Wednesday, 17 April 1985 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Joint Australian-United States Electronic Communication Facility, Watsonia Army Barracks, Victoria To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that: 1. The Watsonia Army Barracks contains electronic communication facilities, operated by Australian and American personel, that gives the United States the ability to pin-point soviet nuclear submarines, hidden in the Oceans. 2. This would make it possible for U.S. killer-submarines to destroy all Soviet nuclear submarines, while the U.S. nuclear submarines launch their missiles in a ''first strike'' attack. This makes Watsonia a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Watsonia would have a disastrous effect on Melbourne. 3. The 'joint U.S.-Australian' bases in Australia endanger rather than protect us. They also add a new menace to nuclear arms race, that must be stopped. Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should close the 'Joint Australian-U.S.' electronic communication facilities in the Watsonia Army barracks. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Chipp (from 252 citizens) and Zakharov (from 36 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That we condemn any form of participation by Australia in the testing of MX Peacemaker Missiles, or any similar weapons, from Australian shores. Your petitioners request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should: Reject totally any form of commitment by the Australian Government to support, or participate in, the United States' MX Peacemaker missiles and ensure that Australia's commitment to a Nuclear Free Zone in the South Pacific be maintained. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reynolds (from 302 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 who have great concern for the protection of the unborn child, call upon the Government to reject the Vinson Enquiry recommendation that an Abortion Clinic be established in Canberra. And your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled will reject this recommendation. by Senator Reid (from 48 citizens). To the Honourable, the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled: the petition of the undersigned Australian citizens respectfully showeth that: 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. 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. 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 visa charges upon private overseas students be removed immediately. 5. 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 will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 11 citizens). To the Honourable, the President and members of the Senate in the 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 21 March, 1985 the Labor Government's legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners, 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 Governments iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Parer (from nine citizens). To the Honourable, the President and members of the Senate in the 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 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. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators McKiernan (from 44 citizens) and Robertson (from 22 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. The concerns which people around the world have for the increasing stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. 2. The global concern that any nuclear exchange will inflict on humanity unimaginable death and suffering. 3. The vulnerability that Australians will face in any nuclear conflict between the major powers. 4. The public concern that government should explore all avenues to ensure that the nuclear threat is eliminated. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Parliament establish a Senate Select Committee on Nuclear Disarmament and Peace to investigate the creation of a Ministry of Peace and Nuclear Disarmament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 21 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the 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 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 74 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That your petitioners are concerned about foreign owned military bases on Australian territory and the entry into Australian waters and territory of foreign warships and aircraft carrying nuclear weaponry. And that the Australian Government should take an active and constructive role in the promotion of a nuclear-free world. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should: 1. Promote the expression of Australian sovereignty by legislating to bring foreign military bases on Australian territory under the control of the Australian Government. 2. Make it compulsory that the disclosure of weaponry carried by foreign warships and aircraft be given in confidence to the Australian Government prior to a request for entry. And that foreign warships and aircraft that carry nuclear weaponry be banned from Australian waters and territory. 3. Legislate for the cessation of all uranium mining in Australia and its subsequent export. 4. Urge the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to pose to the Governments of the United States and the Soviet Union that both countries agree to immediately halt the testing, production and further deployment of all nuclear weapons, missiles and delivery systems in a way that can be checked and verified by both sides. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 39 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That your petitioners are concerned that action by the Government to: (a) extend entitlements and allowances to de facto relationships as outlined in the August Budget (b) the granting of overseas travel entitlements to other than spouses of Federal members of Parliament (c) failure of the Government to prevent the granting of privileges and travel allowances of homosexual partners of members of the A.B.C. has imposed on the Australian community a moral standard fundamentally opposed to the principles of the Christian Church and the majority of the non Christian community. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should take immediate action to ensure that these allowances and privileges are withdrawn and that the Government should do all in its power to consolidate the position of the traditional family unit in the Australian community. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Bjelke-Petersen (from 262 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the members of the Senate assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that: (1) Imports of frozen peas from New Zealand and elsewhere have increased from 4.8 per cent of the Australian market in 1979-80 to an estimated 20 per cent in 1984-85-from 2.2 million kg to 8.0 million kg. (2) As a result of these escalating imports, in 1985: Growers are faced with cuts of up to 30 per cent both in contract tonnages and prices, Hundreds of jobs in the processing industry will be lost, with many hundreds more under threat in downstream industries, Millions of dollars will be lost from sensitive regional and State economies. Your petitioners therefore request that the Australian Government: (1) Reject the recommendation of the Industries Assistance Commission Interim Report on Frozen Peas that no assistance be provided to the industry. (2) Support the proposals made by grower organisations and trade unions for import restrictions and other measures of support for the Australian frozen pea industry. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Archer (from 259 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: Introduction of any additional capital gains taxes, wealth taxes or death duties is opposed on the grounds that they adversely affect the small and medium size businesses in Australia, destroying incentive and discouraging investment in this important area of the economy; the Australian economy, and employment in particular, is heavily reliant on growth in small businesses; any capital gains that might result when owners of small businesses finally sell the business are not 'windfall gains' but the result of many hard years of work and sacrifice, with very little being taken out of the business by way of salaries so that the maximum amount of money can be ploughed back into the business to create growth and jobs; the owners of small businesses often depend on a capital gain-which are simply deferred salaries-when they eventually sell their business to sustain them in retirement. Your petitioners request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, will protect the rights of private enterprise and reject any inequitable additional taxes. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 17 citizens). To the Honourable President and the members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian Legal Aid Office and the Federal Attorney General's Department have since 8/11/1983 failed after numerous telephone and written requests to investigate the claims of Mr J. K. Gates of gross misconduct of legal advisers involving large sums of public funds paid to these people by the Australian Legal Aid Office N.S.W. and further that the conduct was knowingly false and resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The conduct of both responsible parties in failing to investigate the claims, with the claimant is and has caused great hardship. Why is the Australian Legal Aid Office and the Federal Attorney General's Department refusing to investigate a claim of fraud involving public funds, an abuse of the legal system, also an abuse of the Australian Legal Aid system that protects the Australian public and also an abuse of the Federal Court. Why will not the Australian Legal Aid Officer or the Federal Attorney General's Department immediately investigate the claims of Mr Gates, with Mr Gates, allowing him the opportunity to produce evidence and facts, to date refused and then to assist, as now refused, to conduct rectification proceeding through the courts as to allow the claimant, to have a fair trial. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Mason (from four citizens). Petitions received. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I give notice that, 12 sitting days after today, I shall move: That the National Crime Authority Regulations (Amendment) (Statutory Rules No. 3 of 1985) be disallowed. I seek leave to make a brief statement of explanation. Leave granted. Senator COATES —This amendment of the National Crime Authority Regulations contains some unusual provisions concerning alternative and indirect methods of serving a summons. The Committee is concerned about checking whether the procedures may trespass on personal rights and liberties and so has raised the matter with the Special Minister of State (Mr Young). The Minister's reply was received only late yesterday; so the Committee has not yet been able to consider his explanation. Therefore, as today is the last opportunity to give notice of a motion for disallowance, I am doing so but in such a way that will allow time for further examination before the notice is dealt with. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) - I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate, noting that (a) 600 farmers attended a meeting in Penola, South Australia, on Monday 15 April 1985 to plan a rally to protest against the disastrous impact that Labor's assets test is having on farmers and their families; (b) the meeting passed a motion calling upon the Federal Government to reinstate all pensions until either it makes the assets test more equitable or abolishes it altogether; (c) both the Minister for Social Security and the Minister for Veterans' Affairs refusal to attend the meeting; (d) concerns expressed at the Penola meeting are typical of the difficulties and hardships being experienced right across rural Australia as a result of the introduction of Labor's anomalous assets test; and (e) despite claims by Ministers of the Hawke Government that the hardship provisions would resolve the difficulties which farmers may experience, very few applications have been successful under these provisions; condemns the Hawke Labor Government for its apathy in failing to either acknowledge or rectify the anomalies contained in the assets test which are having such a devastating impact upon Australia's farming community. Senator MASON(New South Wales) - I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Defence Act 1903 to provide for parliamentary approval of overseas service by members of the Defence Force. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —I give notice that, four sitting days after today, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to prohibit experiments involving the use of human embryos created in vitro. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate views with concern- (a) the Government's inability to provide adequate nursing home accommodation for the aged of Canberra; and (b) the plight of 140 aged persons who have been assessed as requiring nursing home care, but for whom no accommodation is available. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) calls upon the Government to remove all foreign bases and installations from Australian soil unless it can be positively shown that: (i) the bases and installations do not form any part of the nuclear strategy of the United States, (ii) the management of the bases is genuinely under the joint and equal control of the Australian and the United States Governments, and (iii) all information handled by the bases and installations is shared with the Australian Government; (b) calls upon the Government: (i) at least six months prior to the expiration of any lease, and in sufficient time to give notice of termination or variation, to establish a joint parliamentary committee to investigate whether the conditions for the continuation of the bases have been met, and (ii) in any case to complete inquiries into all bases and installations before December, 1986; and (c) calls upon the Government: (i) to establish whether any Australian defence installations provide information or research for any nuclear weapons or strategies, and (ii) where it is established that this is the case, to cease such operations forthwith. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —I give notice that, 12 sitting days after today, I shall move: That the Trading Hours (Amendment) Ordinance (Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 66 of 1984) be disallowed. Senator JONES(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate notes with alarm the industrial relations situation in Queensland, and condemns the Government of that State for- (a) Refusing a reasoned request from the Prime Minister for meaningful talks in a sincere bid to resolve the long-running Queensland power dispute. (b) Deliberately attacking the fabric of the trade union movement, and the State Industrial Commission, with a series of hastily-debated legislative moves. (c) Prolonging the hardship of the families of more than 800 sacked former employees of the South East Queensland Electricity Board who have now been out of work for two months. (d) Deliberately prolonging industrial disputation to draw attention away from Queensland's flagging economy and soaring unemployment rate. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. I seek leave to have the list incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. The Law Reform Commission-annual report 1983-84-pursuant to section 35 of the Law Reform Commission Act 1973. 2. Australian Dairy Corporation-annual report 1983-84-pursuant to section 29 (4) of the Dairy Produce Act 1924. 3. Parliament House Construction Authority-annual report 1983-84-pursuant to section 38 (3) of the Parliament House Construction Authority Act 1979. 4. Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee-annual report 1983-84-pursuant to section 30 of the Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee Act 1973. 5. Fruit Industry Sugar Concession Committee-annual report 1983-84-pursuant to clause 11 of the Sugar Agreement Act 1979. 6. Advance to the Minister for Finance-statement on expenditure for February 1985. 7. Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority-annual report 1983-84-pursuant to section 32 (3) of the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Power Act 1949. 8. Anglo-Australian Telescope Board-further statement of reasons for the delay in tabling the Anglo-Australian Telescope Board annual report for 1983-84. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Automotive Industry Authority Act 1984 to promote the development of motor vehicles, and motor vehicle components, of Australian design, and for related purposes. Bill presented by Senator Grimes, and read a first time. Standing Orders suspended. Senator GRIMES(Minister for Community Services)(10.11) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill proposes to amend the Automotive Industry Authority Act 1984 to incorporate the motor vehicles and components development grants scheme announced by the Government on 29 May 1984. The grants scheme is designed to provide financial assistance to the Australian automotive industry to promote the development of motor vehicles and automotive components of Australian design. The Government announced in October last year that financial assistance of up to $150m would be provided to Australian companies engaged in the research, development and design of motor vehicles and automotive components which are either new or substantially improved. The Government also announced that the Automotive Industry Authority would be responsible for the administration of the scheme. To put the design scheme in perspective I will reiterate the key elements of the Government's motor vehicle industry policy. The Government's policy has two fundamental objectives: To preserve a substantial vehicle manufacturing industry in this country, and to place the industry in a better competitive position against imports. The Government believes that the expectations of Australian consumers are more likely to be realised if there is a strong vehicle manufacturing industry able to compete vigorously with imports. To achieve this the local industry must become more competitive in all aspects. Previous Government policies have not achieved this objective. The assistance framework which had been built up since the 1960s, primarily in answer to short-term crisis containment, was aimed largely at protecting the Australian automotive industry from import competition. As a result the industry has become inward looking and the incentive to develop progressive and innovative design has diminished. The Government considers this situation to be no longer tenable. Our decision to introduce the grants scheme is based on a belief that if there is to be a future for the Australian automotive industry, and if it is to compete on world markets, then there needs to be more emphasis placed on design. Manufacturers must become more competitive internationally and more export oriented if they are to have any long term future. In this context, excellence and uniqueness in design are of the utmost importance. Good design allows a manufacturer to differentiate his product from his competitors', thereby creating new markets, meeting competition and possibly becoming a market leader, rather than simply a market follower. Improvements in design should result in more technically efficient products with greater reliability, better performance and easier and less costly maintenance. However, for design to produce these benefits, it is becoming increasingly apparent that it must be an integral part of the corporate strategy of the firm. At present the industry in Australia is heavily reliant on overseas companies for designs. Of the thirteen models produced in Australia, the Ford Falcon is the only uniquely Australian motor vehicle. Other Australian manufactured models are designed overseas, with local input mainly to satisfy Australian design rules and domestic driving conditions. The Car Industry Council, in its report to the Government in December 1983, expressed concern at the downward trend in the number of skilled personnel involved in design in the Australian automotive industry. I quote from that report: The Council recognises that the downward trend results from the increasing costs associated with the development of new models, and that the relatively limited size of the Australian market would certainly not, other things being equal, encourage world manufacturers to maintain unique Australian design activities. Rather, Australian producers would increasingly purchase designs from overseas. The Council believes that there is no action with the industry itself can take, unaided, to reverse this trend. Given, however, the introduction of appropriate incentives by government, the Council believes that the decline can be slowed or stopped. If this were to happen it is conceivable that, in the longer term, the downward trend could be reversed. World developments in design, including international computer linkages, could create an environment where Australia could become a world centre for certain types of design work. The Government believes that the grants scheme, together with the other policy measures announced last year, will positively assist the industry to address this downward trend. By contributing to improvement in the industry's competitiveness, the grants scheme will also help to enhance employment opportunities in the industry. The arrangements for the grants scheme, to which I will refer shortly, are modelled, to a large degree, on relevant provisions of the industrial research and development incentives scheme. The Government has decided however, that the introduction of the grants scheme will not preclude the automotive industry from the industrial research and development incentives scheme. If the industry were to be excluded from that scheme it would be denied the opportunity to receive support in relation to commencement grants, research and development of non-automotive products, and research and development of new manufacturing processes, none of which will be covered by the automotive grants scheme. Eligibility for grant assistance will be limited to companies engaged in, or intending to become engaged in, the manufacture in Australia of motor vehicles and components covered by the passenger motor vehicle manufacturing plan. Financial support will be provided for product development projects involving activities such as systematic experimentation or analysis in a field of science or technology for the purpose of devising or developing new or substantially improved material products, and the design of such products. With the diversity of motor vehicle model types and component specifications, it is likely that companies in the industry will increasingly turn to the use of computer-aided design and model testing techniques. In recognition of this, the scheme will also cover projects for the development of computer software programs intended to enhance a company's general capability to undertake product development work. The Government will provide the Automotive Industry Authority with guideline directions to be followed by the Authority in the performance of its functions and the exercise of its powers under the scheme. The guidelines will contain a detailed presentation of the Government's motor vehicle industry policy. Such directions will ensure that the projects selected by the Authority for financial assistance will promote the kind of restructuring and reorientation of the industry that the Government believes is necessary. It is anticipated that the guideline directions will be introduced upon the commencement of the Act, and these will require the Authority to be satisfied that the projects assisted promote one or more of the objectives of the policy. The guideline directions will also deal with the project agreements which may be made under this Bill. The directions will permit such agreements, in addition to dealing with the particular project, to include provisions which impose conditions or requirements that promote the attainment of the Government's motor vehicle industry policy. In assessing the level of support to be provided, the Authority will be asked to give particular attention to the extent to which the project will improve the applicant's ability to contribute to the sound development of the automotive industry, including improvement in its ability to compete in the domestic market against imports, and to develop export markets The Authority will also be asked to consider: the extent of benefits likely to accrue to other local businesses and industries; the time frame likely to be involved in bringing the results of the project to the commercial phase; the overall funding arrangements for the project, including funding which the applicant is prepared to commit, and assistance being provided to the applicant from other sources; and the extent to which any dependence on overseas technology or other factors may restrict the applicant's ability to exploit the results of the project in international markets. Judgments on these factors cannot be based on general criteria but have to take into account what is actually happening in the industry and how the project would relate to the activities of other companies in the industry. The Government believes that the Authority, through its role of monitoring industry developments and liaising and consulting with industry participants, is in the best position to evaluate projects and determine whether they are consistent with the Government's policy for the industry. Where a firm, and the project it proposes, satisfy the prescribed eligibility criteria, the project will be ranked by the Authority against the kind of guideline directions previously mentioned, and other eligible projects. If the Authority decides to assist a project, the assistance will be in the form of taxable cash grants, provided progressively over the life of the project, equivalent to up to 50 per cent of the expenditure incurred on the project. Sufficient flexibility has been provided in the Bill for grants to be paid at a rate above 50 per cent if the Government believes this is necessary. There is also provision for firms which have limited financial resources to receive grant payments in advance. In addition to funding company projects, projects undertaken in government financed research institutions may be funded under the grants scheme, where it is considered in the public interest to do so. This will permit the Commonwealth to seek to achieve commercial application of the results of research and development undertaken in such institutions. It is intended that any such commercial development work will be contracted out to industry through a tender process with the Commonwealth meeting the cost. The outcome of such projects would remain the property of the Commonwealth and the rights for commercial production of successful developments would be put to tender. Financial Impact Statement This Bill includes a provision to restrict the total amount of grants payable during each year of the scheme to that amount which the Government notifies to the Authority is available for payment or commitment in that year. The Government has decided that the motor vehicles and components development grants scheme will be subject to a maximum appropriation of $150m over the 5 years to 1988-89. No funds were allocated for the scheme in the 1984-85 Budget, however, the government has approved the commitment of up to $20m for grant agreements entered into during the 1984-85 financial year, with appropriation for the committed funds to be sought in the 1985-86 Budget process. I commend this Bill to the Senate Debate (on motion by Senator Chaney) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Macklin) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution so as to ensure that the Members of the Parliament of the Commonwealth and of the Parliaments of the States and of self-governing territories are chosen directly and democratically by the people. Bill presented by Senator Macklin, and read a first time. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.14) —by leave-I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This is a revised version of a Bill first introduced to this Parliament on 2 April 1984. Extensive discussions since that time have led to revisions being incorporated to clarify and improve certain aspects of the Bill. The revised Bill has the same intention as the original Bill presented last year-namely, to guarantee the right to vote and to guarantee that every citizen's vote will be treated equally. Of course, as many honourable senators would recall, a substantially similar Bill was introduced on 8 November, 1973 by the then Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam. The introduction of that Bill was the implementation of a promise made by Mr Whitlam on behalf of the Australian Government at the Australian Constitutional Convention held in Sydney in September of that year. While that Bill had the same aim as this one, the then Opposition, under the leadership of Mr Snedden, opposed the Bill. Basically, it appears to me, because it felt that the stated principle was not being implemented by Mr Whitlam's Bill. The Opposition argued, quite correctly I believe, that by making electorates equal in the sense that they were to have an equal number of people in them, would not give votes equal value. The argument advanced by some people is that from a work load point of view these members still have to represent people who are not registered to vote and consequently should be allowed to have them counted in the numbers. From my point of view, this is going about things the wrong way around. Indeed, I believe that we would be far better off encouraging these people to become Australian citizens, if they are not already, and to register to vote. Given the strong feeling exhibited in 1973 about whether electorates should be divided on the basis of electors or people, I had waited until the Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill had passed through Parliament before raising the matter again. I had thought that we might see a debate at that time on whether electorates should continue to be divided along current lines-that is, number of electors-or whether the Government would take up the Whitlam proposal again and attempt to divide electorates along the lines of numbers of people in them. No debate arose and I take heart from the fact that the present Labor Government is quite happy to accept what I take to be the Opposition line, that things remain the way they are. As a result of this, I have amended Mr Whitlam's original Bill so that the numbers ascertained in respect of divisions shall be, as nearly as practicable, the same in respect of the numbers of electors rather than the numbers of people in each electorate. This concept should now have the support of the vast majority of senators and members in this Parliament. Although it is a principle which appears to have the almost complete support of Federal parliamentarians, and indeed the people of Australia, it is a principle which is obviously not supported by all parliamentarians at the State level. I believe that the time has come for the people of the States and the self-governing Territories to have their say on whether or not their current situation should be allowed to continue. Unfortunately, no State Parliament requires a vote of electors in order to change its own Constitution in this regard. Indeed, not even the Federal Constitution requires that change. But I believe it is time that we enshrined the principle in the Federal Constitution so that future governments are not persuaded to change the principle now established for purely political gain. There are two other changes which have been made to Mr Whitlam's original Bill which I will mention briefly here, before moving on to changes made to the Bill I introduced last year. The first of these is a purely technical one to rectify an inconsistency in Mr Whitlam's wording of clause 5 and clause 7 of the Bill. As to the substances of clause 5, which has become clause 4 in this revised version of the Bill, the proposed alteration to section 30 of the Constitution has been refined to ensure that the Parliament may provide for the continuing operation of laws relating to the enfranchisement of non-citizens who are currently entitled to vote. The second change to Mr Whitlam's Bill was to allow parliaments to decide to grant the right to vote to people under the age of 18 if they so desire. Arguments in favour of providing for a younger voting age remain the same as when this Bill was introduced last year-although I recognise that the proposal may be controversial. My reason for incorporating the provision is quite simple. Given the difficulties in making amendments to the Constitution, I do not believe that we should enshrine the 18-year-old age limit into the Constitution as the time may well come-even if it is 20 or 30 years away-that we may wish to give 17 or even 16 year-olds the vote. This issue was raised in particular relation to 17 year-olds being conscripted to fight in Vietnam, even though they did not have the vote. It is one thing to force 6 to 15 year-olds to go to school, whether or not it is one of their own choosing, but it is quite a different matter to ask a 17 year-old to fight in a war which he or she might wish to oppose by voting for a political party which opposed such a war if he or she were entitled to vote. A vote of 17 year-olds might well have made the difference in 1969 as to who governed this country and as to whether or not this country continued to conscript people to go to Vietnam. When this Bill was last introduced in Parliament, the question was raised as to whether the Bill would allow proportional representation and whether or not the Government of the day supported that proposal. Unfortunately, the Government did not, as it still does not; but the Bill does allow for that type of system to exist, as it already does in Tasmania. As I said in my second reading speech on the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill, the fact that proportional representation for the House of Representatives was missing from that Bill effectively means that the Bill did not really grapple with the last major task of reform in the electoral process. This is a bitter disappointment to many people in the community who feel that it is a necessary move that we must take. I hope that in the future it will be seen to be a necessary reform and that eventually it will be taken. The acceptance of this Bill will certainly do nothing to hinder that development. As my colleague, Senator Jack Evans, said in his second reading speech on the aforementioned Bill, the omission of proportional representation means that Australia continues with the very lopsided, winner takes all system of having governments elected. 'Winner takes all' follows automatically from a system under which there is a single candidate elected for an electorate and a candidate has to attract only 50 per cent of the vote plus one to win. There is no justice and no fairness in that kind of system. I think most people in Australia are now aware that the newer countries which have been formed since this country was federated have opted for proportional representation. Honourable senators may wish to look back over this part of Senator Evans's speech which can be found on pages 3058 and 3059 of Hansard for 30 November 1983. I now wish to draw honourable senators' attention to certain other provisions in the Bill. Provision for the repeal of section 25 has been retained from the earlier version of the Bill. Section 25 of the Constitution provides that if by law of any State any persons of any race are disqualified from voting at elections for the more numerous houses of the State, then in reckoning the number of people of the State or of the Commonwealth, persons of that race resident in that State shall not be counted. This is an archaic and objectionable provision. It is not within the spirit of the wishes of any political party in this place and the Bill provides for the repeal of that section. The proposed repeal of section 41, which was not included in the original version of the Bill, arises for two reasons. First section 41 has ceased to have any practical operation following a High Court decision in 1983, secondly, if retained in the Constitution, section 41 would conflict with the proposed amendment to section 30. The original Bill proposed amendments to section 75 to confer original jurisdiction on the High Court in relation to matters arising in the electoral provisions of State or Commonwealth law and to ensure that the electors are able to take action to enforce those provisions. The proposed paragraph in this revised version of the bill has been altered in two respects. First, the words ''or involving the interpretation of'' have been inserted to make section 75 consistent with section 76. Secondly, the jurisdictional safeguards, which originally applied in relation to elections for the house of representatives, have now been extended to include senate elections and elections for representatives of the Territories in the Commonwealth Parliament. Proposed new section 106A, originally dealing with the election of members of State parliaments, has now been altered in several respects. First, the proposed section now extends to the parliaments of self-governing territories. This change is reflected in the alteration to the long title of the Bill. The provisions of the section now apply to both general elections and by-elections-apart from the penultimate paragraph which applies to general elections only. The revised wording makes it clear that people can only vote at elections in the State or Territory in which they are normally resident, but does not, of course, prevent them from voting due to temporary absence from home. As with section 30, revisions to the proposed section 106A ensure that Parliament may provide for the continuing operation of laws enfranchising non-citizens who are currently entitled to vote. In the event of non-compliance with the 'one-vote, one-value' principle of section 106A, a further amendment provides for the whole State or Territory to be deemed one electorate for the purposes of a general election. This covers the situation where there is insufficient time for a redistribution before an election. The amendment also explains why a commencement date, which had been included in the original Bill, has now been omitted. The inclusion of the 'fall-back' position obviates the need to give the states some time to comply with the Bill's provisions. In addition, the amendment addresses the argument that the Bill in its original form might have empowered the Commonwealth to redraw State electoral boundaries which had been declared invalid. The final amendment to proposed section 106A ensures that the Senate voting system would be adopted in a situation where a State general election was held in accordance with the penultimate paragraph of the proposed section. One final point, proposed new section 122A imposes similar requirements to elections for representatives of the Territories in either house of the Commonwealth Parliament as those applicable to elections for representatives of the States. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned. Debate resumed from 16 April, 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'. The PRESIDENT —Before I call Senator Devlin I remind honourable senators that this will be his initial contribution to the debates in this chamber and I ask that the usual courtesies be extended to him. Senator DEVLIN(Tasmania)(10.15) —Thank you, Mr President. I rise to make my first speech in this chamber and in doing so I hope to address those issues that I intend to pursue in the future in this Senate, hopefully with the full support of my fellow senators. I have been elected to this Senate by the people of Tasmania but on nearly every major issue their interests are the same as those of all other Australians and their concerns are the same as all other Australians. I come to the Senate with many years of experience as a working man and as a trade union official. Most of my working life has been devoted to furthering the cause of the ordinary working man, through my involvement in both the Australian Labor Party and the union movement. I was born in Burnie on Tasmania's north-west coast. I left school when I was 14 to take a job at Rosebery, which is a mining town, and to get a job underground I had to put my age up to 19. I worked as a miner there for four and a half years. I then gained membership of the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia and worked as a waterside worker for the next 33 years and 11 months, until my election to the Senate. I have always been very proud of my association with the Waterside Workers Federation. It is a union that has been a trend setter in winning better conditions for the working man. Many of the campaigns successfully fought by that union resulted in improved conditions, which in turn led to better conditions for all Australian workers. As well as seeing positive improvements occur I have witnessed changes that have been less pleasing. I have seen increased reliance placed on machines taking the jobs of waterside workers. At the port of Burnie where I have always worked I have seen the number of waterside workers dwindle from 400 to just 73. I have also seen the physical dangers that have come with these machines. In the last four years, four of my comrades have died in accidents on the Burnie waterfront, including my brother earlier this year. Such experiences have led me to the view that the survival of the working man depends on the trade union movement resisting changes that run counter to the best interests of the worker. For example, often workers lose their jobs so that the boss can give work to friends or even friends of friends. It is these sorts of injustices that the union stands against. I find it amazing that honourable senators opposite continue to criticise trade unions, but do not criticise doctors and lawyers who have unions that are much more powerful, as illustrated by the recent experiences in New South Wales. Employer associations such as the chambers of manufacture, industry and commerce receive much more funding from their members than do trade unions. I have also seen capitalists abuse the privileges that they have to the detriment of the workers and the economy. The abuses of the practice of overtime is a case in point. As I have said, in Burnie the number of waterside workers has dwindled from 400 to 73. Part of the reason for this is that companies prefer to pay workers overtime rather than employing staff who would receive holiday pay, long service leave and sick leave. The result of this is often unsatisfactory. Only recently I saw a situation in Burnie where ships were lying idle for three days because waterside workers were engaged in other work on other ships. These workers often work double shifts-sometimes up to four times a week. This situation is not exclusive to the Burnie waterfront; it happens in many industries all over Australia. I do not intend for one minute to suggest that industries should not make money. They have to make money, otherwise they will not employ anyone. At the same time they have to play their part. If there is work there, they should employ unemployed people rather than make their present employees work double shifts. Apart from the fact that overtime contributes to the unemployment problem, it is also the cause of marriage break-up. It keeps parents away from their spouses and children for unnaturally long periods. Thus, it is the cause of undesirable social problems. The problem, however, is that many workers depend on overtime to top up their wages. Without it many would live below the poverty line. Nowhere is this more apparent than here at Parliament House where so many of the staff who keep this place together are paid ridiculously low wages. Only overtime brings their wages to a reasonable level. The answer is not to give people overtime but to pay them a decent wage so that they do not need overtime. Then the extra work can be given to those people who are unemployed. I know the day-to-day struggles that working people have to endure to survive. I know the hardships faced by the family man who has lost his job or had his job taken from him and the immense difficulties he has in trying to provide for his family in an environment where little work, if any, is available. Thus, when I speak on these matters and relevant issues I hope that my fellow senators recognise my qualifications in this field. Let me now turn to some of the issues which I believe we should be addressing with sincerity, urgency and a desire to correct. They are issues which should be in the forefront of not just honourable senator's minds but the minds of all parliaments and governments throughout Australia. The first such issue I turn to is unemployment. In spite of the lip service that everyone pays to this problem it is one which I believe those of us in this chamber as well as those in the other House have done little about. It is a problem that cannot be adequately understood by mere reference to statistics because behind those statistics lie people like us. Like us, these people have been taught all their lives that the proper thing to do, if one wants to become a respected and valued member of our society, is to get a job and earn a living. The problem then becomes what happens to these individuals who have been indoctrinated with this protestant work ethic when they find that there is no work available, no matter how hard he or she looks. The first thing that members of this chamber must come to terms with is the fact that there are such people. They are not dole bludgers but genuine individuals who cannot find a place in our work-oriented society. We have, on the other hand, the young. Many have never worked and others have held the odd job for short periods, often gaining employment through one or other of our band-aid schemes promoted by governments but finding that their jobs disappear as soon as the employer loses his assistance. These people come to feel that society is rejecting them. Often they find their families doing likewise. The damage done to these young people, damage resulting from a socialisation process that rears them to expect a job only for them to find that none exists, is unforgivable and can never be repaired. The problem has wide ramifications because, as the numbers of people affected in this way increase, their existence and their disillusionment will come to represent a very real threat to the traditional structures of our society. Ultimately their numbers will become so great that we will not be able to resist their demands for radical changes that could amount to a revolution, a scenario that I think few here would want. At the other end of the scale we have workers in their late forties who have been retrenched or put off either because of the general economic climate or often because they have been superseded by machines, and their chances of finding alternative employment are almost nil unless they have some very special skills. What effect does this have on their self-image, on their personal life and on their families? The consequences are disastrous- consequences which our society is equipped neither to cope nor assist with. I have not forgotten those unemployed who fall in between the two groups I have mentioned. Their traumas and hardships are no less damaging. However, I have concentrated on these two groups I have mentioned because the majority of these unemployed at present fall into one or other of these categories. So it is that I turn to my fellow senators here today and ask: What have we, the elected representatives of all these people, done to start redressing this problem? I suggest that the answers that we cannot avoid giving should make us all hang our heads in shame because of the insignificance of our efforts. We have all heard about the technological revolution that was greater and had more far reaching consequences than the Industrial Revolution, but we have all been lulled into believing that our unemployment problem is not a result just of this technological revolution. Economic factors and other such things are often bandied around as excuses. Let me tell my fellow senators that these excuses are no comfort to the people in the job queues. I can speak from my own experiences on the Burnie waterfront when I tell honourable senators that technological advances are costing jobs every day of the week. Let us not make the mistake of underestimating the cost. It is of the magnitude of hundreds of jobs. Even John Howard, whom those on the other side would have as our Treasurer, in his 1978-79 Budget Speech, said of business in Australia: They have been replacing workers with machines, replacing full-time staff with part-time; replacing wage and salary earners with self-employed contract labour . . . I invite anyone who doubts the validity of these observations to come to see the effects of technological advances in my electorate. It is not this technological revolution alone that causes this evil of unemployment. Many workers find their jobs disappearing as companies and businesses engaged in what they call rationalisation programs whereby certain operations in the company are closed and jobs lost. Often these rationalisations result from takeovers and mergers which mean that the controlling interests of the company are no longer based in Australia. The result is that decisions are made outside this country and made with little consideration to their effect on this country. Without doubt the chief cause of this evil of unemployment is the technological revolution. This revolution is another stage in a development that began long before the Industrial Revolution. It is a trend that has been with man almost from the beginning of time. It is a trend of his own making, resulting from his own abilities. It is a trend that escalated after the war as man increasingly turned to machines to do the work that previously workers had done. These changes bring more changes and with them comes more and more dependency on machines at the expense of jobs, so much so that the Rand Corporation predicts that by the year 2000 a mere 2 per cent of America's work force will produce all the goods needed by the manufacturing industries in that nation. The story is not greatly different in Australia. Our futurologists predict that in 20 years only 10 per cent of our work force will be needed to produce all our goods and services. In spite of these predictions of gloom and doom, our governments, whatever their political persuasion, the paid officials of trade unions and our managers of business do little to combat this evil. They fail to plan for the future. They fail to make these changes compatible with the needs of the people they affect so severely. They overlook these long term problems because to act would more than likely be contrary to their own short term interests. Governments in particular seem incapable of looking beyond the next election. They fear that if they tell the truth as it really is they will lose votes at the next election, so they ignore it. Instead they prefer to hide the truth under the carpet by using stop gap measures such as the regional employment development scheme, the Commonwealth youth support scheme and the community employment program. They hope that these will help camouflage the magnitude of our problem. Governments must start telling the truth. They must start telling employers that by 1987 they must be geared for a situation in which workers will work a 30-hour week, and by 1990 a 25-hour week. They must ready themselves for employees having longer periods of leave and retiring earlier. Employers must also come to terms with the fact that overtime will soon have to be outlawed. As I have already said, overtime is a practice that has been abused by employers to get them out of employing new workers, paying holiday pay and sick leave and the like. As such, it keeps people out of work, so contributes to unemployment and cannot, therefore, be allowed to continue. Governments must also start looking to share what work there is among all our people, particularly the young. Industry must assist because if it does not it will be lumbered with the nation's social welfare bill because no one else will have the resources to pay. The problem of unemployment is one close to my heart. I hope it is close to the hearts of everyone here. I can assure honourable senators that this will not be the last time I allude to it in the Senate. There is, however, another issue about which I feel particularly strongly and towards which I will often direct my energies in the Senate. I refer to industrial relations in Australia. Unfortunately the previous Liberal Government believed that confrontation was the easiest way to deal with these issues. This is an attitude which we see being adopted now in Queensland. The result was that the Hawke Labor Government inherited a package of industrial legislation more befitting a police state than a Western democracy. There are horrific provisions in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act that, unless revoked, will lead only to more confrontation. The gaoling of unionists for assisting their fellow workers in a struggle for justice, whether it be better wages, working conditions or job security, is a cowardly act that will achieve nothing. Those fortunate enough to be employed have a right to seek the best possible contract for their labour. They own it and so, in a capitalist economic order such as ours, it should be theirs to sell or not to sell as they see fit. It should also be realised that confrontationist tactics have a destabilising effect on industrial relations which ultimately will earn Australia a reputation as an unreliable trading partner, a reputation that will adversely affect Australian exports and, therefore, Australian business. In my term of office as a senator for Tasmania I will be returning to this topic from time to time. In doing so I will be able to bring to my fellow senators' attention the stupidity of these draconian laws-laws which must be altered as a matter of urgency. I wish to turn my attention to another matter which in some way is a diversion from the issues I have been alluding to thus far. Yet, in another sense, it is very much in tune with the message I am trying to put forward here. The message is that governments-not just the Hawke Government of which I am a member, but all governments-need to face up to reality. They need to face the issues squarely without dodging them or putting them in the 'too hard' basket. Entailed in this is a need for governments to act responsibly where the economy is concerned. This brings me to the matter of the Tasmanian Government's total ineptness in its involvement in Bass Strait shipping. The history of Bass Strait shipping is the history of a natural evolutionary process which saw a rationalisation of services and, in some instances, the loss of services to some ports. This resulted in a situation where an economic balance emerged. Through this process of rationalisation the state was reached where those ships remaining on the Bass Strait service could be fairly sure of carrying at least 70 per cent of its capacity. Those honourable senators who are familiar with transport economics will know that that represents roughly the break even point for these ships. That is not to say that the ships were full-they were not. So, without underserving, the service was able to operate economically. Now the balance has been thrown into disarray by the actions of the Gray Liberal Government in Tasmania. The Tasmanian Government has done this by its actions in involving itself in the management of two ships on the Bass Strait run. The Tasmanian Government has purchased the Abel Tasman, a passenger ferry which replaces the Empress of Australia on the Devonport-Melbourne run. This ferry, bought with a $26m grant from the Commonwealth Government, has a capacity nearly twice that of its predecessor, being able to carry 900 passengers and 450 vehicles. The greater capacity of the Abel Tasman led the management of the Australian National Line to the view that this ship alone was sufficient to cater for the needs of the Devonport-Melbourne run. Consequently ANL negotiated with the State Government to purchase the rights to the ship's cargo space. The Government's rejection of the offer led ANL to decide to pull out of the Devonport run altogether. The gap left by ANL was filled by William Holyman and Sons Pty Ltd, which decided to divert its ship, the Mary Holyman, from the Hobart run to the Devonport service, in so doing depriving Hobart of one of its major connections with the mainland. The second action of the Tasmanian Government was in entering into a joint venture with Brambles Transport Services to run a service between Burnie and the mainland. The effect of this was to persuade Brambles to direct all its cargo through the port of Burnie; whereas previously it had also made use of the ports of Hobart, Bell Bay, Devonport and Stanley. When viewed together these two actions of the Gray Government reveal the total incompetence of that Government-an incompetence that can be measured when we look at the harm that results. To begin with, one can point to the loss of jobs and the social disruption that has resulted. In both Hobart and Stanley jobs have been lost as Bass Strait shipping guided by the interfering Tasmanian Government, is concentrated on the North-West coast's port. But that is only the beginning of the story. These actions have served to destabilise a service upon which Tasmania's economy depends so heavily-a destabilisation caused by overservicing, which in turn threatens the viability of non-government operators. This folly is made all the more sinful by the fact that the Government is setting two of its own services in competition with each other; that is to say, Government-owned ships operating out of Burnie and Devonport will be competing with each other. This story of woe does not end there, because there is another aspect to this tale that further indicates the incompetence of the Tasmanian Government. The Abel Tasman's cargo carrying capacity is limited to transporting goods stored on trailers-that is to say, it is a roll-on roll-off service. One cannot get forklifts on to the new ship. Therefore, one cannot carry cargo containers on it. Roll-on roll-off shipping transport represents an outdated method of shipping. In days gone by this form of transport was very popular. Both the Princess of Tasmania and the Bass Trader used this technology. However it was found to be an inefficient way of handling cargo. Among the problems is the cost of trailers to haulers-trailers that will often stand idle while in transit. The expense of these trailers-for example, purchasing costs, maintenance and insurance-threatens the viability of many freighters' businesses. Earlier I addressed the issue of unemployment and the problems facing governments in seeking to overcome this evil. What we have here, with the example of the Tasmanian Government's actions, is the very opposite. It is a lesson for all governments how not to Act. These actions of the Tasmanian Government have an adverse effect on employment, both by taking work away from some ports and by threatening the viability of a number of private shipping companies. Let us hope that all governments can learn from this experience. I come now to the end of this my first speech in the Senate. Before I resume my seat I would like to make a few personal comments. To begin with, I would like to express my deep thanks to the people of Tasmania who elected me. They have bestowed a great honour on me, in return for which I owe them a duty to serve their interests to the best of my ability. I hope that in six years they will find that I have not let them down. The honour of coming to the senate is added to by the fact that in so doing I have the pleasure of being a member of this second Hawke Government. I have already spoken of the directions that I think governments in this country should be taking. I know that this Government is aware of these needs and is prepared to face up to them. I have already referred to the community employment programs. I pointed out that in some respects it is only a stop gap measure and that much more is needed if unemployment is to be conquered. Nonetheless, it is by far and away the best scheme of its type put up by governments in recent years. It does not suffer from a shortage of funds, as was experienced under the schemes of the former Fraser Government. This Government is also committed to making Australia a fairer, more just and more equitable place for all people to live-not just for the wealthy but for all Australians. Nothing demonstrates this more clearly than the introduction of Medicare by the first Hawke Government. With it, the Hawke Government gave Australians a fair and affordable health insurance system, guaranteeing that every Australian could afford access to proper health care. There is still much more to be done. One of the things that stands out in my mind as being necessary is the introduction of a national superannuation scheme. As most honourable senators will be aware, a large part of our population has no such cover, even though it receives a regular income. A regular contribution throughout ones working life is a means of assuring a degree of security for all members of our society. A great many reforms still need to be tackled, but the job has been started and I am proud to be associated with a government that is taking on the job. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate those senators who, like me, have only just been elected. It seems that I am one of the last to make my maiden speech, a task made all the harder by the quality of the speeches of those who have preceded me. Let us hope that the idealism that we have all expressed is not short-lived. I should like to thank a number of people without whom I would have never reached the Senate. First I acknowledge my deep debt to the many trade union officials who have supported me for many years, not only in my work for the Waterside Workers Federation and the Burnie Trades and Labour Council, but also in my activities in the Australian Labor Party. Many of these people have come from far afield. I have particularly in mind those comrades working in the mining industry on Tasmania's west coast. My thanks are also due to my colleagues many of whom are personal friends in the Labor party who helped me when I was on the Party's administrative committee and then was a candidate for the Senate. My family-John, Vicki, Tony and Sally-and my parents-in-law, Neta and Arthur, deserve special mention for both their moral support and their endless labours during my campaign. I should also mention my eldest grandson, Daniel, who at just five mastered the art of letter boxing. I have left the best to last; that is my expression of thanks to my wife, Vurlie. She has been my unpaid secretary for many years. She has seen her home become a union headquarters, a campaign office and a meeting hall, and she has never once objected. I am sure that when she said 'for better or for worse' she did not know how bad the worse would be. Without her none of this would have happened. I just do not know how members can survive without the sort of support I got from her. With that thanks to the person who deserves it most, I conclude my remarks. Senator HILL(South Australia)(10.43) —I, like those who preceded me in this Address-in-Reply debate, take this opportunity to welcome new senators to the chamber and to congratulate them on their maiden speeches. I particularly congratulate Senator Devlin, who has just preceded me. It is obvious that he will bring to the Australian Labor Party a practical experience of the real world which will be of benefit to that Party. I wish to speak in relation to that part of the Governor-General's Speech which deals with the Government's economic program, or what could be said to be the Government's lack of an economic program. I do so because, although it is obvious that a number of other subjects raised in the Speech deserve consideration in this chamber, I am deeply concerned at the moment at the superficial nature of the economic recovery in Australia. I am concerned that we as a nation continue to slip down the international prosperity table. It appears that under this Government the rate of this slide has accelerated. I am concerned that this Government's policies will not facilitate the ongoing and strengthening recovery which will be necessary for the prosperity slide to be reversed. What is noticeably missing from the Governor-General's Speech is any genuine attempt by the Government to acknowledge and identify the soft areas of our economic recovery to date. The Government has used the Governor-General's Speech to wallpaper over economic issues which need to be addressed in 1985. The Government-more particularly the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke)-is taking consensus to its predictable but absurd conclusion. Rather than decisions being made according to the national interest, Australia is, to my mind, drifting towards a leadership style and substance which seek at any cost to avoid offending any sectional community interest, particularly any ALP interest. This propensity to avoid difficult decisions is no more apparent than in the deepening quagmire in which the Government is now finding itself in regard to taxation reform. As each day passes, the Prime Minister's agenda for tax reform appears to be collapsing. Individual Ministers, Labour faction spokesmen and the Australian Council of Trade Unions are all presenting their own sets of tax reform proposals with implicit-and in some cases explicit-warnings that implementation of the Government's preferred reform options would result in repercussions. The result, we hear from the Prime Minister, is that no taxation reform will be implemented unless such reforms are popular. This is his definition of consensus government. But I submit to the Senate that that attitude makes a farce of government responsibility and the leadership of this nation which is so desperately needed. Furthermore, this 1985 version of consensus politics is now being manifested in the Government's approach to the broader issues of economic management and Australia's longer term economic prospects, although there does appear to be a subtle difference from the consensus process which the Prime Minister gave us two years ago. In 1983 consensus was presented as the true path to economic recovery following what we accept was a severe recession in 1981 and 1982. In 1985 the Government has turned that approach around by wishing us to believe that, as we have experienced an economic recovery, little further needs to be done to keep the economy on a steady growth path. By avoiding the economic problems we face in moving the economy beyond the recovery phase, the Government hopes to maintain a consensus based on false contentment. Such contentment, I suggest, may well be short-lived. The key economic challenge that Australia now faces is whether policies are in place to convert the economic recovery of the past 18 months into a sustained rate of economic growth. In reviewing Australia's economic progress since 1983, due recognition should be given to a number of contributing factors. I mention again, as have others before me, that the world economic recovery which is being led by the United States has provided a powerful engine for economic recovery in this country. The breaking of the drought in Australia in 1983 brought a dramatic surge in farm incomes, bumping up Australia's gross domestic product growth to 6 per cent in 1983-84. I mention again the previous Government's wages pause initiative. It put the brake on the wages growth explosion of 1981, thereby restoring profit levels in the private sector. The prices and incomes accord, I accept, has contributed to wage restraint and industrial peace during the recovery phase. Inflation has declined to a level that is now only marginally above the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average-although it should be stated, as I have just stated, that it is still above that average. Furthermore unemployment has declined, although it remains unacceptably high. We on this side of the Senate are fully prepared to acknowledge and applaud those Government policies which have been responsible for helping to achieve economic recovery. Decisions in regard to floating the dollar and financial deregulations are deserving of support, as both initiatives add a welcome flexibility to the Australian economy. The Opposition does not hesitate to support these moves towards deregulation. We merely note in passing the dramatic conversion to deregulation which has been undergone by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) since the days of his vehement denunciation of the Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System report which was introduced in 1981. However, as has been said before, the Government cannot lay claim to having brought about the recovery in the United States of America, the breaking of the drought or the beneficial effects that have flowed from the wages pause. While acknowledging that the recovery is well under way there are still too many weak points to conclude that all the good work has been done and now it is merely a matter of going full steam ahead. In fact, I submit that there are indications that the recovery could be easily aborted and chances for sustained economic growth may prove merely illusory. What may be correct policies for a recovery phase may not necessarily be appropriate policies for maintaining the economic momentum beyond such a recovery stage. The danger signs are there and they should be acknowledged by this Government. Firstly, as I mentioned before, whilst the unemployment rate has declined below 9 per cent, unemployment growth has slowed down and has now nearly halted. Since June 1984 seasonally adjusted employment growth has been 0.7 per cent or only 1.4 per cent on an adjusted annual basis. Whilst the earlier strong employment growth has helped to recover lost ground from the recession, clearly the present slow down threatens economic momentum beyond recovery. Secondly, the gross domestic product growth rate should be looked at in a longer term perspective. Gross non-farm product increased by 3.8 per cent in 1983-84 and while this is certainly better than the 1.8 per cent growth rate of 1981-82 it is still well below the highest of the fairly dismal growth rates recorded over the past decade. As the Confederation of Australian Industry pointed out-it is worth reminding the Senate-growth figures indicate a recovery in almost a literal sense, that is, a recovery of ground lost and a return simply towards levels of production achieved prior to the 1982 downturn. I would have thought it was obvious that we need better growth rates if we hope to see employment fall below 8 per cent. Thirdly, dwelling construction activity is now levelling out, following an 8.5 per cent increase in 1983-84. Whilst last year's figure is well above the average experienced in recent times honourable senators should remember that the resurgence comes from a base which was one of the worst in recent memory. Fourthly, real private investment in aggregate has also returned only about the average level that prevailed from 1969-70 to 1977-78. Clearly, there is a real need to encourage further investment. It is obvious that further recovery will depend on the private sector making adequate profits for it to undertake investment and provide jobs. Any feeling of a warm inner glow that the Government wishes to engender should be tempered by the knowledge that as of September 1984 the level of private sector production was still below the level attained in June 1982, with the level of consumer demand only 3.4 per cent above its level at that time. Therefore, as I have indicated, private sector activity is returning only to a level which it has shown it is already capable of achieving. Much more is necessary. Whether Australia will be able to go beyond the recovery stage hinges greatly on future wage and on-cost movements. Whilst it may be argued that the prices and incomes accord-I am prepared to accept this to some extent-has served an important stabilising role in the early stages of the recovery, it is also clear that wage indexation guaranteed under the accord constitutes a threat to Australia's longer term economic prospects. The previous two wage indexation decisions have contributed to earning growth which is only now becoming fully appreciated as evidence is coming to light of wage drift outside full indexation. The business sector has not recovered sufficiently to withstand these pressures. I remind the Senate that in June 1984 average earnings in Australia were at their highest level ever. Employers have just now received the burden of a further indexation adjustment and are looking to the prospect of additional labour cost increases-either direct or on-cost-flowing from the expected national productivity hearings later this year. The Government's continued support for full indexation will have a further ramification beyond the flow through of increased labour costs and the effects that they have on profit levels. I remind the Senate that February saw the seventh successive monthly trade deficit and for this financial year Australia could well be looking at a trade deficit of $1.5 billion. At the same time we are facing a deficit in the balance of payments on current account which looks as though it will be between $9 billion and $11 billion. Such a current account deficit, if achieved, will be the highest recorded in Australia's peacetime history. It will certainly be much higher than that which was recorded under the Fraser Government and which was so loudly condemned by the Hawke Government only a short time ago. In the short term the current account deficit will be financed by continued capital inflow which will, among other things, contribute to continued levels of high interest rates. In the December 1984 quarter real interest rates in Australia were 8 per cent. I also remind the Senate that this figure was considerably higher than even the peak in real interest rates which was reached when the Fraser Government was in office, the peak being 6.2 per cent. In the final year of the Fraser Government the average interest rate was 5 per cent. Again under this Government what is being experienced is high interest rates in real terms and these will inevitably flow over into domestic interest rates. We have already seen signs of this in the last week or so when the domestic interest rates of banks and building societies rose. This in turn will fuel inflation. The downturn in the Australian dollar is a clear reflection of the concern held by the international financial community that the current account deficit threatens Australia's economic recovery. I again remind the Senate that this year in only a matter of a few months the value of the Australian dollar dropped by some 17 per cent when compared with the United States dollar. Whilst it may be said that the present level of the dollar is of benefit, in that it lowers the price of our exports and thereby increases Australia's competitiveness, such benefits are likely to be only short lived. Higher import prices arising from the dollar's fall will be fed through into higher domestic production costs, increased price levels and, at the end of the line, higher wage indexation awards which must be paid by all businesses irrespective of their current capacity to pay. International competitiveness can therefore be lost as quickly as it has been won. The Government therefore faces a dilemma which will not be solved by consensus. If it persists with the accord and, as such, sanctions the continuation of full wage indexation Australia's improved competitive position in international trade arising from the decline in the dollar will be blown away. On the other hand, as the Government has placed the accord on the centre stage of its economic management package, less than full indexation could well mean the end of the accord and the predictable trade union response. In the short term many of these potential problems will more than likely remain just below the surface. In 1985 Australia will benefit from an inflation rate which essentially will be in line with that of other major economies. But, as I have pointed out, it is still slightly above the average rate of countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. As the Medicare impact on the low Consumer Price Index rates of the last two quarters wears off and higher import prices take hold, 1986 could well see a return to inflation levels considerably above those of our major trading competitors. I remind the Senate that respected economic analysts such as W. D. Scott warn that 1986 will be the crunch year for Australia as inflation rates move to the 6 per cent mark and our international competitiveness takes a dive. The Government has produced an answer in the Hawke-Keating trilogy of economic promises based on a new attitude of restraint. If that can be implemented, it may well soften the blow of continued full wage indexation and provide a buffer against harsh international trading pressure. Such a trilogy is therefore, not surprisingly, welcomed by the Opposition. One has noted recent reports indicating that the Government is casting around its spending program with the intention of lopping some $1 billion to $1.5 billion off the Budget deficit. One understands that that will be necessary if the Government is to meet its trilogy undertaking. It would appear, however, that while such restraint and expenditure reduction would be an admirable contribution to sound economic management, the Government had the opportunity in the 1984-85 Budget to reduce significantly the structural deficit, and failed that test. It passed up that opportunity by preferring a continuation of spending programs for the sake of electoral gain. Its decision now to undertake some major surgery on the Budget deficit could well be too late. Nevertheless, the trilogy of promises has been given by the Prime Minister, and we hope that he will do a better job of delivering on those promises than he did on a number of other promises in 1983. What is missing from the trilogy is an undertaking by the Government to address Australia's burgeoning national debt. As of June 1984 Australia's public sector debt stood at $75 billion. This is equivalent to about $11,500 per employed person. In June 1984 Australia's gross external debt stood at around $43.5 billion and our net external debt at $29.5 billion. As a proportion of gross domestic product net external debt is now estimated to be 16 per cent-a dramatic increase from 6 per cent in 1980. The servicing of our net external debt will place an increasing burden on Australia's balance of payments throughout the remainder of this decade. Interest payments on overseas debt expressed as a percentage of export earnings increased sharply to about 12 per cent in 1983-84 compared with about 4.5 per cent in 1979-80. Principal and interest payments on overseas debt and a proportion of export earnings was 10 per cent in 1974-75. In 1983-84 the ratio was 28 per cent with most of that increase occurring in recent years. Whatever indicator is used, it is clear that the significance of debt servicing has risen considerably in recent years. It is therefore imperative that the required restructuring of the Australian economy necessary for strong export growth is not held back. I submit to the Government that a restructuring summit in 1986 will not be sufficient. In view of these emerging difficulties, Australians have a right to expect and demand clear visionary leadership. It is no use singing the praises of the private sector as the major generator of investment and jobs. To perform that function the private sector needs a government which allows it to grow. It needs a government which is willing to do much more than call a tax summit when the decisions have already been made or, if they have not been made, the four major factions of the Government parties will go in with fixed positions, as will the Australian Council of Trade Unions and other parties. The private sector needs a government which fulfils its responsibility to reduce in a significant way the level of government expenditure which, in turn, will provide opportunities for reductions in major taxes and charges which have impacted disastrously on business on-cost structures over recent years. That is why the Opposition believes that if the Government were seriously interested in summits it would do better to look at an expenditure summit rather than a taxation summit. The private sector also requires a government which is consistent in its regulatory reform. While business now has the benefit of financial market deregulation, it is still being stifled by the Government's refusal even to acknowledge, let alone to act upon, the inflexibilities in labour costs institutionalised under the accord and full wage indexation. It is quite possible that Australia's plummeting dollar has in fact finally brought home to this Government the consequences of its inconsistent economic management. We on this side of the chamber hope that is so. We need a government which has not only a commitment but also workable policies which will get unemployed Australians back into the work force. Government funded, short term work programs are no substitute for carefully thought out retraining and ongoing training schemes, adaptive technical education courses and healthy State and independent school sectors. We need a government with the necessary leadership which can open the economy to regional and world markets and encourage the psychology of opportunity rather than threat. We need a government that does something about our declining international competitiveness rather than merely lamenting its passing and expressing the hope that something might turn up to change it around. What Australia needs in 1985 is leadership which rejects rather than nurtures the attitudinal negativeness which unfortunately pervades this country. If this Government were really serious about its responsibilities, the Governor-General's Speech would have informed us of the reforms that would open the doors to sustained and strong economic growth, a stronger private sector and greater wealth creation. Instead, we heard a eulogy for consensus politics-a form of politics which is increasingly being seen as nothing more than a poor excuse for lack of leadership. In seeking to avoid the need to lead, in seeking to avoid the need to make important decisions, the Government is condemning Australia to more years of second rate status. The Governor-General's Speech is an epistle for consensus finding rather than decision making. Australia has therefore been presented with an economic policy program which is a great disappointment. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(11.08) —In this Address-in-Reply debate I want to address a serious problem that is affecting my State of Queensland in relation to the blockade that is about to take place. I call on the Government to invoke section 45D of the Commonwealth Government's Trade Practices Act, which provides that a person shall not, in concert with another, engage in conduct which hinders a third person from engaging in trade and commerce between the States. Section 80 of that Act empowers the Commonwealth Minister for Industry to obtain an injunction restraining such conduct. Other provisions of that Act entitle the Minister to recover against the parties involved substantial pecuniary penalties. It cannot be seriously disputed that the proposed blockade will be in contravention of the Trade Practices Act. I call on the Government to stop acting like spineless jellyfish and invoke those laws, which are the laws of this nation. Those laws have been enacted by the Parliament of this nation. But what did the Senate hear from the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) yesterday? We had a complete backdown because he knows that his union bosses would not cop it and would disown him. Then the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) did exactly the same thing. He backed down and ripped up the nation's Constitution. The Government does not have the power or the will power to stand up and defend the laws of this nation. Senator Lewis —They have not got the guts. Senator BOSWELL —Yes, they have not got the guts. What we are discussing today is the future of Australia. The unions have no chance of winning this argument in Queensland where they are certainly flogging a dead horse because the whole weight of public opinion is swinging behind the Premier. If the Government follows that path it will follow it to oblivion in two years time. The Government is in coalition with the unions. Actually, coalition is the wrong term because it implies a partnership; the Government is subservient to the unions. It will not uphold the laws of this nation. The Government completely backed down yesterday at Question Time when Senator Button and Senator Gareth Evans did a Pontius Pilate on the laws of this nation. In the meantime, people in Queensland are hurting. People in Queensland do not know whether to send their meat over the border. They do not know what to do. The Government of this nation has a responsibility to give the people some sort of democratic government. Democratic government of this nation implies the application of the laws of the parliaments of this country. Senator Walsh —It would be nice to have democratic government in Queensland. Senator BOSWELL —We have democratic government in Queensland. Every three years the Queensland Government goes to the polls and wins again. Let us look at a poll-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Jessop) —Order! Senator Boswell, I would appreciate it if you would address your remarks through the Chair. I would appreciate it if Senator Walsh would listen to the honourable senator's speech in silence. Senator BOSWELL —Mr Acting Deputy President, please accept my apology. I will cite a poll published in today's Courier-Mail. It is a poll similar to the one that prophesied the demise of the Australian Labor Party controlled Brisbane City Council. One question was whether workers have the right to strike, whatever the industry. Some 55 per cent of those people polled said yes and 37 per cent said no. The next question asked whether the right to strike or the right to a power supply was more important. Some 18.8 per cent of people said that the right to strike was more important and 58.3 per cent said the right to a power supply was more important. Thirdly, it was asked whether workers have the right to cut the power supply as part of a strike. Some 23 per cent said yes and 73.5 per cent said no. When asked whether the Government has the right to demand a no strike job clause, 51.1 per cent said yes and 45.l per cent said no. Some 52 per cent of people gave overall support to the Queensland Government and 38 per cent opposed it. If the Government wants to go down the track right out of government it should start interfering in Queensland. That is exactly where the Government will go. Today I want to put in chronological order exactly what has happened in Queensland because probably people are getting confused as time goes on. When faced with power workers going out on strike the Queensland Government called members of the Industrial Commission together. The Commission brought down three orders and six recommendations for the Electrical Trades Union members to go back to work. The ETU defied the Industrial Commission of Queensland nine times. Even then, in a compromise attitude, the Queensland Government said: 'We will call the Full Bench of the Industrial Commission together and have all the matters in the dispute determined by arbitration at a full sitting of the State Industrial Commission'. The only condition was that both parties agree in advance to accept the decision of the Full Bench regardless of the outcome. The State Government agreed to accept the condition; but again the unions refused. What option did the State Government have? The only option was complete surrender. The Premier of Queensland will not accept that option. Of course, other legislation had to be brought forward. What are we seeing now? We are seeing the blockade of a State. We are seeing guerrilla tactics. I quote from the Australian Financial Review of Wednesday, 17 April, which stated: The 'hit' list move seems to be an attempt to emulate classic guerrilla warfare methods: indiscriminate pressure on third parties aimed at shifting the focus of discontent back on the offending party-in this case the Government of Queensland and Premier Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen. It is also an indication that the ACTU has decided the only way to fight in Queensland is to fight dirty. The Australian Council of Trade Unions is fighting dirty. It is blackmailing. There is no other word but blackmail for it. The ACTU and the Transport Workers Union of Australia are targeting supporters of the Queensland Government, supporters of the National Party of Australia and supporters of the Premier. That is nothing more than political blackmail. It has come to a fine state of affairs when a person cannot support a party and cannot support a Premier or a government because the unions will target that person and try to bankrupt him! If that is what this Government supports let honourable senators opposite stand up and say so. If they do not support that let them invoke section 45D of the Act. Let them show a bit of guts and stand up to defend the people of Queensland. At the last election some of the people of Queensland voted for this Government. There will not be many such people left now. What has the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) requested? He has sent a letter to the Premier wanting to talk. This nation is sick of talk; it wants some action. We have found the Government has talked itself out. Business people are tired of negotiating their way around unions' unreasonable demands and wildcat strikes. Housewives want a reliable supply of electricity. Farmers want to know that their products can be transported regularly and reliably and that excessive wage demands will not ruin them and force them off their land. Miners want a guarantee that they can get their product on a vessel, that that vessel will sail and that they will earn the reputation of being reliable suppliers. This is what this nation is crying out for. We have had talk. We have had two years of talk. The Government got away with it at the National Economic Summit Conference but the patience of Australians is stretched. The Government has flogged that one to death. It will not get away with it any more. People are demanding that this Government take some action. When the Government first got into government it talked its way through an economic summit. We have had a drug summit. We have had a farm costs summit, a fishing summit and we are going to have a tax summit. What the government has to do is face its responsibilities. The Government talked its way through the 1984 election with no policy except for the promise of more summits. These summits were supposed to solve everything. Of course, this nation cannot live on talk. Whilst this nation has been talking for the last two years our standard of living has slipped from third in the world to around twentieth. The dollar has collapsed and national borrowing has escalated to $50 billion, imposing an annual debt of $455 on every Australian. No matter what criterion is used, Australia is falling down a path of action which is slowly destroying this country. Senator Cook —Rubbish! Senator BOSWELL —It is not rubbish. If Senator Cook listened to Senator Hill's very good speech he would have heard him enunciate what this Government is doing and the path it is going down. I have lived in Australia all my life and now have two children entering the job market and I am concerned that one out of every four young people in Australia does not have a job. It looks as though these young people will never get a job. We can no longer tolerate these excessive and absolutely ridiculous union claims. In a previous speech I heard that the unions want to work 20 hours a week. How the devil are we going to be competitive! Senator Cook —Which specific claim are you referring to? Senator BOSWELL —I am referring to the speech of an honourable senator who made his maiden speech. He said that business and governments would have to accept a 20-hour working week. I should not criticise that honourable senator's maiden speech. Senator Cook —But what claim was it? Senator BOSWELL —The honourable senator is very welcome to speak in this debate but I ask him not to divert me from my subject. The majority of Australians, as indicated by the results of the polls published today, support the Premier of Queensland. He has had the courage to stand up to the unions and say no to their unreasonable demands. He knows that the only way that Australians can once again enjoy conditions that applied in the 1950s, 1960s and early 1970s is for us to be more competitive. We must be able to produce our primary industry products and export them. We must be able to produce our mining products, load them on ships and get foreign exchange for them. The only way that we will ever be able to do this is to stand up and put Australia in a competitive position. This nation owes the Premier of Queensland a debt of gratitude. When most people at his age want to retire to the farm and enjoy the comforts of their farm and grandchildren, the Premier is prepared to spend time in the hurly-burly of politics and stand up for the nation as a whole and say: 'I am prepared to give a lead to this nation'. That is what the Queensland Government is doing at the moment. That Government is showing this nation that there is a way out of our troubles, but it is going to require the taking of tough options. It is going to require putting government back where it belongs-into the assemblies of this nation, into the hands of the elected representatives of the people-and taking it away from the unions. It is a hard stand. It has never been easy, but at the age of 73 the Premier is prepared to stand up and give this nation a lead. This nation is crying out for someone who can show the way out of our malaise and our unemployment. This Government can no longer go down the track of putting 120,000 people on the Government payroll. This Government has nearly reached the end of that. The only way that this Government can get out of that situation is by increasing taxes. It is now looking at additional taxes to pay for the unemployed it has put on the Government payroll. That is a very short term solution to this malaise. The options are hard. Nothing is easy in this world. For the sake of Australia I implore this Government to take the hard options and, as the people of Australia asked members of the Government to do when they put them back into government, to invoke section 45D and uphold the laws of this nation. Question put: That the words proposed to be added (Senator Chaney's amendment) be added. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 36 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 8 —— Archer, B. R. Lajovic, M. E. Baume, Peter Lewis, A. W. R. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. MacGibbon, D. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Messner, A. J. Brownhill, D. G. C. Missen, A. J. Carrick, Sir John Parer, W. R. Collard, S. J. Puplick, C. J. G. Durack, P. D. Rae, PeterGuilfoyle, Dame Margaret Scott, D. B. Hamer, D. J. Sheil, G. Hill, R. Short, J. R. Jessop, D. S. Teague, B. C. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Vanstone, A. E. Knowles, S. C. Withers, R. G. Aulich, T. Jones, G. N. Black, J. R. McClelland, DouglasBolkus, N. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Childs, B. K. McKiernan, J. P. Chipp, D. L. Macklin, M. J. Coates, J. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Mason, C. V. J. Cook, P. F. S. Primmer, C. G. Cooney, B. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Reynolds, M. Devlin, R. Richarson, G. F. Elstob, R. C. Robertson, E. A. Evans, Jack Ryan, S. M. Foreman, D. J. Sibraa, K. W. Gietzelt, A. T. Tate, M. C. Giles, P. J. Vigor, D. B. Grimes, D. J. Walsh, P. A. Haines, J. Zakharov, A. O. Button, J. N. Chaney, F. M. Coleman, R. N. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Evans, Gareth Reid, M. E. Georges, G. Walters, M. S. Hearn, J. M. Watson, J. O. W. Question so resolved in the negative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That the Address-in-Reply be presented to His Excellency the Governor-General by the President and such senators as may desire to accompany him. The PRESIDENT —I inform honourable senators that I have ascertained that His Excellency the Governor-General will be pleased to receive the Address-in-Reply to his opening Speech at Government House next Friday at 3.30 p.m. I extend an invitation to all honourable senators to accompany me on the occasion of its presentation. Debate resumed from 16 April, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator COLLARD(Queensland)(11.31) — The Opposition supports these Bills, with which we are dealing cognately. As part of a whole program that the Government has brought in, they set up an Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation and allow the levies collected to go towards that organisation. I take this opportunity to say a few words about the consequences for the beef industry in Australia and what the Government is doing to rural industries generally. As was indicated at the National Agricultural Outlook Conference held at the beginning of this year, the beef industry is one of probably two industries which, compared with other primary industries, have any kind of bright future at this time, the other being the wool industry. The beef industry is currently running reasonably well. I suppose it is one of the ironies of the Government's disastrous fiscal policies, resulting in the Australian dollar being seen in such a low light by the rest of the economic community, that producers are able to sell their beef for a reasonable return. Of course, a few things further down the track could change that, and we will need all the money we can get for research and development to see that our product remains a good product on the world market. Dare I mention the future of the dairy industry? Prior to the Victorian election we had reasonable agreement among the Ministers responsible for agriculture in the various States on a scheme which took into consideration overproduction within Australia and which would have allowed that overproduction to be brought down without blood-letting so that the industry could stabilise itself. Immediately after the Victorian election that scheme was scrapped and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) brought in another scheme which will see bloodshed in that many people will go out of the dairying industry and, in many areas, will have nothing else to do than turn their land over to grazing, with a consequent increase in beef production. Such factors cause us quite a lot of concern. The return to the beef producer is currently pretty good but, if there is a large scale exit from the dairying industry by people who have the alternative but to use their land for other pursuits, beef being one of the logical ones, and if we start to build up our cattle herds again, we will be in all sorts of trouble. The export levy has been talked of previously in the chamber, including by my colleague Senator Boswell who raised the fact that, when the beef industry is starting to get on its feet because of prices, the export industry is being hit by this export levy. It must be acknowledged that the export industry being one of our major industries, it is of vital interest to the whole community that it be kept solvent. When extra costs by way of government charges are put on the beef producer, it is a pretty sorry day. We in the Opposition recognise the contributions of the beef industry and that these extra imposts can have a deleterious effect. So, we are saying to the Government: 'Look once again at those export levies. Let the whole community bear them because the industry is of great benefit to the community'. Currently only the beef producer is bearing that cost, so the beef industry can be hurt and its future is not necessarily good. Once the devaluation of the dollar starts to take effect and we see rises in the consumer price index and in the costs of machinery and so on coming into the country, any advantages gained from the current high prices in the beef industry will be wiped out. While the beef industry is not as great a user of fuel as the agricultural industry, the disastrous consequences of this Government's appalling economic record, resulting in rising fuel prices, are affecting many people. Because of the high cost of manpower, people are using more and more aircraft and trucks. There is little droving in the old sense; stock are shifted by stock transport and rail. All that will have an adverse effect on the beef industry. The Opposition supports these Bills, but is drawing the Government's attention particularly to its economic policies and to the effect that the export levy is having and could have in the future on this industry. Although it is running well at this time, we are still greatly concerned about the future. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(11.37) — The Senate is debating four pieces of legislation, a package of Bills designed to replace the Australian Meat Research Committee with an incorporate body, the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation. The new Corporation is designed to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of meat and livestock research and development and, as such, the Australian Democrats welcome and support the proposal. The flexibility to be given to the Corporation is of great interest, and people in the industry are hopeful that this flexibility will allow new initiatives to be taken in this area. The second Bill, which is complementary to the Corporation Bill, is to effect the necessary consequential amendments to the enabling Acts of relating instrumentalities to repeal existing meat research legislation and to provide those types of transitional arrangements before the new Corporation is fully operational. The last couple of Bills, the slaughter levy and export charges Bills, amend other relevant legislation with regard to the respective levies and charges which form the industry's contribution to research and development. As I have indicated, the Australian Democrats support the establishment of the Corporation. It is the final stage of a plan to alter the administration of the meat and livestock industry in this country. We had in the last Parliament two debates on the packages of legislation with regard to this subject. Not only will the new Corporation have the necessary independence and authority which we believe are necessary to pursue important research and development goals but also the new structure will improve the means by which expenditure on research and development is accounted for. Combined with the proposed increase in maximum levy rates, the package represents a substantial improvement in this area for the industry. The Democrats have a concern with the types of moves that the Government seems to be indicating it will take, partly in this legislation and partly in statements made elsewhere, in research and primary industry areas. The Democrats have always supported and supported very strongly the notion that in the research committees the growers have an influential and, hopefully, a majority voice. We believe that the reason for that is a very important and practical one-that the grower has a practical input to a research committee which cannot be obtained elsewhere. The growers representatives are the people who know the current concerns of growers and the current demands for research and the direction of future research. But, probably more importantly, any research undertaken is of value to any industry only if it is communicated and implemented. Research of itself is useless. The communication of research to the people who have to use it-that is, the growers-is the vital link in any research and development proposal. We believe that it is here that the grower representatives have a remarkable and absolutely necessary role to play. The grower representatives on research committees are the people who talk constantly to growers in each primary industry area and raise with them the type of research which is currently being undertaken and the proposals for new research. In other words, the representatives are the selling agents for research and they sell to the growers who are the users, hopefully the effective users, of any research which we undertake in this country. So we believe that any moves that are likely to be made by the Government in other areas in terms of diminishing and possibly even taking away that type of grower representation on research boards would be a detrimental step in the overall operation and usefulness of research in primary industry. I return to the Bills. The increased research effort is vital if we are to be able to maximise the opportunities for this industry on the domestic and world markets. We are meeting and have new challenges before us. A properly structured authority, we hope, should assist in building these market opportunities not only in Australia but also in particular in the Pacific Basin markets. In recent years the industry has suffered from severe problems. The dominant problem is the European Economic Community. Europe at the moment is groaning under the weight of surplus agricultural products, which are being grown with extraordinary encouragement from the Common Market farm subsidies. Australian producers, and certainly Australian meat producers, have probably suffered more from the common agricultural policy than producers in most countries around the world. Europe has moved from being a net importer to self-sufficiency in food and then to a food exporter. It is so prodigious, in fact, that world markets in many commodities have collapsed and international pricing arrangements have collapsed with them. We have seen huge European surpluses in other areas and examples of dumping of the most extraordinary kind. It has taken a great deal of effort on the part of the international community to restrain the Europe Economic Community from wholesale dumping in almost every commodity area. As I said, I think Australia could quite reasonably claim to be hardest hit by the European dumping, particularly in our traditional beef markets. We have supplied traditionally to the north African markets, to the Middle East markets and to Canada. All of those have been severely hit. We have now amongst the meat and livestock industry people in Australia an ongoing concern that the European Economic Community will seek to undercut the price of Australian meat in the Pacific Basin. I think the inroads that it has made, particularly in Singapore and now in Malaysia, hold out for us an ongoing concern that we cannot put to one side. A serious erosion of sheep meat exports has also occurred. Again we have the problem of the Europe Economic Community and New Zealand eating into our long standing markets. It has to be admitted also that in Australia we have not assisted matters. Honourable senators will recall that the last debate we had on this matter concerned the very problem of export levies, in other words, the types of impositions that Australia places on its own exports. The very last debate on this matter in this chamber saw the Australian Labor Party, the Liberal Party of Australia, and the National Party of Australia combining to increase those rates. The only party which was opposed to those rates last year, and indeed in previous years, was the Australian Democrats. Senator Walsh —And it will never have any responsibility whatever for government policy; the total irresponsibility of the lack of power. Senator MACKLIN —But the operations of those rates have, as the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) has already indicated, actually eaten into those markets. It is probably of great interest to the Minister for Finance, who does not keep his finger on this pulse any longer, that the Minister for Primary Industry has already indicated that those increases have severely damaged our export trade. It would be useful for Senator Walsh to read the Primary Industry Minister's Press releases. Senator Walsh —More populist grandstanding. Senator MACKLIN —If that is indeed populist grandstanding, that is an indictment of the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, who, subsequent to our last debate on this matter, and the levy increases imposed by this chamber, had to decrease those levies. Presumably the Minister, as a Cabinet Minister, would have been party to the agreement to decrease those amounts. It was fairly obvious, and I stated in the debate, that those amounts could not be sustained by the industry. Senator Walsh would want to make all sorts of allegations but he knows the facts of the matter. It has to be admitted that since 1980 there has been a substantial decline in the consumption of meat. A change in dietary habits has occurred for a whole variety of reasons. The major meat eating countries, of which Australia is one, have changed their dietary habits quite significantly. They are consuming less meat progressively each year. For example, in 1980 Australia consumed 109 kilograms of meat per person. By 1984 this had declined to 97.2 kilograms. That type of pattern is repeated elsewhere in the world. The Research and Development Corporation has to look not only at the traditional research areas, the problems of disease control and eradication, the concerns of developing meat quality, the ratios required between the land and the number of beasts it carries, all of which have been very much stock in trade in research areas; but also at the variety of products which may be available to the consumer. The variety of products available to the consumer, of course, is important in combating change in dietary habits. I believe that as the amount of research and development in this area picks up, it will be possible for alternative and new products to come on to the market. A variety of products is always necessary in countries such as Australia, which has a fairly free market and a fairly free fluid movement in consumption habits, to meet and possibly reverse some of those changes that have taken place since 1980. This brief coverage of the types of problems confronting the industry shows the need for a new approach to research and development. We are hopeful that these Bills are a step in the right direction. I think the new Corporation will receive the support of this chamber and the other place. I hope that this incredibly significant industry to Australia and to Australian economic life will in fact be supported and enhanced in the next few years by the operations of the new Corporation. I am sure that the industry will be looking to the Corporation to carry out effective and significant research which can be applied rapidly to the various types of growing conditions for meat in Australia. Hence, the Australian Democrats indicate their support and hope that the new Corporation and the subsequent changes that have to be made elsewhere will provide us with that type of base in the coming years. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(11.52) —The Opposition supports the legislation now before the Senate. However, I move: At end of motion, add ', but, in relation to the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation Bill 1985, the Senate is of the opinion that factors such as heavily increased export inspection charges are adversely affecting competitiveness on vital export markets'. In my opinion the legislation in itself makes very little change. I think what is of much more importance is what the industry at large does as a result of the legislation. I certainly urge the industry to consider carefully what it hopes to gain from the legislation because some changes in attitude will have to be made if we are to lift the livestock industry and livestock marketing from where it is now. The new legislation provides for much wider power than the old Australian Meat Research Committee had to invest in research and development ventures, and I am totally in favour of that. I support the major thrust of the changes proposed in the legislation to establish an organisation that will be more forward looking and commercially oriented and put more emphasis on research and development. We have to bear in mind that probably we have not dealt adequately in the past with research and development in the cattle and livestock industries. We have to take into account the great differences that exist in location and, as a result of that, the differences in the type of stock, the feeding of stock, the ability to cope with various climatic conditions and so on; these vary so much. It is now more necessary than ever before that research take this into account. I think in the past there have been times when too little consideration has been given to this. The meat industry is very large, very important and very regional. There is no one solution to the problems of the industry and no two areas are entirely the same. The northern part of Australia certainly has the numbers and produces mainly cattle meat. As a result, this area will probably retain the majority of research and development funding. It cannot be assumed that research and development undertaken in this area will be totally appropriate to other areas where different kinds of cattle and stock are run and where different types of meat are produced. A lot more research needs to be carried out. One only has to look at the work that is being done in the intensive industries, the pig and poultry meat industries, to see what can be achieved in the development of a product that is appropriate to the market-place. The pig and poultry industries have done a tremendous job in producing a commodity that the market seeks. They have produced and marketed their product in the form in which the market wants it. This has not been the case in other areas of the meat industry. Only by having a more forward looking attitude following this legislation, will changes be made. The questions of feed, breed, disease, handling, slaughter and transport are terribly important. While there are similarities in some of these factors from area to area, considerable differences of distance are also involved. Stock which has to travel 50 miles to slaughter will be treated in a different way from stock which may have to travel 500 miles to slaughter. The types of diseases feed, nutrition and breeding patterns that are found from place to place are so different. I think we have tried to generalise too much in these areas. As I have said, the pig and poultry industries have dealt with these problems ever so much better and the market has been satisfied because it has received exactly what it asked for. However, still nothing like enough effort is being made in the sheep meats industry to reduce genetically the amount of fat on a carcass. Some moves have been made in this direction in the beef industry. While I believe that producers deserve to have adequate representation on the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation, I am somewhat wary that they may be seeking to have such a say that a true reflection of the market forces and market signals could be clouded. Grower domination could at times tend to cloud the realities because of what the growers either do not see or may not want to see. Quite clearly in some cases grower domination has resulted in the growers of a product which is not readily accepted trying to convince the market that it is wrong. I think we need to have a proper representation to ensure that this will not happen. It is the processors who have to face the realities of the buying market. They are the people who are confronted with the export situation and the world situation. People with special qualifications in other industries and other pursuits also can make a very great contribution and often can see what the growers themselves may not see or may not want to see. In view of the problems which exist in Australia today in terms of world trade, Australian exporters are very special people. As was said to me the other day, we ought to be taking our hats off every time we pass one in the street. Exporters are the most important group of people in the Australian community at present and they should be treated as such. We need to consider how best we can make our economy suit the needs of other peoples. The community at large is not prepared to accept the fact that we are very much part of an international community. We cannot make arrangements that just suit us, because the people in the real world outside will not necessarily fit in with what we want. There is also a feeling in Australia that people who produce things are enemies of society. I do not think it would do any harm for more Australians to stop and consider who produces the wealth of the country. Only the people who mine things, manufacture things or breed things really generate the wealth of this country. It is they who employ; it is they who invest. They have to be kept in a healthy situation so that they can continue to invest and employ. I have heard the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, talk about a wages led recovery. If there is no employment there is, of course, no wages led recovery. This is a matter of whether there is a profit or not. All the productive industries of Australia are suffering from costs totally out of proportion to the international productivity of those industries. There are world problems of production, and overproduction, in the meat industry. There is little that we can do about those problems except to adapt to the demands that others place upon us. We have to recognise that this is a world situation. I urge the new body, when it meets and gets together, really to consider where we stand in the world market. The community of Australia-the total community starting with the Government-has to consider that we are in this international export field. If we are to survive as a nation we will have to fit in with our position as an exporter in that area. The Opposition supports the legislation. I have moved an amendment on behalf of the Opposition. We trust that the legislation will get into business without delay. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(12.01) —The Commonwealth's involvement with rural research is really through two avenues-the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and the rural industry research funds. Over the years a number of reports have questioned the Organisation and the funding of rural research schemes in terms of accountability and the relevance of research which they fund regarding the technical, social and economic needs of particular industries. There were some problems with the Australian Meat Research Committee. It was unable to enter into contracts or manage its own funds. There were problems with the initiation or modification of projects which required ministerial authorisation. The incorporation will enable the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation to be more flexible. It will enable creative responses to future opportunities. The Corporation will be responsible for its own assessment of the industry. I think that is important. The other feature that I endorse is that the members of the Corporation will be chosen on the basis of their professional qualifications and experience. They need also to have a close involvement with the industry. I think that is very important. We have to acknowledge that despite Australia's considerable competence in producing beef, particularly grass fed beef, external practices have often been very damaging to our exports. Time and again I have used the example of the common agricultural policy of the European Economic Community. Through its various subsidies to farmers it has encouraged the vast overproduction of not only beef but a wide range of agricultural goods. This surplus has been dumped on world markets at artificially reduced prices, and undercutting such countries as Australia, thereby weakening our position in our traditional markets. This has been most unfortunate. The other aspect that I think requires attention is that 80 per cent of the entire CAP budget goes to 20 per cent of the farmers in Europe. These sorts of practices have a tremendously damaging impact on our export industries, no matter how efficient we are, no matter how we refine our own operations and increase our productivity. If these international practices are allowed to persist we have major problems. We have to acknowledge the very dramatic fall in beef exports in the previous year. I therefore come to the conclusion that our meat and livestock industry, like so many of our primary and secondary industries, is under threat on two fronts. The first, which I have mentioned, is the dumping of subsidised beef and sheep meat products by the EEC. As a result, 80 per cent of our overseas trade is now concentrated in the very competitive, very low wage cost areas of the Pacific basin. Even these markets, as I have mentioned, are under threat because of dumping by the EEC-and also, I have to acknowledge, better marketing strategies by some of our competitors. Secondly, we have to acknowledge that the consumption of red meat in Australia has fallen. This is due chiefly to a well orchestrated education program by different organisations, ranging from the National Heart Foundation to Weight Watchers International, whose aims include the reduction of the consumption of cholesterol and animal fats. In fact, domestic consumption of red meat fell by 6 per cent in 1983-84. Total red meat production fell by almost two million tonnes carcass weight in the last financial year. This meant a drop of 14 per cent, with beef and mutton production showing substantial losses. We know that there are problems with markets and with falling consumption. The Corporation and the meat and livestock industry have tried to come to terms with some of these problems, but in many respects they have failed, because the product is no longer acceptable to such a wide range of consumers as in the past. Therefore, we have to acknowledge that demands by the consumer have changed. We have to acknowledge that fat as such is out; more meat on the bone is in. New Zealand woke up to this change in consumer demand years ago and instituted profitable research to develop a product that would meet these needs, especially in the important Japanese market. Although we have been initiating and supporting research projects for years we have not always transferred that research into improved products, particularly in the eyes of the consumers, improved customer demand or improved access to the Asian market, particularly Japan. We are now waking up to move into these essential areas. In essence, the meat and livestock industry must improve both the effectiveness and efficiency of meat and livestock research and development or it will continue to go down the drain like, for example, the dairy industry. It has been shown that research funds have not always been used in the best interests of the industry. There must be more co-operation and liaison between all bodies involved in the industry. The act of replacing the Australian Meat Research Committee with an incorporated body to be called the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation will be completely meaningless if the new Corporation does not address these problems in a meaningful way that will benefit the industry in the future. Thus our side endorses the establishment of the Corporation and commends the Government for raising the maximum level of its matching contribution for rural research over the next five years. With industry co-operation our meat products could become much more competitive in the future. However, there is still some concern over the accountability of the new Corporation by both the producers and the exporters, from whom it will receive financial support, mainly by way of levies. At this stage I acknowledge the importance of Tasmania in this industry. Tasmania has a number of producers of grass fed cattle who produce as many animals as producers in any other State in Australia. I refer with a great deal of pleasure to the pioneering work done by Mr Bert Farquhar and his skill and expertise in engineering, particularly in the use of irrigation. This shows that sometimes large producers come from a small State. In addition to the Bert Farquhars of Tasmania, there are many other efficient meat producers in Tasmania who need the support of the community and of governments if they are to survive in an increasingly competitive world. In conclusion, if the new Corporation can be more accountable and more efficient, if it can raise productivity and reduce charges, it will be a worthwhile organisation. Against that background we have to acknowledge what is happening in the farming community. If farm costs and charges are allowed to escalate as they have in the immediate past there will be a long term problem for this industry. Ultimately, every cost, be it a labour cost or an imported cost, is caught up at the farm gate. Therefore, it is not surprising that the National Farmers Federation has placed cost containment as a major feature of its public relations campaign. There is initial short term benefit to these industries from the devaluation of the Australian dollar, but if the Government does not acknowledge those benefits as short term and take other appropriate action to maintain other costs within the economy these benefits will be short lived and to the long term detriment of our rural industry. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(12.11) —I have noted that the legislation will not be opposed and that an amendment to the motion for the second reading has been moved. The substance of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation Bill has been referred to by other speakers. I want to make a couple of comments about the amendment to the motion for the second reading, which the Government will oppose. The amendment states: At end of motion, add ', but, in relation to the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation Bill 1985, the Senate is of the opinion that factors such as heavily increased export inspection charges are adversely affecting competitiveness on vital export markets'. Implicit in that is an assertion that the level of export charges in various countries is putting Australian meat producers at a competitive disadvantage compared with those in other countries. As Mr Kerin pointed out in the House of Representatives on 28 March, the facts are these: There is constant reference to other countries. We have just carried out a survey of the key 21 countries, and 17 currently impose inspection charges. Almost all European Economic Community countries, including Ireland and Denmark, have charges ranging from 50 per cent to 100 per cent cost recovery. South American competitors-including Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay-have substantial charges. New Zealand will impose charges for a one-third cost recovery from 1 October 1985, moving to a two-thirds recovery in 1986. United States of America budget proposals are for a 100 per cent cost recovery over three years. The United States currently recovers cost for overtime, travel, grading and additional inspection over and above domestic requirements for exports. The policy of this Government is the same as was the policy of the previous Government; that is, that 50 per cent cost recovery should be sought. That is what government policy is aimed at. The assertion that export inspection charges are adversely affecting the competitiveness of Australian exporters is clearly wrong because most of our major competitors apply export charges at at least the same level as those that apply in Australia. If people want to seek reasons for a lack of competitiveness they will have to look outside export inspection charges. Senator Archer —What is the relativity? Senator WALSH —It is a fact, which I would have expected would be recognised by even Senator Archer, that a very substantial devaluation of the Australian dollar in the last few months has significantly enhanced the competitiveness of Australian meat exporters. I note, however, that implicit also in the amendment to the motion for the second reading is the assertion that export inspection charges should be reduced. Nobody has suggested that the Export Inspection Service should be terminated, for the very good reason, of course, that if the Export Inspection Service were terminated Australian meat would not be accepted on most of our major markets. So what the Opposition is saying in the amendment is that export charges should be reduced and taxes on other people should be increased. I put on the record that that is coming from the same Opposition which is constantly asserting that taxes should be reduced. That demonstrates, regrettably, that the National Party populace still dominates the Liberal Party, that the Liberal Party caves in to pressure from the primitives of the National Party whenever the National Party primitives decide to apply a bit of pressure. I assume that the amendment to the motion for the second reading will be supported by the Australian Democrats. The Australian Democrats habitually support anything that is more popular with one group than it is unpopular with another group. Needing only a bit above 10 per cent of the vote to retain their seats, their standing policy is to ingratiate themselves with a sufficient number of vested interests and single issue zealots to retain something above 10 per cent of the vote, knowing full well that they will never have to accept the responsibility in government or in coalition for any of the policies that they advocate. Essentially they are a gaggle of populous dilettantes who will never have to accept responsibility for anything they advocate. Therefore, they behave in an appropriately irresponsible way. The Government rejects the Opposition amendment and notes with-I do not suppose I should say gratitude-some satisfaction that at least the Opposition has accepted the thrust of the Bills. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time, and passed through their remaining stages without amendment or debate. Debate resumed from 16 April, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(12.20) —The Opposition has given consideration to the amendments contained in these two pieces of legislation and supports them. The extradition law is contained in two separate pieces of legislation, one relating to foreign states and one relating to Commonwealth countries. The amendments to the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Act give effect to a good deal of work that has been done in recent years by Commonwealth Law Ministers which began in 1966 and was completed in 1983. Those Ministers reviewed the scheme which operates within the Commonwealth. Traditionally, Commonwealth countries have had forms of legislation different from that applying in countries which are not members of the Commonwealth and which are, as I said, the subject of a separate piece of legislation. The second piece of legislation, which deals with extradition arrangements with foreign countries, makes a number of useful amendments to deal with problems that have arisen in trying to negotiate treaties for extradition with foreign countries. I indicate that the extradition Act is simply umbrella legislation under which separate treaties must be made with individual foreign countries in order to obtain the benefits of extradition with those countries. The Act does not automatically provide for extradition, so we have had a laborious process of negotiation with other countries in an endeavour to obtain mutual arrangements with them. Of course, as we are aware, there are many countries with which we do not have such extradition agreements. However, this legislation should assist in entering into agreements with foreign countries, particularly European countries which have a civil law system as it is known, rather than our common law system. The Opposition did object to one amendment which originally appeared in this legislation and which gave the Attorney-General the sole power to determine whether offences were of a political character. One of the exceptions to extradition entitlement is in cases in which the offence that is the subject of a claim for extradition is of a political character. Traditionally, although the Attorney-General has been able to make the decision in the first place as to whether he would take proceedings to give effect to the request for extradition, the magistrate who hears the application and makes the decision as to whether the person should be extradited also had the power to determine whether it was an offence of a political character. Originally that provision was to be removed by the legislation when it was introduced in the other place. The Opposition objected to that proposal and moved an amendment to restore the power of the magistrate to determine whether in the end a person should be extradited if he claimed the offence for which the extradition was sought was of a political character. We are pleased to note that the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) in the other place accepted that amendment. I think that that is an important protection of civil liberties. As I said, the Opposition supports these measures and I do not think I can usefully add anything more to this debate. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(12.25) —The Extradition (Foreign States) Amendment Bill 1985 and the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Amendment Bill 1985 are directed to the necessity for this country to have arrangements with other countries for people accused of serious crimes to be returned to this country in cases where the crime has been committed in this country and they have fled overseas. The legislation specifically deals with the return of fugitives accused of having committed serious crimes in overseas countries to the country in which the crimes have been committed. It is based on the concept of reciprocity between the countries concerned. There are two propositions which in a certain sense are at war with each other. The first proposition is that those who commit serious criminal offences should be punished and those accused of serious criminal offences should be returned to countries so they they can be properly dealt with. It is in the interests of everybody that crime and the detection of crime should be dealt with. On the other hand, there is always the question of people's rights and the liberties to which we are all entitled. It is a serious matter for a person who is accused of a crime overseas to be arrested in Australia, to be incarcerated here and then to be sent overseas to be dealt with by a jurisdiction over which this country has little control. Although some controls are provided for in both pieces of legislation, one would have to say that there is fairly minimal control over what happens overseas. A balancing act, if I may use that expression, must be performed in any extradition proceedings and in any arrangements made for extradition proceedings. These Bills attempt to do that. The Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Amendment Bill 1985 arose out of a meeting of Commonwealth Law Ministers in Sri Lanka in 1983. Those Ministers agreed on amendments to the London scheme which had been accepted by Commonwealth countries in the 1960s. The Extradition (Foreign States) Amendment Bill contains provisions similar to those operating among Commonwealth countries. The arrangements can be made either by regulation or by treaty. It is my view that, in all of those cases in which it can be done, the arrangements between foreign countries, other than those which are within the Commonwealth of nations, ought to be done by treaty. In any event, the provisions are contained in these Bills. The first amendment contained in the Extradition (Foreign States) Amendment Bill 1985 should enable Australia to conclude extradition arrangements with countries which do not require the requesting country to furnish evidence of guilt; rather, they require information as to the allegations against the fugitive. This is a matter which is of particular significance to countries which have civil law systems which are different in their approach from those which Australia, with its committal proceedings, adopts. The second amendment will permit the conclusion of arrangements which permit extradition to be granted for any offence which carries a penalty of 12 months imprisonment or more without specifically describing the offence. This latter amendment will avoid difficulties which have been experienced in the past in cases in which the same offence is described differently in the law of the two countries concerned; in other words, where the description of a particular crime is different but the facts that make up the crime are the same in both countries. This amendment will overcome that problem. It should be mentioned in this context that in the agreements that Australia reaches under the Extradition (Foreign States) Amendment Bill in particular, regard is had by Australia to the proposition that the state to which the person is extradited should not carry out any death penalty that might be provided for certain crimes. That is one aspect which I commend most earnestly. Senator Durack queried whether the Attorney-General should be the final arbiter on whether a particular crime is political. He mentioned the difficulties that he had and the fact that those difficulties had been resolved. I agree with what has fallen from the lips of Senator Durack. Another aspect of these Bills which ought to be commended is the provision for the voluntary return of fugitives. A person who wants or agrees to go back to his country without full extradition proceedings being gone through can now do so. This, of course, cuts down the delay which might otherwise occur when a person has to wait an unconscionable time in prison for proceedings to be gone through. If he wants to avoid those proceedings by agreeing voluntarily to return to his country of origin he is now able to do so. Another commendable aspect of these Bills is that extradition can now be obtained in respect of people who are accused of committing serious fiscal offences. That is a new trend in this area and shows the serious approach that is being taken around the world towards the people who are accused, and who may ultimately be proved guilty, of fiscal offences. There has been some talk about the way in which these proceedings should be undertaken and the question of the right of appeal. One measure which has been preserved-I commend it-is the writ of habeas corpus, that is, a person who has been committed to prison on the basis that he has been accused of a crime in another country can apply for habeas corpus. This gives an overriding discretion to the courts to oversee that the proper matters are attended to under the provisions in these Bills. I commend the Bills to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Ryan) adjourned. Sitting suspended from 12.33 to 2 p.m. Senator BOSWELL —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is the Government aware of statements by Australian Council of Trade Unions leader, Mr Dolan, New South Wales Transport Workers Union spokesman Mr Harry Quinn and others foreshadowing selective bans, boycotts, blockades, strikes and other discriminatory measures and actions against Queensland individuals or companies purporting to support the Queensland Premier, the Queensland National Party and the Queensland Government? Does the Government believe that this smacks of the political actions of a totalitarian one-party state or system and is a denial of the basic civil rights to subscribe to, be a member of, or otherwise support a political party, political leader, government, or political philosophy of one's choice, without fear of reprisal, discrimination or victimisation? Does the Government reject or support such a process of reprisal, discrimination and victimisation by the unions against individuals and companies on the basis of their presumed political beliefs, and is it prepared to censure such anti-civil rights action by the union movement? Senator BUTTON —The most memorable sentence in Senator Boswell's long speech was the reference to actions that smack of totalitarian attitudes of a one-party state or system. That reminded me, unhappily, of the State of Queensland, where the situation is that the Premier of that State, desperately concerned about the declining economic fortunes of his State, has resorted to a range of provocative actions in the industrial sphere designed to alleviate the pressures upon him because of that economic situation. In days gone by we had examples of this not so much in Australia but in this region. I think at one stage it was referred to as Sukarnoism. All sorts of initiatives were adopted abroad to distract the populace from the essential questions that concerned them, namely, their economic welfare. I am not aware of the specific statements attributed to Mr Dolan or Mr Harry Quinn. Senator Boswell —That is a cop-out. Senator BUTTON —If I am allowed to answer the question, I think it will be agreed that I am not copping out. I am not aware of the specific statement to which Senator Boswell's draftsman refers in the preparation of that question, but I am aware of the unfortunate ban which has been announced in respect of the Transport Workers Union of New South Wales. The Government has indicated its attitude to that question, in fact I was asked about it yesterday. We, as distinct from the Queensland Premier, do not believe that provocative actions are conducive to the settlement of industrial disputes and problems of the kind experienced in Queensland. One of my great concerns about what is happening in the State of Queensland-and it is peculiar to that State and is not happening elsewhere in Australia-is the even further damage that is being inflicted to the Queensland economy, particularly to Australia's capacity in international markets in terms of exports from that State. I very much regret that the situation on either side has reached its present point, but I do not think any solution to the problem is likely to be brought about by inflammatory speeches by Senator Boswell or anyone else. Senator TATE —Is the Minister for Veterans' Affairs aware of the disgraceful and derelict state of Veterans Park in the national capital? Is he particularly aware that this means that there is no suitable place of remembrance of those 424 Australians, volunteer and conscript, who were killed in the Vietnam war? Will the Government give an assurance that moneys will be found in the next Budget, despite stringencies on spending, so that restoration of Veterans Park can go ahead? Senator GIETZELT —Yes, I am aware that in Canberra City there is a park known as Veterans Park, which was designed and constructed in 1969 in Civic. In 1981 the appropriate authority, the National Capital Development Commission, named it in honour of Australian servicemen who died in Korea, Vietnam, Borneo and Malaya. A fountain and a sculpture were erected at the time, which unfortunately have been subjected to a degree of vandalism, which the Government condemns. However, there has been significant redevelopment in the vicinity of that memorial and the NCDC has reviewed the anticipated future of the park and has taken steps to produce a development plan in order that better surveillance and protection of the site can be maintained in future. The plan has been presented to the Department of Territories, to the National Memorials Committee as well as to the Korean and South East Asian Forces Association for adequate consultation with those bodies. Under the plan the Veterans Park will be extended to maximise its area and to take advantage of areas free of overshadowing by some buildings in the vicinity. The developer of the adjacent block has been given approval by my Department to use part of the park temporarily to stage his work and the park will be fully restored as part of that project. The NCDC then hopes to co-ordinate its upgrading of the park to proper standards in the restoration work. It is hoped that, subject to the availability of funds-which we do not discuss or debate prior to the Budget-work on the park and restoration will commence subject to the approval of the Budget in 1985. Senator LEWIS —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and also relates to the Australian Council of Trade Unions hit list of companies which have been targeted for action by the union movement. I shall try to remove inflammatory adjectives from my question. Is the Minister concerned about the impact of this national trade union campaign against these companies, and in particular is the Minister concerned about the likely effect on employees of such companies? Does the Minister agree that the proposed action could jeopardise the jobs of thousands of people who have never had any chance to say what they think about the national union organisation's campaign? Senator BUTTON —In respect of the final part of the question, whether such action will jeopardise the jobs of employees, the point is how far this is allowed to go. Senator Lewis in asking this question, in common with his colleague Senator Boswell, assumed a certain righteousness in his position and a certain wrongheadedness about another. Senator Boswell —Answer the question. Senator BUTTON —I have already made the point that the Senate has not been greatly helped by Senator Boswell's contributions. The question is how far this dispute is able, allowed and provoked to go on. Of course, if it went on for a long period it would affect the jobs of employees in Queensland; I have not doubt about that. But that is precisely why the Prime Minister made the offer to Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen to have discussions with him and lend the good offices of this Government towards some resolution of that dispute. I would make the point, which may provoke an interjection or two, that the Prime Minister of this country is not too bad at this sort of thing. He has an outstanding record in conciliating disputes of this kind. The only black mark I have against him is that he got the Fraser Government off the hook on numerous occasions when honourable senators opposite got themselves locked into ridiculous industrial situations. Senator Chaney —Who was the President of the ACTU in 1974? Senator BUTTON —Precisely. He got that Government off the hook on numerous occasions when it got itself into ridiculous positions on industrial matters, as would happen again if honourable senators opposite were in government. They have learnt nothing from that disastrous period of confrontation in Australian labour relations history. Like a collection of carpetbaggers inspired by the Margaret Thatchers of this world they think: 'At last we have got something to run with. We have got an idea. Let us get back to what we were like in the 1970s'. That is the period when the level of industrial disputation in this country was enormously high compared with what it is now. Senator Lewis also asked me whether I was concerned about the ramifications of this dispute generally. My answer to that question is yes, of course I am concerned. Every thinking Australian is concerned. It is just a pity that there are not more thinking Australians on the Opposition benches. Senator LEWIS —I ask a supplementary question. I have heard what the offer is to the Queensland Government. Can the Leader of the Government tell us whether his Government or his Prime Minister has done anything with regard to trying to persuade the Australian Council of Trade Unions to take a more moderate action in regard to this matter? Senator BUTTON —The answer to that question is yes. Senator COLSTON —Has the attention of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce been drawn to recent statements made by the Queensland Deputy Premier, Mr Gunn, encouraging Queensland firms to 'enter joint ventures with Asian businesses to take advantage of cheap labour'? Does the Federal Government agree with this move to combine Australian technology with lower labour costs overseas? What effect would such ventures have on the economic viability of Australian industry? Does the Minister believe there would be a damaging decline in employment in Australia if such a policy were implemented? Senator BUTTON —My attention has been drawn to the recent statements by Queensland's Deputy Premier, Mr Gunn. I think I nearly said Deputy President-perhaps that is because I thought about that one-party state again. I have seen the statement. Of course, as statements from Queensland Ministers frequently are, it is couched in rather crude, old fashioned and indeed silly terms. Senator Colston went on to ask me some supplementary questions, as it were, which are of course much more serious than the statement made by Mr Gunn. He asked me whether the Federal Government agrees with the importance of combining Australian technology with lower labour costs overseas. With respect, I would not make the assumption that Australian technology necessarily is better than technology available in many of our competing neighbour countries. I am not sure that the assumptions underlying that question are correct. I think more importantly he is asking me whether it is important for Australian companies to invest in manufacturing and processing establishments and so on overseas. My answer to that question is that in many cases yes it is, because the importance of Australian investment overseas in establishing plants in a number of countries in South East Asia is that it provides a secure market for many activities of Australian companies manufacturing in Australia. Indeed, I refer Senator Colston to a fairly recent study of the Bureau of Industry Economics which makes the point which I have just made in a much fuller and better illustrated way than I am able to make it in the course of Question Time in the Senate. I am further asked whether the establishment of Australian manufacturing and processing plants in some overseas countries would be damaging to employment in Australia. My answer to that question is that I think not. Of course, it depends very much, again, on the industries in respect of which those plants were established. I come back to the first point of the question. It is quite clear that Mr Gunn, the Deputy Premier of Queensland, does not understand any of the issues referred to in the latter part of Senator Colston's question and in respect of which I have just given an answer. If he thinks the important thing in establishing Australian manufacturing or processing plants overseas is to take advantage of cheap labour that is an ignorant view of the world which in many cases is based on a 10-year-old view of what the actual situation is. It is not an intelligent and thoughtful appreciation of the situation. I take it that the expression 'to take advantage of cheap labour overseas' in a sense stems from the same sort of philosophical assumptions which have led to the industrial disputation in Queensland in the last few months. I believe those are views which have to be rejected by any thoughtful commentator on the importance of Australian's investment overseas. It is not to the benefit of this country or to the benefit of our relations with neighbouring countries to see our investment opportunities there as purely for the purposes of taking advantage of so-called cheap labour. I very much reject the view which is implicit in the statement made by the Deputy Premier of Queensland. Senator MASON —I ask whether the Minister representing the Attorney-General would agree that the Australian public has every reason to expect the Government to keep itself informed as to the whereabouts of Robert Trimbole and that failure by the Government to do this must inevitably be viewed generally in the community with some considerable cynicism? In that regard, does the Minister recall a written answer of 19 February to me from the Attorney-General? This answer stated: You may be assured that the Government is taking all further steps available to it to secure Mr Trimbole's return to Australia. On 26 March I asked some simple questions on notice designed to establish the Government's credibility in regard to keeping track of the movements of Robert Trimbole. I ask the Minister the reason why those questions have not had the brief and straightforward answers required. Whatever those reasons, I ask whether the Minister will now answer the question which read as follows: 1. Are the present whereabouts of Robert Trimbole known to the Government. 2. Did the Government instruct any Australian law enforcement personnel to maintain knowledge of Trimbole's whereabouts following his release from Mountjoy Prison on 6 February 1985; if no such instruction was given, why was it not given; if such an instruction was given, what reasons are there for a failure to monitor Trimbole's whereabouts? Senator GARETH EVANS —I understand that an answer to Senator Mason's question on notice has been provided and that he should receive it today or tomorrow. The particular answers to his questions from the Attorney-General are as follows. In regard to the first question the answer states: As the Attorney-General stated in a telex to Senator Mason on 19 February 1985, the Government is taking all steps available to it to secure Mr Trimbole's return to Australia. The Government is being kept informed of current international investigations to locate Mr Trimbole. The Attorney-General is not prepared to give any further information, at this stage, on the present whereabouts of Mr Trimbole because it may prejudice those investigations. The answer to the second question is yes. The consequential part of that answer states: . . . see the answer to question 1. It is the Government's resolve, as Mr Bowen has said on numerous occasions, and as I said last year, to pursue Trimbole wherever we possibly can. I assure the Senate that that resolve is not one whit diminished by the unfortunate course of events that have occurred as a result of the operation of the Irish legal processes. These are not attributable to any default on the part of the Australian lawyers who put in place an extradition treaty which was upheld by the courts with quite remarkable speed after it had been verified that Trimbole had been arrested there and who acted subsequently with propriety and despatch. Senator BLACK —Is the Minister for Finance aware of recent Australian Bureau of Statistics figures which relate to dwelling units approved, new vehicles registered and retail sales? Do those figures show that while the Australian economy is gradually improving the Queensland economy on the other hand is in a state of rapid decline? Senator WALSH —The short answer to the principal question that Senator Black asked is that, yes, the rest of the Australian economy is growing at rates which are satisfying and that Queensland is in a rapid state of decline. Senator Peter Rae —You have a pretty low level of satisfaction. Senator WALSH —I hope Senator Rae is listening to this because yesterday he was taking a particular interest in retail sales. By way of example, if one were to excise Queensland from the rest of Australia there would have been no fall in retail sales in seasonally adjusted terms in the month of March compared to retail sales for the month of February. Of course, there was a significant decline in Queensland. The Queensland figure dragged the whole national average down. But for Queensland, for Australia as a whole there would have been no retail sales fall in March. The fall which was recorded in the national average was entirely due-I stress, entirely due-to what was happening in Queensland. For the month of February motor vehicle registrations nationally increased by nearly 7 per cent. If Queensland had matched the other States the increase would have been 7.2 per cent instead of the 6.7 per cent it in fact was. Again, Queensland is dragging the chain and is dragging the rest of the nation's performance down. Even more spectacular are building approvals. The figures for new dwellings in February showed a very small rise in Queensland-1 per cent, compared to what they were in January-and the national figure was 6 per cent. Again, if one could excise Queensland it would be 7.2 per cent nationally instead of 6 per cent. Most appalling of all is that Queensland is the only State or Territory which has double digit unemployment. There was a 20 per cent drop in private capital investment in the September quarter of 1984 in Queensland, while the national figure went up 2 per cent. Official expectations are that there will be a further decline in capital investment in Queensland. Ironically, the Premier said recently in the Queensland Parliament: Queensland cannot isolate itself from the general situation in Australia. In fact, Queensland has done precisely that. Queensland has isolated itself from the general situation in the rest of Australia where the economy is growing at satisfactory rates. In Queensland the economy is collapsing. I refer to a few other statistics which Senator Maguire was good enough to collate and publish recently. Employment in Queensland for the most recent month for which figures are available-that qualification applies to all these figures-was a meagre 0.3 per cent higher than it was in the same month in the previous year. Nationally, it went up by a full 2 per cent. Registration of motor vehicles nationally went up 12 per cent. In Queensland they actually fell in absolute terms by half a per cent. In industrial relations which I judge from earlier questions is an area which interests many members of the Opposition, working days lost per thousand employees due to industrial disputes for Australia for a 12-month period were a meagre 6.4 but in Queensland they were a massive 80.2-13 times the national average. In every area where one cares to look Queensland is dragging down the rest of the country. Senator Button —A model for the Opposition here. Senator WALSH —It is a model for the Opposition to follow. Indeed, if Senator Sheil is to be believed, this picture of unrelieved economic gloom is supplemented by physical and, may one even say, moral decay. I quote what Senator Sheil said in the context of a discussion on acquired immune deficiency syndrome during the hearings of Senate Estimates Committee B on 15 April. If any honourable senator wants to look up his full statement they will find it recorded at page 93 of the Hansard record of proceedings for Senate Estimates Committees A, B and C for that day. Senator Sheil said, in part: The big drug using centres in Australia are in Queensland, on the Gold Coast, the Sunshine Coast and at Cedar Bay. That is what Senator Sheil said about his home State. He is a member of the same party as the Premier of that State. We have unrelieved economic gloom dragging the rest of the country down and, if Senator Sheil is to be believed, physical and moral decay to boot. The PRESIDENT —I ask the Minister to hurry up with the rest of his answer. Senator WALSH —Certainly, Mr President. From time to time members of the Opposition assert, quite falsely, that Australia is going down the Argentinian road. That is certainly not true of Australia but many people may see that description as being applicable to Queensland. We have the spectacle of a rapidly deteriorating economy; by far the highest per capita debt in Australia; a government which adopts charlatans and crooks, such as Milan Brych, Stephen Horvath and Shrian Oscar; a Premier who is under the spell of the voodoo economics of the Australian League of Rights; a Premier who is about to try to reappoint as Chairman of the Totalisator Administration Board of Queensland Sir Edward Lyons, who as Chairman of the Board persuaded it to invest Board funds in a business enterprise in which he is a shareholder. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister is getting far removed from the question that was asked and I ask him to bring his remarks to a conclusion. Senator WALSH —I will be very quick, Mr President. That was done in contradiction of the provisions of the Queensland Totalisator Administration Board Act. The man is so bad that even Russell Hinze does not want to reappoint him-but the Premier does. Senator DURACK —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. I refer the Minister to the widespread speculation, which no doubt has been assisted by inspired leaks by Ministers, that the Government is considering changing the policy of import parity pricing for oil. Bearing in mind the opportunistic approach to this policy which was adopted by Labor when in opposition, particularly in statements made by the present Treasurer, Mr Keating, when he was shadow Minister in this area, I ask: Does the Minister agree that import parity pricing has greatly benefited the Australian economy by encouraging oil exploration? Is the Government considering a change in that policy? Does the Minister agree that a change of the policy for short term political purposes would be contrary to the Prime Minister's undertaking in an interview with Max Walsh last week that the Government would not allow the benefits of devaluation to be dissipated by inappropriate decisions? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government does believe and I believe that import parity pricing has greatly benefited the exploration industry, as Senator Durack has said. However, the Government has foreshadowed on a number of occasions the possibility of a move to a modified free market system as far as crude oil is concerned, and that is something to which the Government is giving continuing consideration. In the context of the regular two-monthly review of the operation of the import parity pricing formula in a changing currency and sometimes overseas crude oil price environment, the Government is presently considering what the appropriate move should be on 1 May. That matter is before the Cabinet and when a decision is made the Senate and the public will be informed accordingly. We will also give reasons for the course of action that we take, which will be consistent with the suggested parameters Senator Durack has just articulated. Senator AULICH —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Health seen the report prepared for the special Premiers Conference on National Campaign against Drug Abuse which indicates that cigarettes were responsible for 81 per cent of all drug-related deaths in 1983? Is the Minister concerned that the greedy antics of the New South Wales procedural surgeons is partly responsible for, firstly, obscuring the impact of medical tragedies indicated by those types of statistics and, secondly, diminishing the status of the medical profession as a whole? Senator GRIMES —I did see the report which came out at the drug summit and which was compiled from various reports over the years on deaths from drug abuse or drug misuse in this country. I have been fully expecting a reformed smoker such as Senator Aulich to ask me a question about it. I think everyone in this Senate is aware of the dangers of cigarette smoking and of the health problems it causes to Australians. The problem is to convince all Australians and particularly young Australians that this is so. I suppose Senator Aulich is right in that when we have a dispute like the dispute with the New South Wales procedural specialists it is very difficult to get any other news of any medical interest in the papers because of this great distraction. Equally there are many people suffering from illnesses of the type that Senator Aulich describes who are not getting adequate treatment because of the attitude of these specialists. I note, however, from the Press today that the procedural specialists in some Sydney teaching hospitals, including, I am especially proud to say, my old teaching hospital, have now gone back to work and are working normally. I hope that this happens in all the other centres. Of course, one of the difficulties is that the surgeons are led, as I said yesterday in Question Time, by a couple of right wing fanatics who have no regard for patients or for any economics except their own pockets. They also, I suppose, receive some assistance from the antics of some members of the Opposition. Mr Greiner, the Leader of the Opposition in New South Wales, who is close to this matter and realises the sorts of tragedies that are happening, has said that the doctors should act like good winners instead of bad winners and return to work. However, Mr Porter, who is the shadow Minister for Health, we believe, in the present Opposition, has said that he agrees with the surgeons and that they should persist in trying to inflict on this country what he calls a free enterprise health system, with all the inequities that arise from that. Of course, he is only carrying on the good work of the previous Minister for Health and shadow Minister for Health, Mr Jim Carlton, who, as Senator Tate said, is an occasional spokesman on health when people cannot raise Mr Porter. Mr Carlton, of course, is a very firm supporter of the New South Wales surgeons, but then Mr Carlton is a former New South Wales Secretary of the Liberal Party and his principles of economics are the same as those of the late Sir Robert Askin-the best way to get money is to get into somebody's pocket and get it out quickly. So, we can expect that attitude-- The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Minister to withdraw that imputation against a member of another House. Senator GRIMES —I am sorry; a member of another House? Senator Walsh —I thought he was dead. The PRESIDENT —I am referring to remarks the Minister has made-- Senator GRIMES —Against Mr Carlton. Yes, I withdraw; I am sorry. Senator Walters —It is not funny. Senator GRIMES —I suggest to Senator Walters that she read well a very good book by David Hickie called The Prince and the Premier and then pass it to the person sitting next to her. As Senator Aulich said, the situation in New South Wales has been serious, but I believe that it will be resolved very soon. Senator KILGARIFF —The Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs will be aware that early this morning the Burke Government's Aboriginal land rights legislation was defeated in the West Australian Legislative Council. Bearing in mind, as the Minister told me yesterday, that the Commonwealth was awaiting the outcome of the parliamentary process in Western Australia, I ask: Does the Government now intend to introduce national uniform land rights legislation? If so, when will that legislation be presented to this Parliament? Will the Government agree to modify its preferred model which differed from the West Australian approach? Senator RYAN —I do not really have anything to add at this stage to what I told Senator Kilgariff yesterday because, although there has now been a legislative outcome, as Senator Kilgariff has just informed the Senate, it was in the early hours of this morning and obviously our Government had not had time to consider this and to consider what steps we will take to ensure that the principles for land rights legislation which we have enumerated many times will be incorporated in legislation throughout Australia. The Government will be considering its position and, as soon as we have resolved a position, I am sure that Mr Holding will make it public. Senator KILGARIFF —By way of supplementary question, I ask the Minister: If Mr Holding is going to make known his intentions, will the Minister herself report as soon as possible to this Senate what the Government's actions will be? Senator RYAN —Of course I will do that as soon as possible. It is my responsibility to do that in this place on behalf of Mr Holding. Senator COATES —Has the Minister for Community Services seen criticism, particularly by State Ministers such as Tasmania's Mr Cleary, that the Federal Government is not doing enough in the field of care for the aged? Will the Minister outline this Government's aged care initiatives and give a breakdown of Commonwealth expenditure on aged care? Senator Missen —Another Dorothy Dix question, I suppose. Senator GRIMES —No, Senator Missen is wrong. Yes, I have seen the criticisms that Mr Cleary has made and makes frequently about this Government's approach to aged care or anything else concerned with his area. I accept that that is the sort of thing we have to put up with when someone like Mr Cleary is a Minister in a State like Tasmania. The simple fact is that at present we are trying to negotiate with all the States a home and community care agreement to assist aged people to stay in their homes. We are trying to negotiate a sensible system of nursing home approvals. We have initiated with the Tasmanian Government a system of assessment of people in nursing homes, in Mr Cleary's area in particular. It is not easy, though, to deal with Mr Cleary, as I have said before, or with Mr Cleary's Government, because Mr Cleary cannot make any decisions without having to go to the Premier and get each of those decisions checked by the Premier. He cannot negotiate, in any real sense of the term, unless he has the Premier sitting next to him to check on everything he does. So, there is a bit of delay in trying to develop things like this in Tasmania. In general, the Federal Government spends on services to the aged, on everything from aged and disabled persons homes, respite care, delivered meals, home care services, domiciliary nursing care benefits, to nursing home assistance and benefits, about $1.3 billion. If we add to that the $7.3 billion that we spend on service pensions and pensions for the aged, we have considerable expenditure. Despite that, and despite the fact that this expenditure goes up each year, the present Government has in fact been very concerned to make sure that the funds spent on the aged go to where they are most needed. We are in the process of initiating programs so that our elderly people can live, for instance, where they want to live, that is, largely in their own homes and certainly in their own districts, and so that, where necessary, they can live in a less dependent type of accommodation than that in which they have lived in the past. That is what the home and community care program is about and that is what the revamping of the hostel program is about. We hoped that, in co-operation with the States-all States except Tasmania are very keen to co-operate in this area-we will be able to rationalise the large number of programs which are the responsibility of Federal and State governments, State departments, local government and non-government organisations, to avoid the duplication and confusion which occur in this area. I do not take too much notice of Mr Cleary's complaints. Mr Cleary in fact makes a lot of noise in the areas in which he and his Government are most deficient. I think that is something that people like Senator Coates and I, being Tasmanians, just have to wear. Senator JESSOP —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Transport been drawn to an article in the Australian newspaper this week headed: 'Ship repair jobs just extortion by unions'? Is he aware of the allegation made by a spokesman of the Australian Chamber of Shipping that Australian unions were extorting money from ship owners by insisting that certain minor and unnecessary repairs be made to ships before they are allowed to leave port, in order to create jobs for their own members? Is it a fact that such repair bills could amount to between $20,000 and $50,000 per vessel and that this- Senator Tate —What has this to do with the Minister? Senator JESSOP —I am coming to that. Has this cost shipping companies between $1m and $2m so far this year? Does the Minister agree that this scandalous state of affairs is harmful to Australia's already seriously flagging credibility as an international trading partner? What action has the Government taken or does it propose to take to ensure that these Ned Kelly unions do not overstep legal bounds by requiring unnecessary repairs to ships which have been judged by Australian Government authorities to be complying with regulations set down by the Government? Senator GIETZELT —That is a very involved question and as it does not fall within the province of the Minister for Transport I suggest that the Leader of the Government might be better able to answer it to the satisfaction of Senator Jessop. Senator ELSTOB —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security aware that child maintenance payment rates differ greatly from State to State and that some levels of maintenance payments have not been adjusted for over 10 years? Can the Minister advise whether any action can be taken by the Federal Government to rectify a system which appears to treat children most inequitably and which in many cases has a direct bearing on family poverty? Senator GRIMES —Senator Elstob referred to child maintenance payments. All the payments made on behalf of children by the Commonwealth Government are paid at a uniform rate throughout Australia, with the exception of some additions in tax zone A. I assume that Senator Elstob is talking about the payments made by the various State governments for the maintenance of children in care, foster children and, in some States, children of families which have been deserted. I am certainly aware that those payments vary considerably and I accept the fact that in some cases they may not have been increased for some 10 years. I do not believe that the Federal Government can do anything directly about this matter, although I will certainly make inquiries of the Minister for Social Security to see whether he has had any correspondence with the States on this matter. I suspect that in each State the individual level of those payments is the responsibility of the State department of social welfare or community welfare and that obviously that decision is made on historical and budgetary bases. I will see whether I can get any details for Senator Elstob, but I doubt very much whether the Federal Government has any power or any desire to have any power in this area. Senator KNOWLES —Can the Minister representing the Minister for Defence inform the Senate of the costs of providing security measures at HMAS Stirling naval base in Western Australia during the women's so-called peace camp demonstration from 1 to 15 December 1984? In particular, can the Minister provide information as to the cost of the use of Navy buses to transport naval personnel to and from the base through the demonstrators' picket lines, and the cost of wages, including overtime, for Australian Federal Police involved in controlling the demonstration? Senator GARETH EVANS —I ask the honourable senator to put that question on notice. Senator CHILDS —Has the Minister for Education seen the Press report in today's edition of the Australian in relation to the Queensland Institute of Technology's participation in the Government's equity program? Can the Minister inform the Senate of further information in relation to the Institute? Are other programs envisaged for other higher education institutions? Senator RYAN —I apologise to Senator Childs for the fact that I have not seen that report in the newspaper today. I will get the information and supply it to Senator Childs as soon as possible. Senator VIGOR —I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade. Given that the world was led into the Great Depression after Congress members Smoot and Hawley persuaded the United States Government to implement a highly protective import surcharge in 1930, is the Minister aware of recent threats from the United States Congress to impose import surcharges on all foreign products or, selectively, on the products of those countries with whom it has the biggest trade deficits, such as Japan? Will the Australian Government make it clear to the Reagan Administration that it does not want to be forced to surrender its markets to the United States just because that country has the ability to bully Japan into buying United States goods irrespective of quality, price or the preference of Japanese consumers? Does the Minister agree that any surcharges or quotas imposed by the United States could unleash a trade war and a massive depression, and that President Reagan must be persuaded not to destroy the world economy in the name of buttressing the over-valued United States dollar? Senator BUTTON —I am not aware of the invaluable work of Congressmen Smoot and Hawley in the 1930s, but I am not asked to answer for them and I am glad for that. The question which Senator Vigor asked me is really in three parts. First of all it refers to threats from the United States Congress to impose import surcharges on foreign products. Yes, I am aware of those threats. Essentially, although it has repercussions for Australia, to which I will refer in a moment, it is a matter for the United States and Japan. It is not my role or function to comment on the particular or peculiar style with which they carry out any trade negotiation or bargaining. I do not think that anything I say would help in that process. Senator Missen —Don't be too modest. Senator BUTTON —It is not I who is being modest. I think it is a case of Australia being modest. That is the point I am making which is a different one, not a smart one. The second part of the question referred to the Australian Government's role in making its view clear to the Reagan Administration about the implications for Australia of the first part of Senator Vigor's question. I am asked: Will we make representations to the United States Government on these issues? We have, in respect of a number of matters. Particularly late last year and early this year we had a long series of representations to the United States Government about the export of Australian steel to the West Coast of the United States. In respect of a wide range of other issues and generally, representations have been made and are continuing to be made. The third part of the question asked what one might see as the more horrendous repercussions of the actions which are being mooted in certain sections of the United States Congress regarding trade policy. I agree with the implications of Senator Vigor that, if those attitudes were to prevail in the United States Congress and the sort of action which he hinted at took place, a great deal of damage would be done to the world trading environment. However, I make it quite clear that this Government and many governments around the world have been careful to try to explain their views on that matter to the United States Government. We have, in a series of public announcements as a result of discussions in preparation for the multilateral trade negotiations, indicated our position as a government in relation to those issues. In particular this Government has taken initiatives in this region to see that countries in this region have a collective approach as far as possible for the next round of MTN. I must say that in the course of those discussions the attitude advanced by United States officials has not been the same as the attitude advanced by the more backwoods section of Congress on this matter. So that it itself is encouraging. Let me make the point that, just as in Australia, there are differences of views on these issues; there are strongly held differences of views in the United States, and one would hope that the saner view would ultimately prevail. Senator VIGOR —I ask a supplementary question. In the case of the United States not heeding our warnings, what type of action would the Government be able to take to defend us against such a trade war? Senator BUTTON —I do not know. I suppose we could send a gun boat or something like that, but I do not think that would impress the United States very much. Insofar as a range of possible actions we could take is concerned, I cannot for a moment imagine that they would be effective. I will direct that part of the honourable senator's question to the Minister for Trade. However, essentially, as I have indicated in answers to a number of questions in the Senate today, this Government takes the view that persuasion is the best method of defence. Senator DEVLIN —My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. The seventieth anniversary of the landing at Gallipoli is to be celebrated on Anzac Day, 25 April. Will the Minister outline whether any events have been organised to celebrate this most historical and important event, either in Australia or overseas? Senator GIETZELT —It is true that a week tomorrow will be the seventieth anniversary of the landing of the Australian, British, Indian and New Zealand contingent at Gallipoli in Turkey upon which the Anzac tradition was developed. There is no doubt that in the intervening 70 years there have been many misgivings about that landing and the tragedy of the war. However, this was, nevertheless, Australia's first major involvement in that part of southern Europe. Celebrations will be conducted by the Turkish Government to commemorate the landing. Celebrations will also be conducted in Australia by the Australian Government to pay tribute to the sacrifices that were made during that part of World War I. I have been honoured to be invited by the Turkish Government to represent Australia at various ceremonies in Turkey. The Turkish Government has taken steps to have part of Gallipoli renamed Anzac Cove. A whole number of events will be held prior to Anzac Day. I will be accompanied by a number of Gallipoli veterans, some of whose fares will be paid by the Australian Government. The highlight of the ceremonies in Turkey will be Australia's representation at a military ceremony during which that part of Gallipoli will be renamed Anzac Cove. A ceremony will be held in Anzac Parade, Canberra, for the naming of the Ataturk Memorial Centre. A garden includes a commemoration to the Anzac sentiments. There will also be a ceremony on the foreshores of Lake Burley Griffin to name that part Gallipoli Reach. A ceremony will be held in Western Australia in the Albany Council chambers to unveil a plaque marking the renaming of the entrance to Princess Royal Harbour after Ataturk and to commemorate the Anzac tradition. I understand that the Commonwealth will be having a special luncheon in Melbourne for the surviving veterans of Gallipoli. Both Turkey and Australia will be commemorating the seventieth anniversary in a fitting way. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —Is the Minister for Community Services aware of statements made by Mr Wright, the honourable member for Capricornia, in the Brisbane Courier-Mail on Saturday, 6 April, in which Mr Wright said that the assets test is unfair, that Australian Taxation Office inspectors for some reason had valued properties at up to 150 times their value and that, while a person could live in a $550,000 mansion and draw a pension, someone living in a shack on 60 hectares could lose his pension and that people in these circumstances should get their full pension reinstated? Does the Minister agree with Mr Wright and his support for the coalition's assets test policy? Senator GRIMES —I have not seen directly the reports of Mr Wright's comments, but I certainly have spoken to Mr Wright about this matter and he did not say to me that he disagreed with the assets test. What he disagreed with was some of the property valuations by some of the taxation valuers in assessing the value of farms. Mr Howe, the Minister for Social Security, has said that in all cases in which there seems to have been an overvaluation of properties by the Taxation valuers the matter is being reviewed very quickly. In those cases where there has been overvaluation or a great disparity in valuation between the market value, the local government valuation and the Taxation valuation, of course changes will be made and those people will be reassessed. They have the same right of appeal as anybody else. They have access to a much more rapid review system than in any other section of the Department of Social Security. To put things into perspective, I might say to Senator Bjelke-Petersen that of the 57,000 people who have been affected by the assets test there have been 600 appeals-only 600-against the valuation of property. Of course, in any exercise on this scale, and in particular in any exercise where the Government has bent over backwards to ensure that people do not have their privacy invaded by people physically coming on to their property, mistakes will be made. If mistakes have been made, they will be quickly rectified. But that does not mean that the principle of the assets test, the principle of the assessment of assets as well as income, is wrong. The Government does not believe that is so and I am sure that Mr Wright does not believe that is so. Senator McINTOSH —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is the Government aware of reports of an interview given to an international newsagency in Jakarta in December 1984 by the commander of Indonesia's armed forces, General Murdani, in which he admitted that it would take some years to overcome East Timorese armed resistance to integration? Has the Government received any information, such as recent additional movements of Indonesian troops and/or equipment into East Timor, which would indicate Indonesian preparation for a dry season offensive in the latter half of 1985? Senator GARETH EVANS —The answer to the first question is yes, and to the second question no. According to the advice available to the Government concerning the situation in East Timor, the overall level of military activity has remained low. Sporadic clashes between the Indonesian forces and Fretilin do occur. The bulk of Indonesian troops in East Timor, estimated now at between 10,000 and 12,000, are engaged in defensive operations and in construction and development work. Also, it is the case, according to advice available to us, that the Fretilin resistance movement has been rather dispersed into small bands and the areas in which it operates have been reduced. It is estimated that at the present time Fretilin has around 400 to 500 armed combatants and around 2,000 supporters, including families. Senator MISSEN —I ask a question of the Minister for Finance. I refer to the recent attacks by the Minister and the Attorney-General Lionel Bowen against the freedom of information rights of Australian citizens and the suggestion that the Government may impose restrictions on the availability of government documents under the Freedom of Information Act. Will the Minister provide detailed information of, firstly, the total cost of government publicity and propaganda issued by Ministers and departments over the last two financial years so that it can be compared with the cost of administering the Freedom of Information Act and, secondly, the total cost over the last two years of all expenditure relating to the 27 Ministers of the Hawke Government and their staff, including VIP flights, cars, overseas trips, air transport and living away from home allowances? Does the Minister now find the requirements for disclosure of information required under the Freedom of Information Act embarrassing, uncomfortable or inconvenient? Does he agree with Senator Ryan's comments in opposition in 1981 about expenditure on government propaganda and with the present relevance of her then observation: 'This is taxpayers' money which is spent on information that nobody has asked for and, quite possibly, nobody wants'? If not, what has changed in the meantime? Senator WALSH —To the best of my knowledge, the Deputy Prime Minister has not referred to the Government imposing restrictions on the availability of government documents. From my knowledge, Mr Bowen has referred to a greater cost recovery-higher charges-from people who are seeking government documents. I am open to correction on that, but to the best of knowledge that is the case. Senator Missen gave me some notice of this question. I have some information but not all of that which he sought. Regarding what he called publicity and propaganda, I can tell him that the estimate for 1984-85 under the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism, which is the principal publicity and promotion agency of the Government, is $17.6m. To put that in some sort of context, it is less than one-three thousandth of total government outlays, or about 0.003 per cent. I understand that Senator Missen recently made a claim that $400m was spent in this area. The Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism does not cover everything that could be called publicity. For example, not all government advertising-if I remember correctly-falls into SPRAT, but it is the principal spending area for those sorts of programs. With regard to overseas trips by Ministers in the present Government, I am advised that in the last two years-that is, since we were elected-all of the expenditure of the 27 Ministers, and up until the most recently received accounts, I presume, was in the order of $8m. That is about a two-year figure. To put that in some sort of perspective, I note-I am referring here to page 1603 of Hansard of 16 September 1982-that under the previous Government, for the calendar year 1981, the Prime Minister of the day spent $686,000 and the Deputy Prime Minister spent $482,000 on overseas trips. So almost $1.2m was spent on just those two Ministers in a one-year period as against $8m for the entire present Ministry over a two-year period. Senator Missen also referred to the requirements of the disclosure of information under the FOI Act-whether I found it embarrassing, uncomfortable or inconvenient. It is inconvenient certainly-not personally but as far as Government administration is concerned. I do not find it embarrassing or uncomfortable. However, I think it would be irresponsible of me not to be concerned about the rapidly escalating cost. In 1983-84 the cost of filling FOI requests was $17.6m The estimate for this year is some $20m. There has been a rapid escalation in the rate at which requests have been received in recent months. At that rate, estimates as high as $35m as the cost of supplying FOI requests in 1985-86 are in existence. Senator Missen might think that $35m spent on filling FOI requests is money well spent. In some circumstances there may be a legitimate case to be put for that, but when one delves a bit further and investigates just what sorts of FOI requests are being made one finds, for example, that major users, I should say abusers, of the FOI Act are present and former Liberal Party, and probably National Party-I am not sure of that-politicians. I refer to the undistinguishable former member for Bass who got kicked around three or four ministries in the Fraser Government until he went so far down that he could not go any lower without going right out, which is where he eventually finished up. Mr Newman-- Senator Gareth Evans —Ollie the grub. Senator WALSH —He was known colloquially as Ollie the grub. Senator Townley —I take a point of order. Senator WALSH —He is a friend of yours, is he? That does not surprise me a bit. Senator Townley —I think that it ill becomes the Minister to talk in such terms of somebody who is no longer a member of the Parliament and, therefore, unable to protect himself. I think that he should withdraw the remark he has made. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. I ask the Minister to curb his remarks about other people. Senator Grimes —Even you call him that. Senator WALSH —Senator Grimes says that even Senator Townley calls him that. In relation to one department alone, Mr Newman put in fishing expedition type FOI requests which took 300 staff hours to meet. That was in one year. It would have grown to something beyond that now. Various other practising and jettisoned Liberal Party politicians have done similar things. These people are not after specific information for what can be even vaguely regarded as a legitimate purpose; they are on fishing expeditions to see what will fall out. My view-I make absolutely no apologies for this-is that confronted with a possible cost of $35m in the next financial year, principally to supply information on fishing expeditions of that nature, it is an expenditure of public money which cannot be justified. I understand that the Deputy Prime Minister expressed similar views. Senator Peter Baume —The end of open government. Senator WALSH —It is not the end of open government at all; it is the end of fishing expeditions by Senator Baume's friends which consumed eight weeks of bureaucratic time, just to satisfy the self-indulgent curiosity of one former undistinguished Liberal Party Minister. Senator Missen asked about VIP flights, cars, the use of chartered aircraft and so on. Those figures are published as a matter of course by the Special Minister of State. We do not need a freedom of information Act for that, in case it is thought to be of some relevance. Finally, Senator Missen referred to a quotation which he said came from Senator Ryan in 1981 or something like that. He asked whether anything had changed in the meanwhile-I think that was the substance of the question-and whether I agreed with Senator Ryan. Yes, something has changed since Senator Ryan said that. I am not personally familiar with it, but I am quite willing to believe that she said it because many people in the then Opposition were saying that sort of thing at the time. The statement has to be put into context. That was the period of the notorious Government Information Unit, the Fraser Government's propaganda machine, the cost and the staff resources of which I have not had time to look up but which we know was misused in the most flagrant way during election campaigns. It operated simply as an extension of the Liberal Party's propaganda and information gathering staff. Even worse, arguably, it was misused by the then Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, when he was challenged for the Liberal Party leadership in, I think, May 1982. The Government Information Unit was diligently monitoring everything that Mr Peacock had said, rapidly rushing off the transcripts and handing them over to Mr Fraser. It was in the context of the misuse of that sort of government propaganda unit that Senator Ryan made her comments. The situation has changed. Senator MISSEN —I ask a supplementary question regarding the long answer. The PRESIDENT —It was a long question and a very long answer. I am glad that it is the last. Senator MISSEN —You need not worry, Mr President, I will be very brief. I ask the Minister whether the use of the information is now more successful because of the efforts of the Attorney-General of the day, Senator Evans, who has sought this year to increase the use of information. Has that not been the cause of the increase in the cost of obtaining information? Is it not the success of the former Attorney-General about which the Minister is complaining? Senator WALSH —I am sorry. There was some background noise and I did not hear the question properly. I will look at it when the Hansard comes out. Senator MISSEN —I would not like to take advantage of the Minister. I will repeat it. Is not this boom in requests for information due to the efforts of the former Attorney-General, Senator Evans, who increased the expenditure by reason of his attempt to make the thing work? Is it not his fault about which the Minister is complaining? Senator WALSH —As I understand it, the explosion-if one might call it that-in the FOI requests has taken place since Senator Evans ceased to be Attorney-General. More and more Liberal Party politicians, past and present, and some journalists, have decided that it is a pretty good idea to exploit what they see as a free research service, provided at taxpayers' expense, to go on fishing expeditions for information which they might find either titillating or useful. Senator GIETZELT —Earlier in Question Time Senator Jessop asked me a question on a matter about which I had no particular knowledge, but I have been advised by the Minister for Transport who was aware of the matter that was raised by Senator Jessop. The Minister has advised me that the Government is aware of the concern of the shipowners, the exporters and the agents about the problems that have developed in Sydney which require the shipowners to make extensive repairs to overseas vessels. The Government is aware that these incidents can cause unnecessary delays on the waterfront, adversely affecting our international reputation as a trading partner and also, of course, adding to costs. However, the Minister for Transport has advised me that the problem is essentially an industrial one. He has already discussed the matter with his colleague the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis. As yet he is not able to give any further information as to what course of action the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations can take. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —by leave-Mr President, I claim to have been misrepresented and wish to make a personal explanation. I refer to an article published in the 'Stay in Touch' column of the Sydney Morning Herald yesterday. The article repeats a rumour-to quote the newspaper-from an allegedly very senior source, that I intend to retire soon. I state that, God willing, it is my intention to lead the Australian Democrats at the next Federal election scheduled for 1987 and to remain in Parliament for a significant period after that election. I thank the newspaper for printing a semi-retraction this morning but at the same time express my disappointment that a reputable and responsible newspaper such as the Sydney Morning Herald will publish an unsubstantiated rumour-on its own admission-about myself or any other member of this Parliament when all of us are just one telephone call away from the reporter and the reporter can verify or otherwise such a rumour. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania) —Mr President, pursuant to standing order 364 I ask that the document quoted from by the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) when answering a question from Senator Black be tabled. The Minister gave detailed statistics in relation to retail and other sales involving Queensland. The PRESIDENT —The Minister for Finance is not in the chamber and I do not know whether he claims confidentiality of the document. Senator PETER RAE —Having raised the matter, I seek to adjourn debate on it and resume discussion-- Senator Robertson —Tomorrow at Question Time. Senator PETER RAE —Perhaps in the adjournment debate tonight. The PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from Senator Chaney proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The failure of the Government to protect the people of Australia from abuses of trade union power. 