being a barrister, is the Dean of Melbourne University Law School, says he has studied the case closely and 'it now appears that those moneys were unconnected with any dealings in prohibited imports, and were the property of those two men'. You say that you are not satisfied Messrs Sinclair were the true owners of the money, yet you deny them any opportunity of establishing that case. In addition to Mr Weinberg, there is Mr Archibald's opinion, which says in relation to Mr Gregory Sinclair: 'I see no reason why he should not have been regarded as 'the owner' of the moneys which he contends were his property'. That he is the true owner of part of the sum claimed is the opinion of the Federal Tax Office which has assessed him, on the basis that it is his money, for a sum of more than $20,000-only a small fraction of which remains unpaid. So while you deny his claims and his right to establish them, another Commonwealth Department insists on his ownership and taxes him on it as income. I am advised that, of all the people mentioned in the course of Woodward Commission, Mr Gregory Sinclair is the only one to step forward and make full disclosures about the amounts and sources of his income. As mentioned earlier he was charged with conspiring to import narcotics into New South Wales. The charge was curtly dismissed by the Magistrate, and three other people charged on matters arising from related facts, were acquitted by a New South Wales District Court. Mr Gregory Sinclair gave a full account of his finances as far back as 28th February 1979 to two officers of the Federal Narcotics Bureau. It is clear from the record of interview that his share of the seized money derived from an extremely lucrative Brisbane restaurant of which he was a principal at the time. I am advised that Mrs Robyn Sinclair, nee Sherratt, in whose name the seized money was held in safety deposit boxes in the ANZ Bank at the corner of Queen and Creek Streets, Brisbane, has never been questioned about the ownership and derivation of the money. Mrs Robyn Sinclair withdrew the forfeited money immediately prior to seizure and it was passed to Mr Jeffs. It is interesting to note that a sum of $22,840 left in the deposit boxes was later seized by the Narcotics Bureau. When its seizure was objected to, the Sinclairs were able to satisfy the authorities as to its ownership and that it was in no way derived from the illicit sale of drugs. They received this money back despite the fact that it formed part of a pool of money which you are refusing to either give back or allow the Sinclairs the opportunity of objecting to its seizure. It is disturbing that you have apparently come to your decision about ownership and derivation of the money without reference to the investigating officers in the case. To the best of my knowledge neither former Commander, Mr Max Rogers, nor his assistant, Mr John Robinson, formerly of the Federal Narcotics Bureau, have been consulted in relation to the decision you have reached. I drew your attention to my letter to the Attorney-General, Senator Evans, (2nd June 1983), when I specifically drew attention to the then investigations of Commander Max Rogers and Mr Ross Black. In making your decision about ownership and derivation of part of the seized money you might well have had regard to a statement allegedly made by Mr William Sinclair on the 22nd December 1978, to two New South Wales policemen in Thailand to collect evidence for the Woodward Royal Commission. This was to the effect that the money was the property of an Arthur Stanley Smith. Mr Sinclair has consistently denied making the statement, claiming it as a forgery. Having regard to the whole extraordinary history of the statement (see my parliamentary speech, 15th December 1982, Adjournment), it would, in my view, be totally unfair for you to attach any weight whatsoever to it. If indeed you do attach weight to the statement, it can only apply to that part of the forfeited money belonging to Mr William Sinclair. In asking you to reconsider your decision, I think something should be said about the extraordinary circumstances enveloping the Sinclair family since the arrest of Mr William Sinclair on 11th October 1979. It is my view, and there is ample evidence to support it, that Mr Sinclair's arrest and conviction came about because of the improper conduct of Australian officials. They acted in breach of international law and of Australian Government Guidelines governing the conduct of our police and officials abroad. As a result of their actions, fully detailed in a series of articles in the Melbourne Age by lawyer and journalist Garry Sturgess and by my speech to the Parliament on 27th May 1982, an Australian citizen was placed in the position of being in danger of being executed without trial. During a period when he was being held incommunicado and when his fate seemed to depend on the amount of money his family could send to Thailand, an amount of $145,580 was seized by the Crown. In the midst of everything else the family had to worry about, uppermost in their mind being the life of Mr William Sinclair, they had further to decide within 30 days whether to object to the seizure of the money or forfeit it forever. For Mr William Sinclair's part, he was not and could not have been notified of the seizure, and he has since told me that even if he had been informed, he was like the man about to be hanged. His mind was concentrated, but not on that. I am enclosing Mr Gregory Sinclair's explanation of why he did not object within the 30 days. When the threat of execution without trial had passed, it was the evidence of Australian officials which led to Mr Sinclair's conviction. The evidence given would not have been admissible in Australian courts. It was disputed at all times by Mr Sinclair and was eventually rejected by two Thai courts of appeal. In the meantime, Mr Sinclair spent more than three and a half years in a Thai prison. It is estimated that Messrs Sinclair have spent upwards of $150,000 in legal fees to do with the case. In addition, the Thai authorities have improperly confiscated $20,000 bail, notwithstanding the fact that Mr Sinclair has been cleared of all charges in Thailand. The social, psychological and financial position of the Sinclair family has been severely affected by the events of the past six years, and it is in the context of all this that the Australian Government is now withholding $145,580 of the family's money. The claim made by me in June 1983 was fobbed off and not answered until November 1984. To add insult to injury, Mr Gregory Sinclair has had to pay tax on the amount. The Government's action is unconscionable. Again, I ask you to reconsider your decision. I am advised that Messrs Sinclair would, at the very least, like to be given the opportunity of personally discussing their case with you and with any members of your Department. Before I take further action in respect to this shocking denial of human rights and justice, disclosed by this letter, I ask that, within fourteen days, you give an opportunity to Messrs Sinclair to see you and answer any further questions you desire to ask. Yours sincerely, ALAN MISSEN Senator for Victoria Senator MISSEN —I retailed in that letter many of the things I have already said tonight. I pointed out the opinions which were obtained. I pointed out, among other things, that the opinions of counsel made clear that these men had good claims. I pointed out that Mr Weinberg said that he had studied the case and further said: . . . it now appears that those moneys were unconnected with any dealings in prohibited imports, and were the property of those two men. I also pointed out the statements of Mr Weinberg and Mr Archibald in relation to Gregory Sinclair: I see no reason why he should not have been regarded as 'the owner' of the moneys which he contends were his property. It is also pointed out that a further sum of more than $20,000 was seized at one stage and returned. One wonders on what basis some was returned and the rest was retained. Among other things, I said: It is disturbing that you have apparently come to your decision about ownership and derivation of the money without reference to the investigating officers in the case. To the best of my knowledge neither former Commander, Mr Max Rogers, nor his assistant, Mr John Robinson, formerly of the Federal Narcotics Bureau, have been consulted in relation to the decision you have reached. I drew your attention to my letter to the Attorney-General, Senator Evans, (2nd June 1983), when I specifically drew attention to the then investigations of Commander Max Rogers and Mr Ross Black. The Minister and his Department are not prepared to see these people and to ascertain their impressions and beliefs on the matter. I do not know how the Minister has made his decision. It does not appear clear from any correspondence. I proceeded to make the claim and to point out, among other things: . . . Messrs Sinclair have spent upwards of $150,000 in legal fees to do with the case. In addition, the Thai authorities have improperly confiscated $20,000 bail, notwithstanding the fact that Mr Sinclair has been cleared of all charges in Thailand. The social, psychological and financial position of the Sinclair family has been severely affected by the events of the past six years, and it is in the context of all this that the Australian Government is now withholding $145,580 of the family's money. The claim made by me in June 1983 was fobbed off and not answered until November 1984. To add insult to injury, Mr Gregory Sinclair has had to pay tax on the amount. The Government's action is unconscionable. That letter has never had a reply from the Minister or any member of the Government. A copy of it was also sent to Senator Gareth Evans, who I am pleased to see is in the chamber, although Senator Button, whom I asked to be present and who was here for a while, has now departed. Senator Evans unfortunately is not taking any interest but is here. He had copies of this later correspondence because early on he had received claims from me and I had hoped that he might have intervened because he was, I thought, an apostle of justice, liberty and the rights of citizens. But one appears to be disappointed in that respect. Since January I have received no reply, no response, whatsoever. On 4 March 1985 I wrote again to the Minister. I seek leave to incorporate that letter in Hansard. Leave granted. The letter read as follows - PARLIAMENT OF AUSTRALIA The Senate Commonwealth Parliament Offices 400 Flinders Street Melbourne, Vic. 6000 Telephone 62 0521 4th March 1985 Senator the Hon. John Button Minister for Industry and Commerce Parliament House Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Minister, Messrs William and Gregory Sinclair-Seizure of $145,580 Under The Customs Act 1901 I refer to my letter to you of the 11th January, 1985, and my request then for an answer within the next fourteen days. I pointed out then that I would have to take further action if I did not hear anything about this denial of human rights and justice, as disclosed in your previous letter. When I spoke to you in the corridor a few days ago it was apparent that you had never seen this letter sent on the 11th January, 1985, and you then undertook to have a look at it. There has been a long period of delay associated with this matter, and I think I have been extremely patient. I must ask for a substantive answer from you before we resume the next sitting, otherwise I intend to raise this matter in the Parliament, and to set out the course which these matters have taken. Yours sincerely, ALAN MISSEN Senator for Victoria Senator MISSEN —That letter reiterated what I had said and the fact that I had spoken to him in the corridor a few days earlier, at which stage he appeared to have no knowledge of my long letter of 11 January, knew nothing about it and would find out about it. I pointed out that I was going to raise this matter in the Parliament unless I got a substantive answer before the next sittings. The next sittings have now arrived and on Friday I advised the Minister by letter that I intended to raise this matter tonight. This is a shocking indictment of the Government and of the Minister in particular. We see a cynical attitude, one department charging moneys and tax on those moneys and another department forfeiting the moneys. For a technical reason which it was beyond these people reasonably to overcome they have been deprived of their opportunity to seek to establish their claim in the courts of this country. As will be seen from my earlier speech, they have suffered at the hands of Australian officials and police who gave false evidence. Fortunately that case in Thailand was ultimately thrown out. They have suffered from the obfuscation of the Wran Government over a period. They have suffered in the last two years because of delay and because of the sheer lack of a sense of justice in this Minister and this Government. I realise that my clients may not be without fault in the community. They may not have an absolutely perfect record. I am sure that that is so. Of course, they avoided tax, evaded tax, and, therefore, probably in the eyes of the Minister do not deserve the consideration that other people would have. I put them forward as citizens who have suffered. This is a disgraceful performance on the part of the Government. Senator Button has retired from the chamber, and I can presume from that only that he is not going to reply tonight, as he should do. He must be familiar with this matter by now. It is a matter of complete shame which I hope other people and the media in this community will take up in the interests of justice. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales)(10.26) —I rise to confront certain matters raised in an article in the Age newspaper on Saturday, 23 March 1985. The article, headed 'Secret letter names Labor pair', suggests that a Federal Labor politician and a senior New South Wales Australian Labor Party figure have been 'caught out' by illegal police telephone taps. The article quotes a letter written to Mr Justice Stewart in January this year as saying that the two men had discussed 'matters which they were now very embarrassed about'. The letter to which the Age refers and on which the article is based was written apparently anonymously by a person claiming to be a New South Wales police officer. I hasten to add that the quotes which I have just read out are from the notes I took from a telephone conversation with a journalist on Friday night. I am apparently one of the few people in the building yet to see the letter. Today in Question Time in another place a number of questions were asked of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) concerning this letter. It was further referred to in the matter of public importance debate which followed Question Time. I was not aware of the existence of the letter until last Friday evening when I got home from Canberra and received a message to ring a reporter at the Age. After I had spoken to that reporter I rang the Attorney-General at his home and asked whether such a letter did exist. He told me that the letter had been sent to Mr Justice Stewart as far back as January and that it had also been sent to Mr Nick Greiner, the Opposition Leader in New South Wales, to Mr John Hatton, an independent member of the New South Wales Parliament, and also to Mr Neville Wran, the Premier of New South Wales. After watching the events as they unfolded today it is clear that the Opposition was wrestling with its ever-shrinking conscience about naming the Federal Labor politician concerned. I rise tonight to ease its burden. It is surprising that it has taken so long for this matter to be raised, given that those members of the New South Wales Parliament whom I have just mentioned had possession of this letter since January. To raise this sort of smear in any parliament, devoid as it is of any specifics and contained in an anonymous letter, requires a lack of scruples that knows no limits. It is worth noting that neither Mr Greiner nor Mr Hatton has raised the matter over the last few months. I am the Federal Labor politician whose name appears in that anonymous letter. I know of no reason to be embarrassed about any matter referred to on the so-called Age tapes. I am not aware of being mentioned in despatches anywhere else that would be likely to cause me embarrassment. Perhaps all honourable senators could agree on one point: If I were mentioned in the Age tapes, I am sure that by now we would all know about it. This latest smear is most difficult to erase. It comes only a few days after yet another set of scurrilous accusations about me was rejected by Mr Justice Stewart when I was cleared in his report only last week. Again I find myself endeavouring to protect my reputation against shadows and clouds which I find very difficult to pin down. McCarthyist innuendo and the hope that the 'where there is smoke there is fire' principle will act to damage me obviously spur on my political opponents. There can be no doubt that some harm springs from this reprehensible practice. Distress is caused to myself and my family as expectations build up that something big is about to drop. When nothing drops, it does not really matter because the damage is done by the media hype that engulfs these episodes. This time I am accused of no crime, no wrongdoing; in that sense I am answering a non-allegation. I can only inform the Senate that I have no knowledge whatsoever of any wrongdoing on my part. If anyone else in this Parliament or outside it has such knowledge that he or she wishes to bring forward to any forum in the land, I will welcome it. I know that this will not happen; I rest secure in that knowledge. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.30) —I rise to speak on the adjournment debate tonight, which is rather unusual for me, about two matters. The first concerns the question that Senator Aulich addressed to the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, last week on the Craigbourne Dam. Senator Walsh was very critical of the Tasmanian Government spending any money on the Craigbourne Dam. He used such colourful phrases as 'a gross waste of money', 'idiocy', 'lunacy', and the like. Just before the election in 1983 the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, and the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, went around Tasmania. Prior to the election they thought the Craigbourne Dam was an excellent idea. The Tasmanian Country newspaper deals with rural matters. An article in that newspaper was headed 'Irrigation ''carrot'' for rural voters' and stated: Irrigation schemes are the main carrot being dangled in front of rural electors in Tasmania. Both major parties have promised to totally fund the Craigbourne dam on the Coal River totally out of Federal Funds at a cost of $6.5 million. Senator Walsh did not on that occasion tell us that funding of the dam was lunacy and a gross waste of money. Indeed, the Tasmanian Country on 25 February 1983 under the heading 'Dam commitment' stated: During a visit to Tasmania last weekend, Mr Kerin confirmed the Labor Party's commitment to going ahead with farm irrigation proposals. Mr Kerin said that a Labor Government would definitely go ahead with the construction of the Craigbourne dam and also the Winnaleah irrigation proposal. Construction of the Warners Creek dam would also proceed under a Federal Labor Government. We are used to broken promises in this Parliament. In the Senate we have heard the Government make all sorts of promises to the Australian people. The only one it kept was its promise to stop the Franklin Dam. It ill becomes a senator, a new Tasmanian senator at that, to come into this place following the last election and ask the Minister for Finance, who was a member of the Government that promised Federal funding for the construction of the Craigbourne Dam, whether he was aware of the revelations about the gross waste of public money involved in the plan for the Craigbourne Dam. Senator Walsh said that he was not aware until that morning of the apparent resurrection of that lunatic proposition. The Government promised that 'lunatic proposition' to the people of the south-east coast of Tasmania prior to the election. It made a commitment to build the Craigbourne Dam. Such is the hypocrisy of this Government that the people of Tasmania are certainly becoming very used to it. Senator Peter Rae —In that one, Senator, it was even worse in that it was a Dorothy Dix question and not something that was without preparation. Don't you agree? Senator WALTERS —As Senator Peter Rae says, it was a question set up by the Minister. As such it was, I believe, grossly irresponsible. I touch briefly on another matter. Very recently there was a strike by Australia Post employees in both Tasmania and Victoria. During the week of the strike, I attempted to send a telegram from my office. I believed that telegram to be a very important one. I was told that the post office was not taking any telegrams by telephone and that if I wanted to send one I would have to go to the post office. A member of my staff went to the post office to send that telegram for me. As I have not been able to contact the intended recipient of that telegram, I still do not know whether it was delivered. I know that my money was accepted. I also know of a constituent who sent a telegram at the same time. That constituent's money was accepted, but the telegram was never delivered. The money was accepted, but the constituent was not told that the telegram would not be delivered. It was only because the recipient was waiting for that telegram and finally rang to find out what had happened to it that the information was given that the telegram had been sent a week before and had never arrived. On ringing Australia Post and demanding the reason for this non-delivery, my constituent was told that there had been a strike and that telegrams were not being delivered. When Australia Post was questioned as to what on earth happened in a matter of life and death-for example, if the telegram was of great urgency, perhaps informing relatives that a parent might be dying-the constituent was told that the union had taken it upon itself to decide whether to forward a telegram or not. The union decided whether the telegram was of such importance that it would be delivered. Senator Kilgariff —Or was the situation that the money went into somebody's pocket? Senator WALTERS —I have no knowledge of that; I do not believe anyone else would have either. I honestly have no idea whether the telegram I sent that week, for which I paid from my pocket, was ever delivered. I do know that a telegram paid for by my constituent was never delivered and that that constituent was not told it would not be delivered. On ringing Australia Post, the constituent found out that Australia Post employees were on strike and that telegrams were not being delivered. I ask the Minister for Community Services, Senator Grimes: What action is available to customers of Australia Post to recover money paid to have a service that has never been undertaken? Senator Kilgariff —Or to ensure that it did not go into somebody's pocket. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(10.39) —I have no knowledge of the matters raised by Senator Walters, but I will certainly seek a reply. I am afraid that I have no faith in the accuracy of anything Senator Walters says in this place, so I will have to check those claims. I find the remarks of Senator Kilgariff typically disgraceful. Certainly, if services are paid for and are not received, people should receive a refund. That is the first thing I say. Senator Kilgariff —And if it goes into somebody's pocket? Senator GRIMES —Secondly, I find somebody like Senator Kilgariff coming into this place and making accusations of that type, not while on his feet but by way of interjection, quite offensive. It is typical of Senator Kilgariff and his behaviour. I will certainly seek to check the information that has been given here tonight by Senator Walters. If that information is factual and if some people are owed some money, I believe that the Government should pay that money. I have no argument with that at all. I would certainly want to check the information, just as I would want to check if Senator Walters said that it was a good day. The next matter I refer to is the Craigbourne Dam. Let us have a little talk about it. Senator Walters —Please do. Your promises first. Senator GRIMES —For a change I did not interject when Senator Walters was speaking, so how about if the honourable senator does not interject when I am speaking. The Craigbourne Dam was put forward first of all as a proposal to the Premier of Tasmania, Mr Gray. The people of the Coal River came to me and said: 'Can you do something about this because Mr Gray says it is not on and it is not economical'. That is the first point, and that is a fact. I talked to the Coal River people. I was told that the construction of that dam at $5m-I think it is now about $7m-was for the use of the people in the Coal River area, that it was a self-contained project, that it would enable those people to grow crops at wondrous rates and revolutionise agriculture in the Coal River area in the south-east corner of Tasmania, and that it would be of great benefit to the people in that area. At the time I did not know that it would benefit only 50-odd farmers and that it would involve a subsidy of something like $40,000 a year. What I was not told but what Mr Gray knew at the time was that it is not a self-contained project. By itself it means nothing. What it involves is a south-west irrigation scheme costing between $30m and $50m which involves pumping water eventually over the mountains into the valley, which will never be a viable proposition. It will only be viable and only be economic under one circumstance and that is if the population of Hobart moves into that area and it becomes an urban area and the people there get not only the $40,000 a year subsidy but also the huge profits from selling their land for that urban expansion. When all those facts became known and all those facts became obvious, of course we would not buy into that situation. Senator Walters would want the Government to buy into that situation. I wonder whether she and her relatives have any land in that area. I think that matter is worth investigating. Senator Messner —That is offensive. Senator GRIMES —Of course it is offensive. Senator Walters —Mr President, I raise a point of order. Tonight you allowed the Minister to make all sorts of accusations against me and when I protested you told me not to interject. Senator Grimes has now made a very improper accusation against me and I ask him to withdraw it. I have no land in that area, as he well knows. That type of accusation is very typical of the way this man behaves in the Senate. He is a thorough disgrace to the Government and he ought to apologise immediately to me. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Grimes, Senator Walters claims to be offended by the remarks you have made. I believe that they are offensive under standing order 418 and I ask you to withdraw. Senator GRIMES —The honourable senator has answered the question and I withdraw those remarks. I think it is typical of the honourable senator that she has protested so vigorously. I suggest that she read Macbeth some time. Senator Messner —Mr President, I raise a point of order. The Minister has not withdrawn as requested and he has not apologised. Clearly, he is making assertions which have absolutely no foundation and then implies, with some innuendo, that his withdrawal applies although he has left questions in the air. I believe he should immediately withdraw unreservedly. The PRESIDENT —Order! I took it that Senator Grimes had withdrawn. If he has not, I ask him to withdraw now. Senator GRIMES —I withdraw absolutely unreservedly. I ask honourable senators to judge Senator Walters's standards by reading the speech she made in the Senate tonight about the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and asking themselves whether she can really expect to get up with impunity and make the sorts of remarks she made in that speech and expect those of us on this side of the chamber to sit back and treat her like the lady she pretends she is. I have no knowledge of the matter raised by Senator Richardson tonight. Senator Peter Rae —Obviously none of your colleagues has either. They would not even sit in here to listen to it. Senator GRIMES —I admire his courage in getting up here. I am very surprised that Senator Peter Rae, about whom I have heard accusations made and whom I have defended from such accusations, should make such a remark tonight about Senator Richardson and his colleagues. Senator Richardson made a courageous speech tonight. He gave me and you, Mr President, two minutes notice that he was going to make that speech. That is why there were not more Government senators here tonight. The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, has informed me that he will reply to Senator Missen by letter because he had to leave the chamber tonight. I apologise to Senator Missen that Senator Button could not stay here tonight. If members of the Opposition want to get up in this place and make the sorts of accusations and remarks that Senator Walters made about the Prime Minister tonight and make the remark by interjection that Senator Kilgariff made in this place tonight about individuals putting money in their pockets, they must expect some response from the honourable senators on this side of the chamber who are here. I made a response. I recommend to all honourable senators opposite the dictum that President Truman made about the heat in the kitchen. The heat in this place does not worry me at all. The remarks that Senator Walters made do not worry me at all. If Senator Walters cannot take it from this side, she had better stop dishing it out from the other side. I think it is time that everyone went home, but I dare say that my remarks will mean that someone will get up and we will not be able to go home just yet. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory) -Mr President, I seek leave to make a statement. The PRESIDENT —Is leave granted? Senator Grimes —Is it a personal explanation? The PRESIDENT —Senator Kilgariff, do you wish to amplify your reason for seeking leave? Senator KILGARIFF —Yes, Mr President. It is to answer the charges that Senator Grimes has made. Leave granted. (Quorum formed) Senator KILGARIFF —In the last few minutes of the adjournment debate Senator Grimes invited people from this side of the House to respond to the very offensive remarks that he had made. Senator Walters has every reason to stand in this place to complain about various things that happen within Tasmania. She indicated that perhaps there was something wrong within Australia Post and Telecom when constituents of hers paid for telegrams which were not delivered. She heard nothing from either Australia Post or Telecom as to why those telegrams had not been delivered and she has not been told what happened to the money that had been paid. When Senator Grimes was attacking Senator Walters very offensively I asked: 'Did they pocket the money?'. Senator Grimes then made some very offensive remarks to me. Everyone has the right to query the non-delivery of a telegram. The reason I interjected at that stage was that at present within Australia Post-and this can happen in every business; I am not blaming Australia Post, nor am I singling it out-money is being misappropriated. To back up the thought that perhaps Senator Walters's constituent's money was misappropriated, I point out that at present there are cases before the court in which employees of Australia Post have tampered with the mails- Senator Robert Ray —That is sub judice. Let us not go into that. Senator KILGARIFF —If you want evidence I will give it to you. Employees have tampered with the mails to the extent that many thousands of dollars of ordinary Australians' money has been stolen from the post. All I have said is that Senator Walters's complaint is legitimate and that she has every reason to ask the Minister responsible to give some explanation. I find it very strange that Senator Grimes should take it upon himself possibly to protect some situation in which money is being taken illegally. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services) —by leave-Very briefly I point out a couple of inaccuracies in what Senator Kilgariff has just said. In fact, Senator Kilgariff interjected with the remark that someone might have misappropriated the money while Senator Walters was speaking, not while I was speaking. That is the first thing. Secondly, I did not deny Senator Walters the right to get up here to make her claim. In fact, I have guaranteed that I will get an answer for her. I believe that if people have spent money on telegrams and those telegrams are not delivered, those people should receive reimbursement of the money. I just objected to the fact that during Senator Walters's remarks, Senator Kilgariff should make his accusations, by interjection, at this stage of the evening's proceedings about any employees in this country without one scintilla of evidence. That was the point of my objection to his remarks. If he has accusations of that type to make about employees of Australia Post, about the highest in the land or the lowest, he should get up here and give his evidence and not make his accusations in the way that he has done. That was why I made my remarks. I repeat that if people on the Opposition benches wish to make remarks like that they have to cop what they get back. If they are not willing to cop it, I suggest that they should not come in here on the adjournment and make such remarks. They should go home and go to bed where they should be and where we all should be. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.56 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Extradition (Foreign States) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 14. Navigation Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 28. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 27) Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 25 February: (1) What is the program for undertaking the promised $2m upgrading of Launceston Airport. (2) What work is included. (3) When will it be commenced. (4) When is it planned to be completed. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Neither my Government nor my Department has made any promise of a $2m upgrading at Launceston Airport. Following the redeployment of B727-300 aircraft to Tasmania major maintenance was carried out on a section of the runway at Launceston Airport in 1982, due to severe pavement deterioration. Since that time pavement concessions have been issued to allow operations by B727-200 aircraft. This has allowed all the operations required by airlines to take place; in fact the concessions issued have not been fully utilised. The pavement condition is being closely monitored and appropriate maintenance is being carried out. A system of regular inspections is being undertaken which will form the basis of future works programming. Senator Gareth Evans —On 27 February (Hansard, page 238) Senator Primmer asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, without notice: Is the Minister aware of recent reports indicating increased abuse of the human rights of Palestinian civilians living under Israeli military occupation, in particular the critical situation at Dehaishe Refugee Camp near Bethlehem, and of the call by the Israeli League for Civil and Human Rights for immediate international pressure to stop attacks on the residents? Further, is the Minister aware of a report by the International Commission of Jurists concerning the torture of Palestinian prisoners at Al Faraa Prison? The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: 1. The rights of the population of the Occupied Territories are governed by the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. The situation in the Occupied Territories is coming under increasing scrutiny in United Nations bodies, most recently the Commission of Human Rights, and by other international agencies. As a member of both the Security Council and the Commission on Human Rights Australia is required to monitor closely the situation in order to consider allegations of abuses which come before these bodies. Australia has urged that Israel abide by its obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention. 2. The Australian Government is aware of the recent reports to which the honourable senator has referred. 3. At the Dehaishe Refugee Camp near Bethlehem, Rabbi Moshe Levinger, the Leader of the Jewish settlers in Hebron, spent most of the last four months living in a caravan opposite the camp. This was in protest at alleged rock throwing by inhabitants of the camp. On 4 February he fired shots into the air after his caravan became the target for a stone throwing protest. Levinger is reported to have chased his assailants into the camp where he remained for more than an hour before being removed by Israeli security forces. Rabbi Levinger has now called off his protest. 4. The Government is also aware of reports that the Israeli Government proposes to institute new measures against alleged 'rioters and subversive elements' among the West Bank Palestinian population. Prime Minister Peres is reported to have described these measures in terms of 'increased presence, heightened alertness and appropriate punishment for those found guilty'. The measures are in the wake of a number of serious recent attacks which have claimed the lives of two Israelis and left several injured. Jewish settlers in the West Bank have for some time been demanding tougher measures by the Government for security in the area. 5. The Government is also aware of the report prepared by Palestinian lawyers in the West Bank and released recently by the International Commission of Jurists in Geneva. The Government is currently studying the report which I understand takes the form of twenty separate sworn affidavits by Palestinian detainees in the West Bank detention centre of Al-Fara'a. 6. The Australian Government is concerned with the question of the human rights situation in the Israeli Occupied Territories. The Government has also consistently expressed the view that the Israeli settlements in the West Bank are contrary to International Law and a significant obstacle to peace efforts.