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 CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.13) —The Opposition brings forward this matter of public importance: The failure of the Government to protect the people of Australia from abuses of trade union power. It is, of course, not novel for the people of Australia to suffer from abuses of trade union power. I suppose there is an almost unlimited number of Australians who, when travelling or in other circumstances, have been seriously inconvenienced by trade union actions which have no regard at all for the interests of those who are affected. We are living in a quite extraordinary time. Certainly the circumstances of today represent an unusually strong example of the matter which we bring forward for discussion. I think it is known throughout Australia that at midnight tomorrow night it is proposed that there should be a blockade of the State of Queensland. That is an initiative of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, which has decided that there should be a breakdown of the communications between Queensland and the rest of Australia. We understand that that blockade has been anticipated by the Transport Workers Union in New South Wales, which believes that the proposal for a single day's blockade is not adequate. So we have the prospect of Australia being divided, of movement being prevented and of the freedom of commerce, which is supposedly guaranteed by our Constitution, being destroyed. We have a situation which would be almost incomprehensible in any other country. One cannot imagine it occurring anywhere else. On exactly the same day we find that the newspapers are full of another ACTU initiative. We find that the ACTU is to attack 51 Australian corporations. The ACTU has singled out for attack corporations which it believes have interests in Queensland or which in some way have associated themselves with the Queensland Government or the National Party of Australia in Queensland. The ACTU has produced what is described as a hit list of companies which are to be subjected to different forms of industrial action-bans and other forms of pressure. Again there is an element of the slightly fantastic in this-that we could have this sort of action being contemplated by the ACTU-but there is no doubt that it is occurring. There is no doubt that major Australian companies such as Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd, Utah Development Company, Theiss Bros. Pty Limited, Pioneer Concrete Pty Ltd and many others are being told by the trade union movement that they are to be subjected to various forms of industrial pressure, not because of anything they have done other than to carry out activities in Queensland or to have some form of association with the Government of Queensland. Those propositions ought to be regarded as fairy tale. It is most unfortunate that they are a fact of life in Australia today and in this year, 1985. I suppose that one ought to be very surprised that this sort of thing can be going on because it is also clear that what is proposed by the ACTU and the trade union movement is illegal. It is against the law of Australia. It is the undertaking of industrial action for a non-industrial purpose. It is clearly in breach of the Trade Practices Act. It ought, therefore, to be something which could not occur because it is simply outside the pale of the law. We like to believe that in Australia we are governed by the rule of law. Of course, today, as on so many other occasions, the trade union movement is saying to Australia:'The rule of law means nothing to us; we are beyond and above the law'. It would be serious enough if it were merely the ACTU which was saying that it will ignore the trade practices law and adopt the attitude which is described by Deborah Hope, writing in the Bulletin today, as regarding the law as one which is simply not recognised as existing. In other words, the ACTU sees itself as being open not to recognise a particular law's existence. The ACTU sees itself as being entitled to conduct guerrilla warfare against employers who may be sympathisers or in some remote way related to the Queensland scene, or who may be carrying out their activities in Queensland. That is an appalling state of affairs. The most appalling aspect of it is that it is being effectively condoned by this Government. Yesterday in Question Time questions were put to Ministers and the issue of the illegality of what is proposed under the Trade Practices Act was raised with both the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, and Senator Gareth Evans. One would have expected some affirmation of principle, some affirmation of the view that the law should apply in Australia. Instead we got a clear indication from them that as far as they were concerned the application of the law was inappropriate and if the law were to be applied it had nothing at all to do with the Government, notwithstanding the Government's powers under section 80 of the Trade Practices Act, that it was a matter for the companies concerned. The sad fact of the matter is that this Government is so closely entwined with the ACTU, it is so much in bed with the ACTU and it is so dependent on the goodwill of the ACTU that this form of industrial anarchy-what has been described in the media this morning as guerrilla warfare against Australian companies-can be permitted and condoned. That is a very serious state of affairs. I suppose one could, in an idle moment, say: What does that matter because all that is being affected are governments and companies? Of course, that is the totally false view. What are being affected are the many individual Australians who work for those companies, the many individual Australians who are dependent on them for goods and services and the many individual Australians whose everyday comfort and welfare is dependent upon the provision of government and non-government services. What we have is yet another blatant example of a total ignoring of the public interest and the law in favour of trade union power. One might hesitate to bring this matter before the Parliament if this were an odd, extraordinary, isolated example. But the sad fact, again, is that this is all too common in Australia. It is not an isolated example of destructive and unjustified behaviour. There are far too many of them. Governments have stood back for too long and refused to come to grips, not with the normalcy of industrial relations, which Senator Button is so fond of talking about-the industrial relations which can be achieved in most enterprises around Australia, given management and union good sense-and have failed to take into account those sections of the trade union movement which are prepared to be lawless and to act in a way which is thoroughly destructive of the public interest. Look at the record of the Builders Labourers Federation over recent years. It is a union which has been prepared to carry out the most scandalous and destructive works on building sites and which has got away with it for many years. Look at the activities of the rail unions in New South Wales quite recently. The rail unions in New South Wales blocked the export of Australian coal. Coal is Australia's major export. We face a balance of payments problem. That is part of the problem with which this Government is trying to come to grips. A small number of trade unionists were prepared to disrupt that vital export trade in pursuit of their own narrow sectional interest. The people of Australia are sick of that sort of behaviour. Look at the export of wheat from New South Wales. A combination, it would appear, of both incompetence on the part of agencies involved and union action caused the loss of the sale of about $150m worth of wheat at a time when Australian farmers are facing enormous difficulties and there is a very large crop carry-over. Look at the situation in the Government's own back yard. Public Service unions in recent months have refused to do their duty. They have refused to accept the money which is being paid to the Government and to pay it into the Government's accounts. The Australian dollar has suffered. The economic management of this Government has been put at jeopardy by Public Service unions which have full access to arbitration proceedings. Their claims were arbitrated and they faced a decision that they did not like. They were again offered the opportunity for arbitration, but still chose to go against the law and to prevent the Government administering Australia in a proper way. The people of Australia, for very good and proper reasons, are thoroughly sick, not of trade unions conducting their lawful and proper pursuits, but of trade unions which abuse their position in the community. Senator Button is wont to respond to this sort of claim by suggesting that this type of debate is just some form of union bashing. It shows an inability on his part to understand the fine points of industrial relations and brings to bear an unrealistic and unreal attitude to these difficult problems. I can only say to Senator Button that I wish he had the courage that was at least evidenced on a couple of occasions by Premier Wran, who made clear his view of what the BLF and the rail unions should be doing. Mr Wran stated: The strike weapon just becomes a bloody pest when in the hands of people who take the view that they will bludgeon the community and government into submission even when there is very little right on their side. That is at the heart of this matter which we have brought before the Senate. We are dealing with those instances of the use of the strike weapon by trade unions and other industrial matters which are not a matter of the proper use of industrial relations, but simply an exercise of trade union power, whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation. I say to Senator Button that there is the clearest possible evidence that the people of Australia are thoroughly sick of that sort of behaviour by trade unions. They expect more from the Government than the washing of hands which we have witnessed in recent days. The fact is that the Government has refused to take any positive action to do something about this dispute. All it has done is to suggest further talking and we all know what that has led to in the past. It has led not to the solution of these problems but to a continuation of them month after month, year after year. Senator Button has often put to this chamber that labour market practices are part of the ongoing problem that he faces in trying to assist Australian industry to modernise. I agree with that view that Senator Button has put forward. It is part of the problem that Australia and he face. I further agree that the great bulk of industrial relations activity in Australia can and must be conducted on the basis of both parties acting in their perceived mutual interest. When that occurs it is possible for Australia to progress and for things to advance. But the reality is that in far too many situations elements of the trade union movement-now the highest element of the trade union movement, the ACTU-have shown that they are not prepared to behave in that way, that they are prepared to engage in industrial anarchy and in the sabotaging of the Australian economy. What must be done when the power of organised labour is abused? That is the issue that must be faced up to by this Government. It is not just the issue of the whole conduct of industrial relations across the range; it is the issue of what is to be done in those circumstances when trade union power is abused, as it so often has been abused in the past. The Queensland situation is valuable in bringing this issue into sharp focus. I believe that in the debate which occurs this afternoon it is important that we do not forget what was the basis of the dispute in Queensland. The basis of the dispute in Queensland was that the South East Queensland Electricity Board wanted to be able to employ contract labour to do certain parts of its work. It has a large employed labour force, but it wished to have some of its work done by contract labour. It wished to hire people under contract. I would have thought that that was utterly consistent with the sort of views that Senator Button expresses so often to industry-that they must be prepared to change their practices, to look afresh at and to do things in different ways. He is a great exponent of flexibility in industry. Yet we have in this case a dispute which relates simply to the desire of the trade unions to keep everything inflexible and to be done in a way which suits the interest, not of the authority or the community but of the trade union involved. I suggest that that fundamental dispute is one which the trade union had no right to bring forward. It had no right to try to dictate to the Queensland Electricity Board that it was not entitled to use contract labour in that way. I ask the Government: How is it that a trade union can be allowed to impose that condition upon its employer? The handling of that dispute-a dispute in which I believe it is clear that the trade union movement was in the wrong-led to the withdrawal of power from the people of Queensland. Again I say to the Government: How can it justify what the trade union movement inflicted on the people of Queensland? How can it justify the damage which was done to individual people, young and old, to the householders of Brisbane and elsewhere, whose supplies of food were destroyed when their electricity was removed, whose heating and cooling were removed, who were forced to undertake the most difficult substitution exercises and who were enormously inconvenienced? I suggest that the people of Australia generally reject the entitlement of the trade union movement to impose that sort of disadvantage and that sort of damage upon hundreds of thousands of their fellow Australians. We cannot have tens of thousands of homes without power because of the exercise of some trade union pursuit of a monopoly position within a particular industry. That is an absurdity of industrial relations. If that is defended by Senator Button, I will be very surprised. The sad fact is that the Government is not prepared to live up to its responsibilities in this matter. It has weakened its authority and its ability to deal with the sort of dispute that it now has on hand. The previous Government put into the Commonwealth industrial legislation powers which enabled it to at least require its own employees to work as directed. That power was removed by the Government. Of course, the Government quite recently had to go cap in hand to the industrial arbitration authorities and seek the same powers to be inserted into the awards. So the Government took the power out of the Act and then had to get it back temporarily in order to deal with the recent clerks strike, and has now left itself effectively denuded of powers to deal even with its own servants. The Opposition has offered to co-operate in the reinstatement of the powers which the Government needs to deal with those elements of its work force which might join in this sort of strike. Of course, that offer has been rejected by the Government. I believe that the question has to be asked: Whom does this Government represent? Does it represent the people of Australia or does it represent the ACTU? We have an extraordinary record of double standards from this Government. It is permissible for Premier Wran to recruit doctors overseas. It is perfectly all right for Premier Wran to be allowed to recruit doctors overseas but, of course, Premier Bjelke-Petersen cannot be allowed to recruit electricity workers overseas. I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: Why is it permissible for a Premier to recruit overseas in one circumstance but not in another? It is quite clear that the people of Australia want an end to industrial blackmail; they want an end to the disruption of essential services; they want an end to the disruption of exports-of coal, wheat or whatever-and they want the preservation of their right to work as well as the right to strike. I believe that there is near unanimity in the Australian community that there has been an abuse of trade union power. There is near unanimity in the Australian community that the abuses of trade union power which have occurred have got to be brought to an end. I am sure that if this Government persists in simply remaining the lapdog of the ACTU in this dispute this Government will be treated by the people of Australia with the contempt which it deserves. A series of actions are open to this Government. For a start it is open to work on its friends in the ACTU to prevent this sort of anarchy which the ACTU is promoting against the companies which have been named. At a very minimum the Government should dissociate itself from the actions of the ACTU. Yet today Senator Button, in answer to a question from Senator Boswell, did not even dissociate himself from the proposition that it was trade union intention to put industrial pressure on companies because they had been supporters of a particular political party. I think it is very interesting that Senator Button was not even prepared clearly to dissociate himself from the extraordinary proposition that trade unions should single out companies for particular attention simply because they have supported a particular political party. The implications of that failure by Senator Button are very great and I hope that in this debate he will clarify his position on that matter. The third line of action which is open to the Government is to legislate to strengthen the powers which it has to deal with its own services. The critically important thing in this debate is simply this: For too long we have tolerated a system which has not shown itself able to cope with the disruptions of essential services which have occurred. For too long we have put up with trade union activity which is unreasonable and beyond what the Australian people want to accept. It is not good enough for this Government to criticise what the Government of Queensland has done. What this Government needs to do is to establish how it can prevent this from occurring again in the future. If it does not do this it will be done by the States; if they do not do it, it will be done by us when we return to government and that will be soon. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(3.33) —I am not surprised at Senator Chaney's highly rhetorical speech which drew great rah-rahs from the Opposition because it was a rah-rah speech. I do not think it was a very thoughtful or intelligent speech. Let me begin by saying that I have no hesitation in dissociating myself from the attitude of the Australian Council of Trade Unions in respect of particular companies and the Government has had no hesitation in doing that. If I omitted to answer that part of the question which was put to me by Senator Boswell it was simply because the question was couched in so much rhetorical gobbledegook that I could not possibly deal with every part of it as it was put to me. I have listened with a great deal of interest to Senator Chaney's speech. There was a most revealing passage in it. He said: 'Why does not Senator Button have the courage that Mr Wran had in dealing with the railway dispute in New South Wales?' Senator Chaney —In at least expressing his views on it. Senator BUTTON —This is what the honourable senator said; he cannot change it now. Why does not Senator Button have the courage which Mr Wran had? What did Senator Chaney say that Mr Wran said? What did Mr Wran say? He said: 'Strikes are a weapon and a bloody weapon of the past'. That is beaut! That makes everybody on the other side of the chamber feel warm. They can go around saying: 'Strikes are a bloody weapon of the past'. I have no hesitation in saying that if it will help honourable senators opposite feel good. I do not mind being quoted as saying that; I agree with it. But the point is this: Did Mr Wran's remark do anything to solve the New South Wales rail dispute? The answer is that it did not, and that is precisely what the whole of Senator Chaney's speech amounts to. It was full of sound and fury and it signified nothing in terms of attitudes to industrial relations. If the people of Australia ever have the misfortune again to have this scruffy lot elected to government, that is the problem which the country would face. There is enormous excitement on the Opposition benches because we have had industrial unrest in Australia this year. Honourable senators opposite were deathly quiet for two years about industrial unrest. Senator Peter Rae —No. Last July I pointed out how July was the worst for nearly three years. Senator BUTTON —The honourable senator probably pointed out all sorts of things, but they did not make much impact on anybody. The fact that there was industrial disputation in the Commonwealth sphere in January and February caused tremendous excitement in the Opposition ranks. Of course the Queensland dispute, which I will come to in a minute, has engendered a bit of excitement again because an industrial dispute gives the conservative Opposition in Australia some relief from the growing horror of having nothing to think about. That was what Senator Chaney's speech was about. The Government rejects the basis of this matter of public importance. It is fundamental to any discussion of this issue to recognise the fact that it is essentially a Queensland dispute which results from the attitudes of the Queensland Government. The Premier has said it. He says: 'I have been waiting for this opportunity'. Senator Chaney —Why is the ACTU blockading Queensland? Senator BUTTON —As I apprehend it, the ACTU is blockading Queensland because of one simple fact. It sought discussions with the Premier of Queensland about the dispute and it was refused the right to have those discussions. If one cannot discuss an issue it leads to much more difficult environments. There is no doubt about that; it is a reality. It is true in industrial relations, just as it is true in international relations, that if these issues are not resolved by discussion they will be resolved in other ways. It is time some of the deep thinkers on the other side started to give some attention to those questions. Clearly, the Queensland Government is not interested in solving this dispute. The Premier has said so. It is being indulged in for purely political motives in Queensland. This Government has not for one moment condoned the industrial action taken by trade unions over this matter. We have said so. The Government has told this to the ACTU. The Government has made offers to the Queensland Premier to discuss with him what may be done jointly by both governments, but he has rejected those offers. This Government has sought to have the ACTU involved in discussion with the Government of Queensland. Those offers have been rejected by the Premier of Queensland. I again make it clear that the Government does not support the ACTU action but the Government understands the situation that has brought it about. What the Opposition does not understand-it never understood it when it was in government-is that one gets these problems when one conducts industrial relations in a confrontationist way. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —Like Mr Wran? Senator BUTTON —No. The honourable senator is again mistaking the words. Mr Wran's use of the word 'bloody' is what warmed Senator Chaney. The honourable senator thinks that that sort of confrontation brings results, but in the end the strike was settled by negotiation, not confrontation. The point I make is that the confrontationist attitude will not solve these things. This is what happened under the Fraser Government and this Opposition has learnt nothing. It will appeal to any constituency where it feels there might be a few votes without in any way offering any position of substance on this issue. Senator Chaney —Tell the Aboriginals that. Tell it to the environmentalists and nuclear disarmers. Senator BUTTON —Senator Chaney has never recovered in his posture from his years as a school prefect. He brings to this debate all the skills and solutions he acquired as a school prefect. Obviously he is very upset by the comments I am making. I ask him to calm down and think about some of the issues. The Opposition is excited about the old bogy of union power. I heard Senator Chaney get very excited on the Schildberger program only a week or so ago. He said: 'It is not just Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen; it is Margaret Thatcher in Britain. These are the models we are seeking to follow'. That is the essence of what he was saying on that program. He was saying: 'Look at the way Margaret Thatcher dealt with the coal-miners'. He translates his teenage enthusiasm for that sort of thing into what purports to be an industrial relations policy in this country. The Opposition has come out in this dispute in total support of the Queensland Government. There has not been one word of criticism from the Opposition of the Queensland Government-not a word of criticism about the legislation introduced in the Queensland Parliament or what the International Labor Organisation has had to say on that legislation. We are signatories to the ILO; we were under the previous Government and remain so. The Opposition has no concern with solving the dispute or offering any credible alternative to the utterly discredited confrontation tactics of the Queensland Government. This Government has used its best endeavours, in a situation where it has no substantial power to take action, to try to see an end to this dispute. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —What about section 92 of the Constitution? Senator BUTTON —If the honourable senator thinks section 92 of the Constitution is important, perhaps her colleague Senator Chaney should have said something about it in the debate. But the informal legal view is that section 92 has nothing to do with this matter. There is no action based on section 92 which would succeed. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle is going in for warm rhetoric again in asking: 'What about section 92?' What about all sorts of things? The Government is trying to deal with a difficult situation. This Government has offered talks with the Queensland Government and the ACTU. We have supported Federal Award coverage for the unions involved, but the Queensland Government will not even talk about these issues and the Opposition apparently supports that. Senator Walters —What about section 45D? Is that legal? Senator BUTTON —Senator Chaney had a lot to say about illegality. When he came to his examples of alleged illegality, he referred to the trade practices legislation. What else is illegal about the action which has been taken to date other than a possible breach of the trade practices legislation? Let me deal with section 45D of the trade practices legislation. The former Government put it in that legislation. Not once did the Minister of the day use section 80 of that legislation in industrial disputes. The former coalition Government had the worst record of industrial disputes in this country for years. Not once under that Government was the trade practices legislation used. However, the Opposition now seeks to prescribe that remedy to the present Government. When Opposition members were in government they did not use it ever. The Trade Practices Commission will not use it because it does not regard it as appropriate to use trade practices legislation in industrial relations matters. The Opposition is now prescribing for this Government remedies which when it was in government it was not prepared to take. This is what all the stuff about illegality amounts to. It is a nice school prefect word for Senator Chaney to use in this debate. Under the present Government there has been an unprecedented improvement in the industrial relations climate. The Opposition offers nothing more than the same discredited formula. Let me give some examples. In the last 12 months 1.3 million days were lost in Australia as a result of industrial stoppages. That compares with 4.5 million days lost in 1983. Senator Chaney —And 6.4 million when Mr Hawke was President of the ACTU-six million man days under Hawke. Senator BUTTON —Senator Chaney wants to go back to 1974 and ignores the seven years of the Fraser Government. Senator Chaney —You are going back. Senator BUTTON —Let me make it clear that I am going back to 1982. Look at the way the Fraser Government, which still has some refugee Ministers gathered here on the Opposition bench of the Senate, handled the metal trades dispute in 1981-82. In that year Malcolm Fraser blew through to the royal wedding in the midst of the biggest industrial dispute this country had had for years. He totally abandoned the wages policy which his Government purported to have at that time. The result was a record level of industrial disputation. There was a total collapse of the so-called wages policy at the time. The failings of the then Government are manifest in many other areas. One has only to look at wages, about which the Opposition asks questions and talks at length. In 1981-82, the last full year of the Fraser Government, average weekly earnings rose by 14.5 per cent. In 1982-83 they rose by 8.5 per cent. In 1981-82 total nominal hourly labour costs rose by 16.4 per cent. In 1983-84 they rose by 4.5 per cent, almost a quarter of the earlier figure. This Government, through the prices and incomes accord, has secured unprecedented stability and harmony in the wages and industrial relations area. There has been an enormous reduction in the level of industrial disputation-the lowest level for 17 years. We have not done this as a government through the sort of crass confrontationist blundering about which Senator Chaney has spoken today-that is what he and the Queensland Government are on about. We have done it by means of a quite different approach, a realistic approach. I am talking about results. It is the results that are important, not the windy rhetoric of Ministers. This whole area, which is of critical importance to this country, has produced those results. It has brought about the best industrial relations record for 17 years. It has resulted in a wage increase rate which is one third of the wage increase rate suffered by the former coalition Government in 1981-82. Senator Chaney —The Fraser wage pause did that. Senator BUTTON —Senator Chaney can talk about the Fraser wage pause, but those are the figures. No doubt that wage pause was thought about in the barber's chair and introduced at very short notice. It is a matter of great concern that the Opposition does not get off the opportunistic bandwagon; it should stop getting so excited about this issue. It is a Queensland issue essentially. Ultimately it will be a matter for the Queensland Government to try to solve. I see no merit in dancing about at the prospect of squeezing a bit of political advantage from a very important issue for the State of Queensland. The Opposition thinks that it has an opportunity to score a few points against unions-it is back to the old stuff-and it does not amount to anything like an industrial relations policy. The Opposition should say whether it intends to introduce similar legislation to that brought in by the Queensland Government. Would the Opposition do that? I think Senator Chaney might do that because after all he said on the Schildberger program that he had models, of whom Margaret Thatcher was one. This whole matter of public importance relates to the attitude of the Queensland Government supported by its fellow travellers here in Canberra, Her Majesty's loyal Opposition. I will just say a few words about the Queensland Government. I make the point that it is quite clear that if we look at the history of the dispute there are about four points on which conciliation and an approach of consultation and discussion could have resolved this issue. Each time the Queensland Government rejected them. Points recommended by the Premier's own arbitration commission were rejected. He rejected offers of discussion. He has said so. He makes it quite clear that he has been waiting for this opportunity. Obviously the Premier thinks that a good stunt such as this is the best way to divert the attention of Queenslanders from the fact they are sliding down the hit parade according to a range of economic indicators. Senator Bjelke-Petersen —Don't believe everything Peter Walsh says. Senator BUTTON —I do not believe everything Senator Peter Walsh says. For example, I think he was extremely kind to Senator Bjelke- Petersen in answering a question the other day. I thought: He is bending over backwards to be kind to Senator Bjelke-Petersen; I do not believe all that he says. Today Senator Walsh gave figures on employment, job vacancies, bankruptcies, new motor vehicle registrations, home building approvals, the value of other building approvals, private investment and industrial disputes. In every one of those important areas-important to the people of Queensland-Senator Bjelke-Petersen's State lags behind the rest of the Commonwealth. It embarrasses the rest of the Commonwealth particularly in the area of industrial disputes. For the information of Senator Bjelke-Petersen, Queensland's record of industrial disputes is 83 per cent higher than for the rest of the Commonwealth. Something the honourable senator might think about is whether the confrontationist approach which her good Premier and husband has embarked on is producing results. The point about the industrial relations system is that it should produce results so that the people of Australia might benefit in economic terms, in the economic growth, and in terms of the capacity to ensure a regular working life for people. It should do all those things. The real question is what Queensland is doing to achieve results; not what it is doing in terms of rhetoric, noise and so on. The Queensland Government has manifestly failed to achieve results. It is because of this that these stunts have been embarked on by the Queensland Government in this highly confrontationist manner. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —(Senator Jones)-Order! Before I call Senator Jack Evans I ask honourable senators on my left, particularly Senator Chaney, at least to try to keep their interjections down a little during the course of the speech. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(3.54) —Listeners to this broadcast no doubt will endorse the accusations made that Senator Chaney, in supporting the Opposition's approach to such a very serious debate, is behaving as he must have behaved in university and secondary school days. That attitude is unfortunate. The matter of public importance relating to the failure of the Government to protect the people of Australia from abuses of trade union power is a serious topic. Trade unionism is not abhorrent in itself, as Premier Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen has recently proclaimed. This was frequently proclaimed in my own State by Sir Charles Court. Trade unionism does serve a purpose in this country. Historically it has served a magnificent purpose of protecting the weak, particularly members of trade unions. Trade unions have behaved responsibly in economic terms on most occasions. As an illustration I mention the wages and incomes accord which I believe has enabled a leap forward for the Australian economy. Trade unions have generally improved working conditions by using the influence of their groups to protect individuals. Trade unions, however, are not paragons of virtue. They abuse their privileged position in this society and protect employed members' rights frequently at the expense of unemployed members. Just as frequently this is at the expense of the rest of the public. To put this whole debate in context, as it seems to have evolved into a debate on the current political, trade union and economic situation in Queensland, I will quickly run through the series of events which have led to our current position. On 1 February Mr Gilbert was appointed as the new General Manager of the South East Queensland Electricity Board. It was his idea to introduce contractors into SEQEB's operations. In June of 1984 he presented a draft agreement to the Electrical Trades Union and to SEQEB. It was not until Christmas that there was a dispute on four sites regarding these contractors. On 8 January the State Industrial Commission, having been brought into the dispute, recommended the acceptance of a draft agreement. A deadlock followed. This deadlock was followed by a strike and bans. On 17 January a major strike by the ETU was followed on 18 January by a return to work order issued by the Industrial Commission. That expired on 5 February. On 7 February the Industrial Commission called a conference and recommended a return to work. The whole situation was rapidly getting out of control. On 8 February the Queensland Government declared a state of emergency and issued its dismissal threats. Shortly after that there was an opportunity to break away from this vicious cycle. On 10 February the Industrial Commission called a conference, which in turn was deadlocked. It recommended: First, a return to work; second, the withdrawal of dismissal notices; third, for deregistration to be stopped; fourth, a discussion about what should happen in future with the four sites that were the initial cause of the dispute; and, fifth, a discussion of contractors doing SEQEB work in future. That was on 10 February. On the following day, 11 February, 1,200 men were sacked. On 5 March we saw the first of a series of Bills introduced into the Queensland Parliament. We now have a crisis in Queensland. We have reached the stage when all parties to the dispute are demonstrably wrong and demonstrably at fault. Every action they take exacerbates the position. It has become patently obvious to most members of the Australian community that there is a massive power struggle taking place in Queensland with the contestants interested only in gaining additional power. Regrettably, this is at the expense of the people of Queensland and the people of Australia. Senator Collard —Who should win it? Senator JACK EVANS —A declaration of war has been made by both parties. If Senator Collard has not learnt in his life that nobody wins in these disputes and these wars, as have been declared in Queensland, I suggest that he has a long way to go in understanding industrial relations. The one thing that he and I can be sure about is that the people of Queensland will lose because of provocative acts by both parties. I put it to the Parliament that apportioning blame at this stage will serve no useful purpose. I hope that Senator Collard refrains from endeavouring to go down that path. There is a union problem. There is no doubt that the people of Queensland are sick of the disruptions caused by unions. Meaningless and unnecessary disputes in Queensland and other States, union versus union in demarcation disputes, unions versus companies, unions versus government and State governments versus the Federal Government are the results of these union problems. The unions are suffering from the same problem as the Premier of Queensland-they are really out of contact with their communities. They are not listening to their members. They are not listening to the consumers. They are not listening to the community. They are not getting the feelings back from the community. Tragically for Queensland, and I believe for all States of Australia, there is not yet a real industrial democracy in place in which worker participation in decisions affecting their work place can be effective. The result of all of this is that the Queensland Government has introduced what in anybody's terms is draconian legislation. The environment has been created to allow that draconian legislation to come forward and to receive what would appear to be the support of many people in Queensland. This legislation contains excessive measures; for instance, a denial of civil liberties in the civil conscription power. That is probably amongst the greatest denials that this country has ever witnessed in Federal or State legislation. This particular Electricity (Continuity of Supply) Act empowers the Electricity Commissioner to direct, and I quote: 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. The penalty for not carrying out that instruction is imprisonment for up to one year. Apart from being a clear breach of Article 8.3 (a) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a lot of people have perceived this as a form of slavery and have perceived that in Queensland at this moment the extremists are reigning supreme. I think it is fair to suggest that breaches of civil liberty such as this not only rob the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission of its legitimacy but also prevent the resolution of disputes such as the one we have in Queensland at the moment. The Industrial Commission can no longer act in that State to resolve such a dispute. The response by the unions has been equally horrendous. The blackouts, the bans-including secondary boycotts-have exacerbated the situation, and it is the people of Queensland who are being hurt. Unemployed people are being put further back on the waiting list for jobs, particularly young unemployed people. Businesses are at threat, the whole economy of Queensland is at threat. The people within lower income brackets are those worst hit. If anything, this action will win support for the Premier of Queensland, not just of non-unionists but even some unionists. The blockade which has been planned is wrong. It is exacerbating the dispute. It is not only hurting Queensland; it is hurting the Federal Government and it is hurting the people of Australia. It is pressure deliberately designed to put the Federal Government on notice that section 45D-the secondary boycott provision-has to be repealed. It will hurt the average person in the street right around Australia. It will drag the economy of Queensland even further down, when it is already the worst economy in Australia. It will have a major impact on the economy of the whole of Australia. We have to find a way of ensuring that essential services are provided continuously. The collective bargaining system that has been proposed by the Australian Democrats is one way of ensuring that contracts entered into are maintained. We cannot hold a society to ransom to win union conditions to which the unions may or may not be entitled but for which we have an industrial arbitration system to decide upon. Senator Peter Baume —Is not that what is happening? Senator JACK EVANS —We must solve industrial relations problems in the arbitration court and that is not what is happening. The Arbitration Court provided a solution and the Government ignored the solution, as previously did the union. I am suggesting that in industrial matters the Government should keep out. The Government departments are the parties to the dispute and they must negotiate the solution. If no solution is possible the Government should arbitrate, not bash only one of the protagonists. The Government should act as arbitrator ultimately. That government arbitration should support and uphold the arbitration court and the arbitration system. That certainly has not happened in Queensland. We have now reached the stage where the only solution to the Queensland problem is a political solution. The Democrats have proposed that in fact we need to give the people of Queensland the sort of change to which they have been entitled for many, many years-a democratically elected parliament which will be seen as a parliament representing all of the people and not just a minority of the people, not a parliament imposing the will of a minority on others in that State. Honourable senators would be aware that today Senator Michael Macklin introduced a Bill which would provide a referendum of the people of Australia to give one vote one value right across Australia, even in the outposts of Queensland and Western Australia. In my own State of Western Australia there is a malapportionment of gross proportions, where one person's vote has a value equivalent to that of 10 other people. I believe that with a system of one vote one value the Parliament which legislates in Queensland will be seen to be legislating sensitively in response to the people of that State because it will consist of politicians who can be removed at an election, not politicians who through gerrymander and malapportionment have entrenched themselves and do not need to take any notice whatsoever of the electorate. Whether we are talking about the Labor Government of 30 years in Queensland or the current conservative government, the result of not having one vote one value is ultimately an authoritarian and insensitive government and gross abuses of power by the government of the day. History is repeating itself in Queensland right at this moment. It is destroying Queensland. Sadly what seems to be happening is that the Premier, hell bent on leaving a footnote in history that he destroyed Australia's trade union movement, is destroying the economy of the State and the democratic and civil rights of the people in the State. I propose that all parties should immediately back off. There is no more political mileage left in this dispute but there is tremendous future cost to the Government and to the people of Australia. I propose immediate consultation between the Queensland Government, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Federal Government, and recognition that all three parties will survive, as will Australia's economy, only through taking that path. We require statesmanship from all three leaders-from Prime Minister Hawke, Premier Bjelke-Petersen and ACTU President Dolan. That statesmanship, that leadership is required today. Senator COLLARD(Queensland)(4.08) —We are dealing with a matter of public importance brought before the Senate today by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney), namely: The failure of the Government to protect the people of Australia from abuses of trade union power. It is no surprise that this has been brought on by the current situation and particularly the threatened blockade of Queensland by the Australian Council of Trade Unions. This is probably a unique situation in Australia's history. Certainly I do not recall having heard of a blockade of a State. What makes the uniqueness of this situation more pronounced is that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is in a unique situation of being able to do something about it if he wanted to. We have a Prime Minister who strutted around this country for years as the President of the ACTU and indeed who won an election because of the 'unique relationship' that the Australian Labor Party has had for many years with the trade union movement. We have a blockade, which to my knowledge has never happened before. The former President of the ACTU, now Prime Minister, with more power and authority than any person in this country has ever had and with a unique relationship with the unions, should do something about the situation. Yet what have we heard from him? We have heard nothing. On Friday those who want to fly in or out of Queensland will not be able to do so. That will affect members of this chamber and members of the other place. Without going into it again, because we have previously discussed this in a matter of public importance brought forward by Senator Jones, let us look at a little of the history. It is quite significant that no Labor senator from Queensland is taking part in this debate. Obviously they are running for cover. Senator Cook —We gave you a blast last time. You still haven't woken up to yourself. Senator COLLARD —I think we won the last one. It was almost a lay down misere, as indeed this one will be. Senator Jack Evans, when going through the history of the complaint, talked about the recommendations of the State Industrial Commission to the participants in this dispute. He conveniently overlooked the directions-as against the recommendations-to the Electrical Trades Union before it got to this stage. Senator Jack Evans —No, I didn't. That was part of what I said. Senator COLLARD —I am afraid that I did not hear it. That happened before the dates the honourable senator gave. As Senator Chaney pointed out, the dispute basically is about the generating authority having a base load work force with a contract work force to enable it to operate efficiently for the peak load, to put it in good power station terms. I reiterate, as I did in the previous debate, that no jobs were at risk, no wages were at risk, no benefits were at risk and no conditions were at risk. Senator Cook —That is not true. Senator COLLARD —That is completely true, and the honourable senator will get his opportunity. I repeat: No jobs were at risk, no wages were at risk, no conditions were at risk and no benefits were at risk. I go further down the track. As I said previously, the ETU started the war and chose the battlefield. The fact that it has had its nose bloodied is its own fault. Not only during this debate but also while the whole sorry story has been going on there have been many allegations about the economy in Queensland, trying to blame the Government and saying that things are bad. Mark Twain once said: 'Get your facts first and then you can distort them as much as you please'. Let us get the facts first on the Queensland economy. Senator Jack Evans —And then you are going to distort them. Senator Childs —Is that the Queensland way? Senator COLLARD —Honourable senators can do with them what they like. I will give them the facts as they are. For many years Queensland had the fastest growth in employment in Australia. We had more big capital projects, such as coal mines, railways, the aluminium smelter and so forth, than the rest of Australia. Because of that we had a large construction work force. Since the Labor Government has been in power the economy has been on a downturn, and honourable senators do not need me or anyone else on this side to point that out. We need only look at how the world economic community looks at the value of the Australian dollar. Because the economy is down, no new projects are taking place in Queensland. Who would commit the vast amounts of money necessary when our costs are so high and when our reliability for delivery is so abysmal? Senator Bjelke-Petersen —And now a Queensland blockade. Senator COLLARD —And now Queensland has a blockade. Now that the economy is down, large capital works are not taking place in Queensland. They are also not taking place in any other State. Where would the work force go? It came to Queensland originally to help us build those large construction projects. Nothing is happening in any other State. Where can it go? Another factor is that sugar prices are low, as everybody knows. What is this Government doing about that? We have low metal prices. We also have a drought in inland Queensland, a fact which is overlooked by most people. The most important fact at this time is the power strike. Yet let us look at Queensland's performance in times past, before the dismal economic performance of this Government. Queensland has 16 per cent of the population. It had 22 per cent of our mining output, 23 per cent of our agricultural output and 22 per cent of Australia's total exports. The last figures available are for 1983. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table showing export statistics. Leave granted. The document read as follows- DOLLAR VALUES OF EXPORTS ON A STATE BY STATE BASIS FOR 1983-84 $ billion NSW 5.228 Vic. 4.708 Qld 5.431 SA 1.636 WA 5.060 Tas. 0.767 NT 0.567 Australian Total 23.511 AUSTRALIAN EXPORTS ON A PER CAPITA BASIS STATE BY STATE $ NSW 970 Vic. 1,160 Qld 2,170 SA 1,120 WA 3,660 Tas. 1,750 NT 4,080 Australian National Average 1,510 Senator COLLARD —That table points out the value of exports in 1983-84 on a State by State basis. Queensland was top with $5.431 billion. On a per capita basis, Queensland was third with $2,170 per head. It is quite significant that the Northern Territory is top, even though its uranium exports had been held back by this Government, at $4,080 per head throughout that time. Queensland's contribution to this economy, even though we are suffering because of the economic downturn brought about by this Government, is still quite significant. The point I make is that if the Queensland economy hurts, all Australia is going to hurt, whether we like it or not. It has been brought into jeopardy by the action of the ETU and now, of course, by the ACTU in this rearguard action of seeking to blockade a State. Much has been said about the legislation. This legislation only guarantees power supply. It does not affect other unions. A friend of mine in Rockhampton was recently rung by the wife of a meat worker who said that if the meat workers went on strike all the workers would end up in gaol. Such is the rot being propagated around the State to try to whip up support from other unions. Much has also been said about the right to strike by many people in the community, including the churches. I have heard very little about the responsibility attached to that right or the conditions under which people should strike. As a unionist who has been on strike and led strikes, I know what it is all about. But there attaches to those people a certain responsibility to look at why they are going on strike and whether it is necessary to strike. We never hear about any of the other rights. What about the rights of the family who have bought a deep freeze, so that they can buy meat in bulk and so save money, when the food rots and the motor of the freezer burns out when the power comes on in a surge? What about the family who has had a loved one killed or injured at an intersection because the lights have gone out just before he got there? What about the rights of a retired couple who have bought a unit to retire to on the third or fourth floor of block and cannot use the lift? What about the rights of those people who have had their houses burnt down because a candle overturned when the lights went out? What about the rights of the farmer who keeps vaccine in his fridge to control diseases, which vaccine goes bad on him? What about the right to work? We hear very little of that in this argument. What about the right to hire and fire? What about the right to have a continuous power supply? As I mentioned in the last debate, these tin gods in glass castles who have prostituted the union movement want one-sided rights. Senator Peter Baume —That is a kind of mixed metaphor. Senator COLLARD —Maybe, but I think it suits the case. They want one-sided rights, as apparently do their supporters. Of course, this is not happening only in Queensland. Senator Chaney quite rightly pointed to all the other industrial disputation which is currently going on and which went on previously in different States. The Government, with its own public servants, could not handle the situation. As soon as it got into power it got rid of our Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act and our no work as directed, no pay provision. I refer to the Wran Government and the disastrous strike in New South Wales when it was visited by the Prime Minister of another country to which we wished to sell our products. It must have been a most embarrassing moment. Many people, including Senator Jack Evans, referred to draconian legislation. If this legislation were as draconian as it has been made out to be by its detractors, no government could sustain it because public support would dissipate. I think that is something that is worth repeating. I think most people in their saner moments would recognise it. I repeat: If this legislation were as draconian as it has been made out to be by its detractors, no government could sustain it because public support would dissipate. Yet what is happening? Senator Jack Evans —You don't even believe that yourself. Senator COLLARD —The opposite is true. Senator Jack Evans —Every piece of legislation has the full support of the public, are you saying? What nonsense. Senator COLLARD —I remind Senator Evans that I will not get barbed wire in my backside through sitting on the fence like he will over this whole thing. On the subject of the right to a power supply being more important than the right to strike, a poll was conducted just recently by the Courier-Mail and Channel O. It showed that 60 per cent of people were in favour of the right to a power supply being predominant; 50 per cent of Labor supporters interviewed held that view; and 60.7 per cent of all those interviewed were in favour of the Premier's stand. The message in this whole sorry situation is not directed to us; it is directed more to the Australian Labor Party and the union movement. The message is that the average Australian has had enough. As I said at the outset, it was the ETU which started this fight and chose the battlefield. The Queensland Government was brought into it later. As has been indicated, we have had enough. George Bernard Shaw once said that trade unionism is not socialism but rather the capitalism of the proletariat. One thing on which I agree with Senator Evans, and I said it in my contribution to the previous debate on this matter, is that the union movement has a great record for helping the underdog in our society. Nobody acknowledges that more than I do, and history will record it. When things get out of hand, when we see the capitalism of the proletariat, which is what we are seeing in the union movement at this time, we are in all sorts of trouble. I remind Senator Evans that this is a fight for power. It is a fight over power and a fight for power. The Queensland Government will not give up and neither should it. If this fight is lost, heaven help this country and its future, particularly our ability to trade with other nations. That has been recognised by everybody who has taken part in this debate. It is important that the Queensland Government wins this fight. It just has to, for the future of this country. As I see the pronouncements by the union leaders and by the people opposite I am very much reminded of the words of Banjo Patterson in the Man from Ironbark: 'Their heads were flat, their eyes were dull, they had no brains at all'. Senator COOK(Western Australia)(4.25) —The latest joke being perpetrated on the Senate this afternoon in the form of a matter of public importance put forward by Senator Chaney reads: The failure of the Government to protect the people of Australia from abuses of trade union power. It is a joke transcended only by the speech just delivered by Senator Collard, who quoted a famous socialist George Bernard Shaw to attack the trade union movement. I do not think one would find any comfort in the writings of G. B. Shaw if one examined those texts much more deeply. We have heard from Senator Chaney, we have now heard from Senator Collard and we are shortly to hear from Senator MacGibbon. In total 50 minutes, I sadly anticipate, will be spent in listening to another Liberal-National Party blood sport-union bashing. It is interesting to note the militaristic terms in many of the comments made by honourable senators opposite. They see this as a war. They describe it in militaristic terms, as a battle, the battlefield, advance and defeat, success and failure. They see it in those terms. It is a pity and a sad commentary on them that they do. They have decided to support a Queensland government which, quite apart from the rights or wrongs of a particular dispute, has transcended the framework of industrial relations in that State and in Australia as a whole in such a way that it is making Australia a laughing stock in the developed and underdeveloped world and in a way that I believe brings discredit to this country. They have hitched their wagon to that star, and that is unfortunate. They have done so in the face of the serious and considered condemnation of the legislation enacted by the Queensland Government, from notable church and civil libertarians and from the editorials of almost all the newspapers. While the editorials may well have echoed the sentiments expressed by my colleague from the Australian Democrats Senator Jack Evans a moment ago in that they said 'A pox on both your houses', they certainly expressed very strongly the sentiment that the Queensland Government's legislation could not be countenanced in Australian industrial law, or indeed in the law of any civilised country. There is a host of things that this Government can put on the industrial relations scoreboard. The important aspect of this matter of public importance is that once again the Opposition is ignoring history. It is said of those who ignore history that they are doomed to repeat it. One trusts that the people of Australia will display good common sense and, given the declaration by the Opposition at a national level of support for the draconian legislation in Queensland, will give good support to us and keep the Opposition out of office for many decades to come lest Australia be returned to the turmoil of the Fraser years, a turmoil we can do without and a turmoil that has been transcended by the Hawke Government in finding a new basis for conducting industrial relations-a proper recognition and respect for the basic forces and aspirations of all parties in industrial disputes. The unfortunate thing is that a direct implication of this debate is that the Liberal Party and the National Party have endorsed the legislation of Joh Bjelke-Petersen. Not one word of criticism has been raised by those parties about that legislation. While we can have particular views about whether the dispute was right or wrong, I do not think anyone who takes a responsible view can do anything other than condemn the legislation that has been enacted in Queensland. History is being ignored now in this debate and in the Opposition's sentiments. Those opposite have forgotten that in 1983 this Government was given a ringing mandate by the people of Australia for precisely the reason that the Opposition is supporting Bjelke-Petersen. We were given a mandate for national reconciliation and reconstruction. That was the theme on which we went to the community. That was the theme that was ringingly endorsed. It was endorsed after a period of Fraser government in which Australian was set against Australian, confrontation replaced co-operation and social divisiveness and the renting of the social fabric were the norm. The people of Australia became fed up with that as a method of trying to obscure the economic performances of the country and to apportion blame rather than find solutions. They cast out the government of confrontation and brought in the government of national reconciliation. The thing that is being ignored in Queensland and, unfortunately, on the Opposition benches is that the Liberal and National parties have not learnt that the people of Australia want a co-operative industrial relations framework in which the answer is not to say: 'Let us tackle the symptoms'. Rather, they want one in which we say: 'Let us tackle the cause so there are no symptoms'. That is the true lesson of what this Government stands for. It was what we were elected and re-elected on and it is what we have been able to succeed in bringing to Australia, as the industrial relations dispute figures and our economic performance show. Senator Button, in what would have been, had it not been for the heckling and shouting down from the Opposition-I am sure his speech will now read as such-a measured and studious consideration of the problem, drew attention to the scoreboard. I must say that in matters of public importance such as this I keep referring to the scoreboard because, while a lot of windy rhetoric passes for debate in this place, really the way in which one divines what is in fact happening is by looking at the statistics on what has been achieved rather than by listening to the rhetoric and the allegations that are traded across the floor of this chamber. If one resorts to the scoreboard and checks what in fact is occurring, one will see, as Senator Button pointed out, that in the last year of the Fraser Government 4.5 million man days were lost to the economy through industrial disputes. That was unfortunately the sorry consequence of our industrial relation record at the height of confrontation which resulted in divisiveness and the setting of Australian against Australian. In the last year of the Hawke Government that figure was reduced to just over a quarter of the last year of the Fraser score. In 1984, 1.32 million man days were lost through industrial disputes. This is a figure that we want to reduce further. But the important thing is to compare 4.5 million man days with 1.3 million man days and ask oneself what is the better system. Obviously everyone would prefer a system that produces the lowest score. All the other economic indicators show that under the Hawke Government inflation has been halved and is now down to 5 per cent, which is the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average, employment is being created so that we are ahead of our target of half a million jobs within three years, economic growth is increasing and investment in the economy is picking up. All of these things can occur within a framework bringing together the creative forces in Australia rather than setting those forces against one another and at each other's throat. Even last year's report of the South East Queensland Electricity Board shows the difference that the national Labor Government has brought to Australia. The number of man hours lost within the SEQEB because of industrial disputation, as set out on page 18 of the report, shows that the trend that I have described at the national level was, until this dispute, mirrored at a State level. In 1979-80, which was an infamous year of Fraser Government anti-union legislation, 106,729 man hours were lost. In 1982-83, 15,602 man hours were lost. However, in 1983-84, which was a full year of Hawke government, 5,162 man hours were lost. So even the mood of national consensus found fertile ground in the SEQEB in Queensland, and that has to be remembered when one considers this latest dispute. It cannot be said often enough that the Queensland economy is in a parlous state. The Federal Government could help in this respect were it to be given constructive co-operation by Queensland. This is not something that we fling across the chamber or that we are pleased to be able to recite. It is something that is sad and ought to be a slur on the economic performance of the country. But the facts are that the Queensland Government has chosen to try to obscure the performance of the economy rather than address the intrinsic difficulties which it faces in concert with this national Government and within the framework of co-operation, reconciliation and reconstruction that we have developed with the union movement. For the record, and so that Senator Collard's recitation on economic performances can be put against the latest statistics, because his was a retrospective view of what had occurred and not a current up to date view, I would like to recite 11 indicators in a table that was prepared by my colleague Senator Maguire. I must acknowledge the fine work done by Senator Maguire in compiling these statistics, which in fact graphically portray the picture. In the time available to me I do not have a chance to go through all the indicators, but the dreary truth is that the Australian economy is performing massively better than the Queensland economy. Let me make a selection of just a few key indicators to demonstrate the point. Employment in March 1985 compared with March 1984 grew by 2 per cent in Australia. In Queensland it grew by 0.3 per cent. The registration of new motor vehicles in the three months to February 1985 compared with the three months to February 1984 grew in Australia by 11.9 per cent. In Queensland it declined by 0.5 per cent. The number of new dwellings commenced in the September quarter 1984 compared with the September quarter 1983 increased by 9.5 per cent in Australia and 1.7 per cent in Queensland. In the 12 months to January 1985 compared with the 12 months to January 1984 the figure for working days lost through industrial disputes was minus 15.6 per cent in Australia and plus 83.9 per cent in Queensland. Someone must be doing something wrong in Queensland. The indicators listed in the table conclude with bankruptcies. In the 12 months to December 1984 compared with the 12 months to December 1983 there was a drop in bankruptcies in Australia of 8.2 per cent. In Queensland there was an increase in bankruptcies of 26.4 per cent. This is a shameful record. It is an economic record which, I repeat, the Australian Government could assist the Queensland Government in trying to rectify because those adverse statistics drag down the national performance generally and are a blight on Australia's international competitiveness. I think the offer by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to try to intervene in this dispute with the support of the parties ought to be reconsidered by the Queensland Government. Whatever abuse is hurled at the Prime Minister in this chamber, the record and the view of most Australians is that he is a skilled and practised conciliator in just this sort of difficulty. He has offered to use his offices with the union movement and, hopefully, with the Queensland Government to try to bring an end to this madness. That offer has been spurned. It has been rejected and it has in fact been ridiculed. I suggest that none of us rejoice in what is occurring in Queensland. However, the best way of resolving it is by talking-talking within the forum which this Federal Government can create through the agency of the negotiation skills of the Prime Minister. I believe if that were accepted we would see an end to this problem. We would see a beginning of growth and an improvement in the general adverse indicators to which I have referred. One other thing that has to be said for the record and, since Senator MacGibbon is to speak next, has to be repeated, is that what is going on in Queensland is in fact an affront to Australia's standing in the international community. The International Labour Organisation is an arm of the United Nations. It is the labour forum of the United Nations. It is tripartite. Governments, unions and employers are party to it. Its conventions are adopted by Third World, emerging and developing economies as well as mature and developed economies. Approved conventions are adopted by each Australian State. The conventions that are being offended in Queensland were adopted by the Queensland Government as well as the national Government. The conventions on forced labour and political and civil rights are being abrogated. Senator Maguire —It is the Gulag Archipelago of Australia. Senator COOK —That is exactly right. The abrogation of those conventions is putting Australia's international standing at the same level as some banana republic that is the mockery of the civilised world because the very sure and first sign of repressive government is the use of legislative power to suppress trade unions and the right of individuals properly to negotiate and bargain. The Premier of Queensland is not just using legislative power of the kind that was used in Fraser's day when there was a debilitating economy. The special thing in Queensland that is brought to this whole debate is the gerrymander on the gerrymander-the fact that the electoral laws in Queensland are being rorted to deny the people of Queensland a proper say by enacting legislation for which there is no mandate. Until that problem is resolved this dispute will not be settled. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(4.40) —This afternoon the Senate is debating the failure of the Government to protect the people of Australia from abuses of trade union power. No other country has indulged the whole gamut of union activities and union power the way Australia has. Successive Australian governments, whether Liberal-National Party or Labor, Federal and State, by legislation and administrative practice have protected, reinforced and promoted the unionisation of Australia. While that might have been a worthy aim initially, it has now been abused by irresponsible union leaders. We have reached the stage now, as both the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, and Senator Collard said, when members of the public are totally fed up with union abuses of power and the tragic consequences of that on Australian society. The Liberal Party knows it; the National Party knows it; the Australian Labor Party does not know it. It does not want to know it because it is beholden to the union movement for its candidates, such as Senator Cook, and for the money the union movement puts into its coffers. Unionism as it is known in Australia is out of date. It is an anachronism we can no longer afford. What was relevant and worthy in 1885 is now doing a major disservice to the nation in 1985. It hits at current production. It affects future consumption. It destroys investor and entrepreneurial confidence. It destroys profitability. Above all, it is the very converse of its original intention. The original intentions of unionism were to promote the individual's right to work, the right to work with dignity and independence. The very thing that it set out to do 100 years ago is now the direct converse of the effect of unions in Australian society. Are we a civilised society when we have picket lines? Are we civilised when people who do not want to work deny the right to others? They not only deny other people the right to work but also go around running picket lines, calling people scabs, intimidating and bullying people, and carrying out acts of thuggery that lead at times to the loss of human life. That is not the sort of Australia in which I want to live. That is not the sort of Australia for which I want to be a legislator. Yet this is what the union movement is about. That is why the people of Australia have had enough of it. So far in this debate we have heard from the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, who obviously did not have his mind on the job. He seldom makes a good speech these days and this was one of his worst. The sole point that Senator Button brought up was the fact that it was a Queensland matter, not a national matter. He said it was a Queensland affair and so it did not matter. I have news for Senator Button. Senator Jack Evans rambled on about the history of the movement. The interesting thing was that he missed the most important part of the history in dealing with the origins of the Queensland problem, and that was that the administration felt that because the union workers were moonlighting and doing so much contract work on the side it might as well officialise it and go to contract labour from the start. That is the origin of the whole thing. Senator Cook went on as usual, as a former trade union official, and demonstrated why, when he ran the campaign in Forrest, Peter Drummond's vote went up. Everywhere Senator Cook went the Liberal vote climbed through the roof, particularly in the industrialised town. While I am on the matter of Labor speakers, why do not the Labor senators from Queensland get up to speak on this matter? Where are they hiding? Why are they not speaking on a matter that is vitally important to them and to their State? The Australian public wants change in our industrial relations. It sees that as the most important thing before us. The Australian public wants common sense in the way we manage our industrial affairs. Tax reform is quite secondary, even though it is important. If we proceed in the area of industrial relations, in the way we have in this country we will end up as a Third World country. Living standards are falling. As Senator Townley says on many occasions, the average debt per head of Australians is more than it is in Argentina, Chile or Mexico. This is largely due to the fact that we have a monopoly on the provision of labour by the unions of this country. Australia must have a free market for labour. We need legislation only to prevent exploitation of labour by employers. Present legislation exploits employers and the country. This country has to earn money through its industrial production. We cannot pay more and more to greedy unionists and shut out the world. If that happens, in the end the country will go bankrupt. If there is one asset which we have in this country it is the Australian work force. It can compete with any work force in the world. It is intelligent and resourceful. It is conscientious, dedicated and hard working, but it cannot work under the union system that we have imposed on society today. The Labor Party has not realised that community attitudes to unions have changed very dramatically in the last year or two. That is demonstrated by the Queensland troubles. The Queensland Premier has wide support. Today's Courier-Mail, under the heading 'Strike right second to to power need', stated: The right to a power supply is more important than the right to strike, says a major public opinion poll. But most of the people surveyed believed in the right to strike as a general principle. Of the people surveyed, 73.5 percent, particularly National and Liberal voters, said workers should not cut the supply of electricity in support of strike action. Among Labor voters, almost 50 percent said electricity supply workers should not have the right to strike. The actions of the Queensland Government are supported not only in Queensland but also right across Australia. Australians want three things in industrial relations: They want voluntary unions, no picket lines and no strikes in essential services. They see unionism in the modern age as being a matter of election; not of compulsion. A voluntary union system is what the community demands. The community upholds the right to strike. That is not challenged, except in relation to essential industries. One of the big changes that the Labor Party has not picked up is that the community no longer believes that if people want to strike they can deny the opportunity for others in the community who have the qualifications and the will to work, to take their places. The second essential difference is in the matter of strikes by workers employed in essential services. Society today is far too complex, far too interdependent, for a crowd that has a monopoly on the supply of something like electricity to hold the community to ransom, particularly when one realises that most of the people who went on strike in Queensland were on incomes of around $40,000 to $50,000 a year. They were not scraping along just above the dole line. In a nutshell, we are moving to a society that will have voluntary unionism. Strikes by those involved in essential services will be forbidden under legislation. Workers who want to strike may do so but they have to expect that others will take their places. We will see an arbitration system that sets minimal wages only and does not tie up the whole ball game as is the case at present. The debate today has been brought about by the action last night of the Transport Workers Union of Australia in blockading Queensland. This anarchistic action has the support of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Federal Government. Today the ACTU called on 160 unions to run a hit list against 51 so-called Queensland companies. I want to touch on two very important points, the ACTU's position and that of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). The ACTU's position is a double cross. It broke the one and only rule of labour relations in Australia; that is, that a striking union has the support of the ACTU and the Labor government. That has been the one inviolate rule of the labour movement. The history of the strike in Queensland is that Mr Kelty went to Queensland on 21 February. At that time the strike was unresolved. By 6.15 on the night of 21 February, the strike was over. Mr Kelty pulled the rug out from the striking Queensland Electrical Trades Union members. Mr Dolan, the head of the ACTU, sent Mr Kelty. The Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, Senator Button and all the Labor Cabinet, including the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, who is in the chamber, must have known and been party to this act of treachery with respect to the labour movement. What is the ACTU now doing? It is covering up with nationwide strikes. It is quite careless of the effect of this strike action on the loss of jobs, profits and exports. On Saturday afternoon I flew from Townsville to Brisbane. Eight ships, which are vital to Australia's export trade, were anchored off Hay Point. Those ships are awaiting loading as a consequence of this problem in Queensland. The action in which the ACTU is involved is unlawful. It is a flagrant, wilful breach of section 45D of the Trade Practices Act because it is a gross secondary boycott on a national scale. As Senator Collard said, it also breaches section 92 of the Constitution, which provides that trade between the States is to be free and unimpeded. I now turn to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is Prime Minister for all Australians. He is not the Prime Minister of just the ACTU or the labour movement. He is not the Prime Minister only of New South Wales and Victoria; he is the Prime Minister of Queensland, Tasmania, the Northern Territory and all the rest of Australia. As a Queenslander I say that we are Australians first and Queenslanders second. We have a Prime Minister who I would have thought would have been bound by ALP resolutions one of which states that 'a Labor government will direct its program towards achieving a just industrial society in which all Australians have a right to work'. This Prime Minister supports and the Cabinet supports the law breaking by the ACTU. The Government says that it will not enforce section 45D and that it will not support the Constitution. I would have thought that a Prime Minister would be bound to uphold the law unless he wanted to take the community as a whole into anarchy, which is what will happen if the Prime Minister does not get to the root of the problem which the community wants fixed. The community wants the industrial relations problem fixed. It does not want the diversion of an attack on the Queensland legislation. The Queensland Government has done the best it can in very difficult circumstances. Let us hear from the Labor Party what it will do. Let us not have a character assassination of the Premier of Queensland. Let us have something constructive from the Labor Party. This Labor Party is absolutely careless of the consequences to Queensland of this boycott legislation. It is careless of the consequences for primary industry-for the beef and sugar industries, It is careless of the effects of the boycott on manufacturing industry. It is careless of the effects of the boycott on the exporting industries of coal and alumina. The Labor Party is quite careless of the consequences of the boycott for Australian industry, of which Queensland is an integral part. We have a Prime Minister who not only is failing to uphold the law but also is condoning and encouraging the breaking of it. If he holds the law in contempt can he wonder at all if the public does the same to him and to the laws he wants to make? We have aimless leadership from the Prime Minister. We do not have a hawk; we have a chook running this country. This is the latest act in a long line of careless government. The Labor Government does not care about the unemployed. The Labor Government does not care about the sick. The Labor Government does not care about business. The Labor Government does not care about the farmers or primary industry. The Labor Government does not care about the defence forces. Above all, the Labor Government does not care about ordinary Australians who are going about their ordinary jobs in an orderly, predictable and responsible way. This Government has failed to protect Australia in all ways, and no more strikingly so than in its failure to attack the abuse of power by the bullies in the union movement. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(4.53) —The proposition, as it is termed, is divisive and likely to exacerbate the present situation in Queensland. The proposition contains the hidden allegation that the union movement is at war with the Australian people, a tragic allegation when the problem in Queensland must be settled and must be settled as soon as possible. There is no doubt that this matter has to be disposed of. It will be disposed of ultimately, and the quicker it is disposed of the better. Senator MacGibbon said: 'Let us not have a character assassination of the Premier of Queensland'. I agree with that, particularly because this matter must be settled. But having said that we should not assassinate the character of one of the essential parties to any agreement that comes about, Senator MacGibbon immediately assassinated the characters of Bill Kelty and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), who also have to be part of any settlement that takes place. Senator MacGibbon said that Kelty pulled the rug out from the unionists in Queensland, that he betrayed, in effect, the very people he was meant to serve. What sort of settlement will we get, what sort of negotiations will we have, if one of the parties essential to those negotiations is pilloried, cursed and made out to be treacherous to the people he is meant to serve? Certainly we should not assassinate the character of the Premier of Queensland. I will not be doing that. But certainly, if that proposition is to be put forward, the character of everybody who is essential to the proper settlement of this dispute should be spared and the matter set down for discussion, not in terms of some sort of football match where some sort of dramatic win is looked for, but in terms of a negotiated settlement. Throughout this whole debate it has to be remembered that the problem in Queensland at the moment has been brought about by the fact that one of the parties will not negotiate. How can a proper settlement take place, how can this matter be disposed of, if people will not talk? If this is going to be an Indian arm wrestling contest, where the person who crumbles to the table or falls to the ground will be the loser, where are we going to get? Certainly, if that is the attitude that is going to be taken we have to expect that the unions will react. Senator MacGibbon said that unionism was all right in the 1890s, that it had a function to serve then, but that that function has fundamentally changed. The inference in that proposition is that unionism as we know it now should disappear, that unionism should undergo a fundamental change. That, in effect, means that the very institution of unionism is under attack. In the situation we are now discussing what is happening is that the attack is being made on the institution of unionism. If that happens it is to be expected that a union will do what any institution which is under attack would do-that is, defend itself. I simply suggest that it would be better if propositions such as the one that unionism must disappear or, at the very least, undergo fundamental change, were not put at this stage because that sort of proposition only exacerbates the situation. The other proposition put by Senator MacGibbon was that we must have free market forces operating in the employment field. The difficulty with that sort of suggestion is that it makes labour a commodity, as coal is a commodity. It devalues the very thrust of what work is all about. It is the means ordinary, decent people have of keeping their families, of manifesting their purpose in this world and of making a career. Work is simply not like coal. It is simply not a commodity that can be bartered and sold. It is more than that. If the Queensland Government has gone ahead on the basis that it is dealing with merely a commodity, as coal is a commodity, and the people who work contribute their very bodies and their very souls to carrying out their jobs, of course we will have difficulty. The attitude with which the Government approaches these people must lead inevitably to conflict and to the sorts of difficulties we have now. It was proposed that the Australian Labor Party is beholden to unionism and that in some way the people in the Labor Party have a debt to unionism. I suggest that the people in Australia as a whole have a debt to unionism. The quality of life we as a nation enjoy is in large measure due to the union movement. That ought not be forgotten. Decent wages, decent standards of living and a decent environment would not be available to the majority of Australians were it not for unions. If it is perceived to be all right to take an event or an industrial action and to say that that represents what the union movement as a whole is all about, it will make it very difficult to settle this dispute because it is a false perception. As I have said, the conditions the unions have obtained are enjoyed by a vast majority of Australians, even by those who never contributed anything towards obtaining them. That has to be remembered. People are in the habit of denigrating, even cursing, unions and at the same time making use of the very benefits of for which they have fought. Senator MacGibbon said that in the 1890s unions had right on their side. In the 1890s unionists were shot and killed for the attempts they made to get the sorts of conditions that we now accept as ordinary, everyday things. It is a lack of a sense of propriety to enjoy the benefits obtained by unions and then to pillory them for taking the sort of action that has obtained those benefits. As I said before, without unions labour becomes a commodity, a thing for sale to anyone who wants to buy it, instead of being the means by which a person can keep himself and his family in reasonable conditions, and that is not to be forgotten. Let there be no mistake that the vast majority of Australians would have a lower standard of living if it were not for the unions. I mentioned some factors and I will mention others. Workers compensation, safety legislation, reasonable hours of labour and paid holidays are some of the things that employees in Australia enjoy because of unionism. Let me make it quite clear that at times unions, like other institutions in society, such as business, schools or any institution that one cares to name, do depart from what is desirable. I am not saying that unionism is the greatest thing that has happened, that it does not make mistakes and that it does not do the wrong thing. What I am saying is that one should look at it not in terms of those things which one says that it does wrong but in terms of the overall benefits that it has brought to the society. Those overall benefits, I suggest, are much greater than the harm it has caused to this community. The number of days lost through industrial action is much less than the number lost through industrial accidents. That should not be forgotten. Senator Collard said that nobody was put at risk by what was done in Queensland. Of course, 1,200 people were sacked and the very basis of unionism, as I have said, was attacked. Of course, the ability of the unions to put a united position and to back up that position was under attack. To say that they had nothing to lose does not accord at all with the facts. Senator Collard also said that unionism is not under attack in Queensland and that the legislation that is now in operation is not something to complain about. Part of the Electricity (Continuity of Supply) Act states, in effect, that a person shall not, either alone or in concert with any other person, omit to do any act, which omission is calculated to annoy any person on account of the job he is doing. In other words, it becomes a crime for anybody to admit to doing something, which admission might cause harm or distress. If somebody refuses to speak and thus causes annoyance to a worker because he regards him, whether rightly or wrongly, as being somebody who has broken a union rule, he can be charged and convicted of a crime. To say that that is a matter of little moment, I submit, is well clear of the mark. A major point was made by Senator Collard in respect of the actions of the Industrial Commission in Queensland. He made a distinction between directions and recommendations. He said that, if it was a direction by the Commission, the particular organisation involved-in this case, the unions-should accept it; but, if it was only a recommendation, the institution involved-the Government-should not accept it. In other words, on the one hand the Industrial Commission should be given full faith and credit and on the other it should be ignored. That will not work if one institution has to accept it and the other does not. That is a fact of life. Again, it creates a perception by one party that it has been disadvantaged in the negotiations. In order to negotiate successfully, it must be clear to both parties-or the three parties, if three are involved-that there is at least some semblance of equality between them. Senator Button said that the Australian Council of Trade Unions has sought to discuss the problems in Queensland with the Premier and he has refused to do so. I invite Senator Chaney, Senator MacGibbon and Senator Collard to approach the Premier to see whether he will have discussions with the ACTU. That is a practical and effective way to deal with the matter. I ask them whether, as members of his Party or of a party allied with his, they can approach him to see whether he will talk to the President and the Secretary of the ACTU-not in any way to reduce what he sees as his proper dignity, but simply to talk to them. That is one way of solving this problem. I suggest to honourable senators opposite that they take up with the Premier the proposition that some discussion should take place in order to avert what will become, it would seem, an inevitable situation of extensive disruption which nobody in his right mind can welcome. In that context it should be said that a person who takes industrial action, a person who goes on strike and subjects himself to the consequences of criminal legislation, does not do so lightly. It is often thought that people who go on strike, face all sorts of rigours and lose income, do so in a light hearted manner. If one thinks about that proposition, it must simply fail because normal decent people do not do those sorts of things unless there is a real cause for them to do so, or at least a cause which they feel leads them to do so. When one looks at the action taken by the unionists in Queensland, one must remember that they are ordinary decent people who, until now, went about their work and who felt so strongly about a point-it is not a matter of whether one agrees with the point-that they were willing to take this dramatic action, an action which, it must be remembered, would be to their disadvantage. Finally, in regard to this situation the unions have been blamed. No real attention has been paid to what management has done. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Jessop) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(5.07) —To argue or see the matter before the Senate today as a Queensland issue alone is to misunderstand it. The argument is about the exercise of power by elected governments and about the power of trade unions to oppose elected governments. We are not talking about the reasonable use of the strike power. Abuses of union power are occurring. The latest abuses are occurring in Queensland. They are threatening people across the land and they are particularly threatening lives and jobs in Queensland at present. I enter the debate as a one-time member of the Australian Workers Union and as a long-time member of the doctors' union, the Australian Medical Association. I acknowledge the help I received from both of those bodies in terms of industrial matters. But I argue this matter against the background that all Australians, including Queenslanders, are being disadvantaged and inconvenienced, and their jobs are being threatened by what is occurring, and we fear that there is more to come. A series of events concerns us. In New South Wales there was a prolonged coal strike. This occurred when a union could not win by the procedures provided and tried to use the strike weapon. It did not win at all. All of New South Wales lost and all of Australia lost, including many people in the Hunter Valley. In the electorate of Hunter, which is part of my constituency, jobs were put under threat. Whoever was considered, it was not the people of the Hunter Valley; it was not the people of Newcastle. That is why a Liberal Party member will represent the seat of Hunter after the next election. We had the strike by Commonwealth public servants. This threatened the financial stability of Australia; it threatened the prosperity of all Australians; it contributed to the disastrous fall in the value of our dollar; and it threatened the revenue of the Government. We had the strike by the public servants in New South Wales because the elected government of New South Wales altered superannuation arrangements and this affected the commercial life of my State of New South Wales. It slowed the completion of contracts and it meant that innocent third parties cannot complete home purchases. Even the courts in New South Wales cannot function. It was a greedy action which was to the detriment of the community. There are abuses going on, and the Government has failed to protect Australians who bear the brunt of these abuses. As Senator Chaney pointed out earlier, the Australian Council of Trade Unions is an affiliate of this Government. It provides the power base for the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). The ACTU is now engaging in action which is illegal and which contravenes the provisions of the Trade Practices Act. It is now engaging in war against the Queensland companies which make up the confederation of industry there-some 33 companies. The ACTU is not fighting the companies; it is not fighting the boardrooms; it is threatening the employees of the companies who will lose their jobs if this kind of guerrilla war goes on. It is threatening the users of services. This morning's Australian Financial Review was right to talk about it as classical guerrilla tactics. It also stated that the action would bring 'indiscriminate pressure to bear on third parties'. Where these abuses occur once, one can say that they are idiosyncratic or accidental; where they occur twice, it is a coincidence; but where they continue to occur a pattern has emerged which concerns us all. There are threats to the jobs of all Queenslanders, including those who are sick of the abuses of union power and many who support the unions. Such people will also be hit by what is happening in Queensland and they are the innocent third parties. Those who are expected to obey the laws will be affected as much as those who seek to break them. It is the kind of senseless campaign, the worst effect of which will be on the ACTU's own members including those whose jobs will be put under threat if the viability of their companies is threatened. Very sadly, these abuses of power are continuing and there is no sign that they will be brought to an end. Sadly, the ACTU, which should be a responsible peak body, is involved in behaviour which is senseless, pointless, destructive and illegal. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Jessop) —Order! The time for the discussion of this matter has expired. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(5.14) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. In speaking to the Australian Dairy Corporation annual report 1983-84 I make a few highly complimentary remarks about a very fine and efficient industry. An industry that can reduce its processes by 15 per cent, reduce the number of its farmers by 10 per cent and increase its production by 15 per cent is certainly the sort of industry that we need to be looking after in this country. It has less labour; it has introduced more capital and it is certainly a lot more efficient. Production per cow has increased enormously by sheer efficiency and good management. At the moment all we are trying to do to the dairy industry is subject it to all sorts of abuse and ridiculous legislation at a time when we should be seeing how we are going to follow it through to see how the country will get the greatest benefit possible. When one looks at the annual report one sees the new products, the new methods and the new promotions in the dairy industry. The Australian Dairy Corporation is not an organisation that is sitting back and waiting for something to happen. It recognised that it had a growing difficulty on the world market. It was the industry itself that made all the moves towards seeing there were organised changes so that we could curb the supply and spread changes evenly over the whole of the dairying community. From a very good scheme in which every State in Australia helped to put together with the industry, we now have the greatest hotchpotch that one has ever heard. If that is the way to run an industry of any sort I would be very surprised. Over the last ten years the dairy industry has done a magnificent job in rationalisation and recapitalisation both in the production and processing sectors. Farmers of today are largely a new breed. We have an entire generation of young people who have all the entrepreneurial skills combined. They are skilled in every way; they are well capitalised and they are as efficient as any dairyman in the world. We hear that they are lacking in efficiency. All I would like to do is line up the people who talk like this and see how their efficiency rates. I would like to see who is going to determine the level of efficiency of the lawyers, taxi drivers, hairdressers, dentists, or the public servants and how their efficiency compares with that of the dairyman if we put them under the same scrutiny. The main problem the industry has suffered has been caused by the Government but the industry has also suffered government-instigated problems. The cost squeeze has hit the dairy industry like most others. I have just been talking to the pea growers who are having exactly the same trouble. Their problem is also the Government. It is the Government which has decided that the cost of fuel has almost doubled in the last couple of years; it is the Government that has increased the price of transport and produced a set of wages conditions which certainly the industry has no possibility of justifying. The cost of postage, telephones, rates, licences and taxes all prejudice the profitability of the dairy industry. We have legislation preventing additives being put in cheese. This is one of the import areas that we could well take over, but do we? No. Although we have the legislation nobody is prepared to enforce it. The Government is saying: 'If this scheme does not work we will pass the necessary legislation to see that it does'. We have legislation to improve the situation, but we do not use it. Let us change our attitude from kicking everything that is productive, everything that is investing, everything that is employing; and let us see how we can do something to make people more employment-oriented, how we can get more people investing in the industry and how we can make it of ever more use to the country as a whole instead of seeing how we can tear it down, tax it to death and put on costs that nobody can live with. I think that the dairy industry has done a magnificent job over the last 10 or 15 years. It could continue to do this if the Government would give it a hand instead of kicking it. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(5.18) —I congratulate the Australian Dairy Corporation on its 1983-84 annual report. I look at a little bit of television and its advertising with Peter Russell-Clarke and its promotions on cheese and butter are certainly great. I believe that they have an impact on the market forces. What we are seeing in the dairy industry at the moment is the demise of another great primary industry of Australia. It is under attack by the Government of this country. As we have seen, the sugar industry has been neglected. Senator Grimes —Oh, for heavens sake! Senator BOSWELL —The sugar industry has been neglected. During the last election the Government promised an underwriting scheme, but it has not been forthcoming. Senator Collard —The 1983 election. Senator BOSWELL —And the previous election too. Three days after the last Victorian election the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, rejected an Australian dairy marketing plan that had the support of every State Government and every State dairy industry and put up a plan of his own. That was done three days after the State election. It is another indication of how Mr Kerin has misled the primary industry. He has done so in regard to the meat inspection levy, the sugar industry, and now to the dairy industry. I suppose what the Government is trying to do is get involved in the free market forces of Australia. I advise the Labor Government to stick to socialism. It is something it knows a little bit about. Senator Grimes —A free market in the dairy industry? Senator BOSWELL —That is what the Labor Government is trying to do. It is trying to free up the market in the dairy industry and does not understand the implications. The dairy industry is not a free market industry. It has to compete with heavily subsidised countries, such as the European Economic Community and other countries. Even the American industry is heavily subsidised, yet the Government expects the Australian dairy industry to stand up in a free market when every other market that is competing against it is heavily subsidised. Senator Grimes —You sound like a socialist to me. Senator BOSWELL —I reject that remark out of hand. I am certainly not a socialist, but I do not agree that the dairy industry should be put in a situation where it will be torn down. Over the past 20 years the number of dairy farmers has fallen from 49,000 to 19,700. Senator Grimes —Do you think we should promote more? Senator BOSWELL —No, but it has always been my experience that people such as Senator Grimes have not had to go out there and build up a farm. They do not know the love these people have for their land. The Government is pushing 5,000 or 6,000 more dairy farmers off the land. Senator Grimes —I can milk a cow better than you can, I can tell you. Senator BOSWELL —You probably can at that. The Australian Dairy Industry Conference, realising the problems of the industry, has put forward a plan involving a steady reduction to 5.3 billion litres a year. The figure has come down, and the Conference has agreed that it will put in its own plan to reduce production to that level. Senator Grimes —You oppose that, do you? Senator BOSWELL —No, I do not oppose it, but that is what the dairy industry is putting up. It is the Government that is opposing it and it wants to cut that level. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(5.23) —The Australian Dairy Corporation annual report for 1983-84 reveals the serious problems facing the dairy industry in Australia today. Unfortunately, successive governments have encouraged dairymen to rationalise, to invest heavily in new technology and in breeding programs, and to become more efficient. Rationalisation has taken place. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of inefficient farmers have now left the industry over the past few years. Our dairy industry, particularly in Tasmania and Victoria, is now one of the most efficient and cost-effective in the world. Yet this very efficiency could spell its downfall, particularly if the Kerin plan is implemented and many of our young farmers, who are heavily committed to debts, are forced out of the industry. A lot of these high debt farmers will suffer most. The report states that milk production has increased by 7.2 per cent in 1983-84. This increase, in turn, has led to further stockpiles of butter, skim milk and cheese-stockpiles which, one must acknowledge, we are finding it increasingly difficult to quit either on the domestic market, which according to the report is relatively static, or on the already oversupplied export market. Unfortunately, worldwide overproduction of dairy products often coming from overseas industries which are heavily protected has led to indiscriminate dumping, particularly by the European Economic Community. It has meant that unit returns from export markets have declined sharply, even though the volume of sales has increased significantly. The report admits that because of these problems, which are essentially beyond our control at present, the dairy industry is indeed facing a crisis. In fact, the Corporation has predicted that 1984-85 will see a continuation of depressed marketing conditions and further declining returns with consequent undue hardship upon the industry, particularly the dairy farming community. Over 57,000 people are directly employed in Australia on dairy farms and in factories producing milk and dairy products. The future of half these people will be in doubt if the so-called Kerin plan is approved by the Senate in the next few weeks. The plight of this industry is demonstrated by actions which are uncharacteristic of people in the primary industries. For example, in the last few months we have witnessed many dairy farmers virtually at war with one another. There have been blockades of processing plants and discounting of manufactured products in an effort to reduce the huge stockpile of cheeses. There is disagreement and manoeuvring by different State authorities, highlighting lack of co-operation or a uniform plan of attack. Dairy farmers, already living below the poverty line, are agonising over decisions as to whether they should walk off their properties. There are unprecedented low prices on export markets, and milk bombs and abuse have been hurled at the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) by angry and distraught farmers. Finally, the hastily constructed Australian Dairy Industry Conference plan, agreed to by all the States, has been thrown out, even before a reasonable hearing, in favour of the potentially damaging Kerin plan. Given such unprecedented events, I can but reiterate the closing remarks of the chairman of the Australian Dairy Corporation, Mr Malcolm Vawser, at page 8 of he report: The dairy industry must be retained as a major contributor to the nation's economy, and accordingly it is to be hoped that any new arrangements can be concluded equitably-- I think that is the emphasis- and with the widest possible support. The problem with the Kerin plan is that it will dramatically affect in a sudden way the lives of a whole host of very efficient dairy farmers, particularly in my State of Tasmania, and also in Victoria. Senator COLLARD(Queensland)(5.27) —The Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) might tell Senator Boswell that he can milk a cow better than that honourable senator, but that is one thing I would challenge the Minister on. I have probably milked more cows than the Minister has in the past or is likely to milk in the future. Having said that, I can only reiterate what has been said by my colleagues about the parlous state of the dairy industry in Australia at present. The state in which the industry finds itself is recognised by the industry. For some time those in the industry have been working together to seek a solution to the problem. Indeed, at one stage the dairy industry in every State of Australia-and every State Minister for Primary Industry, except the Victorian Minister-agreed to plans. Then we saw the most cynical of political exercises take place about two days before the Victorian election, when at a meeting of agriculture Ministers a general plan of entitlements was agreed to. All States recognised that there would be peculiar problems for them, but they were prepared to accept those plans and work them out within their States with a certain amount of autonomy. Those entitlement plans recognised the overproduction that existed. In so doing they took into account that there would have to be a reduction. The plan would do it without any of the blood-letting we are likely to see now. The entitlement would be worked out on the basis of 90 per cent of the farmer's previous production. It was a method of rationalising without any great hurt to the industry. However, as I said, in that most cynical of exercises, with the Victorian election having now been and gone, the Kerin plan has been put forward. This is a plan that will lead to a lot of blood-letting. Mr Kerin and the Government hide behind the argument that the dairy industry should be open to market forces. How can it be open to market forces when it is competing on world markets against the subsidised surpluses that exist in the European Economic Community? How can it be open to market forces when, once the product gets beyond the farm gates, we are dealing with a situation of wages set by the biggest cartels in this country, the trade union movement? I do not mind primary producers having the prices of their products set by market forces if the secondary industries in this country also have their prices set by market forces rather than being able to hide behind tariff protection, and if the wages sector of this community has its wages set by market forces and is not able to hide behind the biggest cartel-in other words the trade union movement as it exists in this country. If we get to the situation in which wages of people in this country are open to market forces and the secondary industries of this country are open to market forces those in primary industry will quite willingly accept market forces. I venture to say that primary industry would compete very well indeed. I gently chide my colleague Senator Watson and pre-empt Senator Harradine in relation to the extremely efficient Victorian and Tasmanian dairy industries by saying that they are no more efficient than the dairy industry of Queensland. If those States want to put up the cost of production figures in cents per litre let them feel free to do so. We are not seasonal producers. Anyone, if a seasonal producer, can be efficient. This is particularly so with Victoria. I am not sure about Tasmania. We are not seasonal producers in Queensland; we produce all year round. I do not want any argument between us because most of us agree on the state of the industry. There was agreement on how the problems could be solved. However, to bring the chickens back home to roost, in that most cynical of political exercises, Mr Kerin and this Labor Government abandoned the promises and brought in a scheme which will cause great hardship within the industry and which will ultimately lead to the consumer paying much higher prices. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.34) —It appears that the qualification for entry into this debate on the Australian Dairy Corporation annual report is whether one has milked cows. Senator Grimes —We all did as kids. Senator HARRADINE —Senator Grimes milked cows. For years I used to have to milk the cow. Senator Collard —How many? Senator HARRADINE —Only one. I think I was able to place milk in the mush of a cat at 15 foot 6 inches. That is not too bad. I understand that we are talking about the annual report of the Australian Dairy Corporation. This debate gives the opportunity however to say that the Dairy Corporation could not produce an annual report if there were no dairy industry. The whole basis of the Corporation is a flourishing Australian dairy industry. I disagree with Senator Collard. He said that if there were some sort of market force in relation to wages the dairy industry would be quite happy to accept that and would do well under the operation of market forces. I feel that that would not be so. In the dairy industry in my State and in a number of other States, there are people who now have a good deal of commitment, money involved, in their farms. By and large these farms are family farms. The turn-up at Burnie last week indicated that not only are the people directly involved in the industry interested but quite a few people in the community at large are concerned about what is going to happen to the dairy farmers. I am sorry that I was not able to attend that meeting because of a very important commitment which I could not get out of on that day. However, I take the opportunity of saying to the Government that when it is giving consideration to the forthcoming legislation it should bear in mind what the industry desires. Of course, my preferred position and, of course, that of the industry was, and still is, that devised by the industry and by the States. I would have hoped that the Federal Government would have been able to see its way clear to implementing that understanding. If the Government feels that it cannot do that, surely modifications to its plan ought to be considered. I really do urge the Government to consider those modifications put forward by the Australian Dairy Farmers Federation. I urge the Government to consider those very similar modifications proposed by the other side of the industry; that is, the manufactured products sector upon which, of course, many dairy farmers in my State substantially rely. We have an approach by the Australian Dairy Farmers Federation-arrived at after extremely hard work by officers of that Federation-to provide a solution to the problem on behalf of those in the dairy industry. If we have that unity of approach I for one cannot understand why it has been overturned by the Federal Primary Industry Minister (Mr Kerin). In my view there has been no cohesive explanation for the overturning of that understanding arrived at between various sectors of the industry. My real concern is that now dairy farmers in one State will be pitted against dairy farmers in another State. In my view that is certainly not consensus. I believe that the Government should now reconsider its situation and act, if not by going back to the agreed plan, at least by modifying its own plan in accordance with the submission by the ADFF and by the manufactured products sector. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(5.39) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. There are two parts of the Parliament House Construction Authority annual report to which I wish to refer. The first part is contained in the section on construction activity for the year 1983-84. The Authority refers to the progress made during that financial year. It also refers to the disruption caused by a number of industrial disputes and delays and, of course, refers to the close-down of the site for 14 weeks. The Authority suggests that the delay in the progress of construction is five to six months. Part of that is due to the extensions necessary as a result of the increase in the numbers of senators and members. The Authority, however, specifically referred to the 14-week shutdown. However, in regard to the other disputes and delays I would like to know how many of these concerned strikes and for how many days the whole site or part of the site was affected by bans. It is an industrial site second only perhaps to Radford College in the number of occasions on which it has been affected by work bans. It is the popular way of doing things these days so that they do not show up in the figures in the same way. A Labor senator earlier today boasted how few days have been affected by strikes under the Labor Government compared with the situation under the previous Government. But the Government does not refer to the number of days which have been affected by industrial bans, whereby people still get paid but in effect the work is not done because of the few key people who are not actually working at the time. I would like to see the actual statistics for the number of days which have been affected on this construction site. I refer also to the item which is classified rather clinically as 'Statutory Information'. It indicates there the names of the six part-time Authority members-Sir Bernard Callinan, Mr Ling, Mr Macphillamy, Sir Laurence Muir, Sir John Overall and the Commissioner of the National Capital Development Commission, Mr Powell, who is an ex-officio member. The Chairman, Sir Bernard Callinan, in April 1984 was appointed for a further one year to bring his appointment up to April 1985. The other members were re-appointed in April 1982 for a three-year period, which ends right now, April 1985. I have not yet heard of the Authority members being reappointed. I hope that they will be. They have all served the country well in the jobs they have taken on in the building of Parliament House. What I hope will not happen is that the appointments will be allowed to linger on in the same way as other appointments in the Australian Capital Territory have, such as appointments to the Local Court Bench, the Supreme Court Bench, the Executive Director of the Canberra Development Board and the post of Tourist Commissioner, which was filled by an acting director for over 12 months. Earlier the Canberra Theatre Trust lacked reappointments, and there were others. It seems to me that this is a large and expensive project and it would be totally inappropriate for the Authority members not to be appointed, and appointed in plenty of time to ensure that the management role that they play can continue. I hope that all of the existing members will be reappointed and that they will be able to get on with the job that they have done so well thus far. It is the fifth report. There will probably be only four more reports of the Parliament House Construction Authority as Parliament House should be completed by that time. But I draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that all of the part-time members' terms, except the ex-officio member's term, expire this month. I hope they will all be reappointed promptly so that there is no delay or gap in their terms of office. Question resolved in the affirmative. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The time under sessional orders for the consideration of government papers has expired, but as no time is allotted for General Business tomorrow and the remaining papers will disappear from the Notice Paper if no motion is moved, I give to any senator who wishes to move a motion to take note of a paper an opportunity to do so, as long as he immediately seeks leave to continue his remarks. As there are no motions, I turn to the presentation of other papers. Senator TATE(Tasmania) —I present the second report of 1985 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, concerning the Australian Meat and Live-stock Legislation (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 1985, the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation Bill 1985, the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Amendment Bill 1985, the Extradition (Foreign States) Amendment Bill 1985, the Foreign Ownership and Control Registration Bill 1985, the Taxation System Reform Bill 1985 and the Tax Avoidance Schemes Bill 1985. I also lay on the table 'Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 3' dated 17 April 1985. Ordered that the report be printed. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. Bills (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Second Readings Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(5.45) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speeches in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- TAXATION (UNPAID COMPANY TAX) ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT BILL 1985 Mr President, the 1984 Australian Labor Party policy speech by the Prime Minister re-affirmed the Labor Party's policy of smashing the tax avoidance industry-a policy that was pursued throughout our previous term of Government and a policy upon which this Government was re-elected. In his policy speech last year, the Prime Minister promised the Australian public that, once re-elected, the Government would re-introduce the twice-rejected ''bottom-of-the-harbour'' legislation-legislation that will recoup hundreds of millions of dollars from those who have sought to escape their taxation responsibilities through participation in avoidance schemes produced by the tax avoidance industry. On 22 February 1985, when announcing the Government's legislation programme for the current sittings, the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce foreshadowed the re-introduction of Bills designed to give effect to this Government's successive election undertakings to recover personal tax avoided by former owners of companies that were the subject of ''bottom-of-the-harbour'' schemes. Mr President, this Bill is the first of the 2 Bills to which my colleague was referring. Apart from some relatively minor corrections of a more or less technical nature, this Bill is identical with a Bill introduced into this chamber on 7 September 1983 and again on 10 May 1984. Honourable senators may recall that on both occasions the Bill was defeated on a tied vote in this chamber. Although many honourable senators will already be familiar with the important measures contained in this Bill, it is appropriate as this is a new parliament that I should outline its contents once more. Measures to Recover Personal Tax By far the greater part of this Bill is related to amendments to give effect to our decision that the restitution expected of those persons who benefited from the sale of shares in companies that were stripped of pre-tax profits should not be limited to the tax that ought to have been paid by the companies concerned. Rather, those persons should also pay the tax that, as shareholders or other former owners, they escaped through receipt in a non-taxable capital form of after-tax profits that, if the companies had continued to operate as going concerns, would have been taxable as dividends in their hands. The recovery of personal tax will, however, be confined to the tax related to after-tax revenue profits of the stripped company for those years of income in respect of which primary company tax was evaded. In our view it is quite beyond argument that the revenue is just as entitled to have these tax losses made good as it is to have the lost company tax made good. This Bill will accordingly insert in the existing recoupment tax law, rules to be applied to fix the liability of former owners of a stripped company for personal income tax on those profits on which primary company tax was evaded. Broadly, these rules will require a former owner of a stripped company to pay income tax on the basis that the company had paid a dividend to the former owner at the time of sale of the shares. The amount of this imputed dividend will be the same proportion of the company's after-tax taxable income for the year of income in respect of which primary company tax was evaded as the proportion of the sale consideration received by that owner. The amount of after-tax taxable income will be determined after allowance has been made for the unpaid ordinary company tax that is to be recouped under the existing legislation, as proposed to be amended. The Bill provides that a dividend will be deemed to have been paid in circumstances where the former owner of a company is liable to make good unpaid company tax on the company's taxable income, i.e., where there is a liability for vendors recoupment tax in relation to ordinary company tax or there would have been such a liability if any payments of such tax made after 25 July 1982 were disregarded. That date is, of course, the date on which the former Government announced its intention to legislate to recover unpaid company tax escaped through ''bottom-of-the-harbour'' schemes. This qualification is necessary to ensure that the liability for escaped personal income tax will not be avoided simply by making a payment of the income tax in pursuance of the former Government's announcement or of the recoupment tax legislation enacted in 1982. The requirement that there exists or, but for payments of company tax, would exist a liability for vendors recoupment tax means that, where the liability for that tax is or would be less than $100 and the Commissioner of Taxation exercises his power under the existing law not to pursue the liability, there will be no liability for the relatively small amounts of personal income tax that would otherwise be liable to be recouped. Where the former owner concerned is a natural person the imputed dividend is to be included in his or her assessable income. In the case of an entity not itself subject to income tax on the dividend by reason of its tax exempt status or, in certain cases, the inter-company dividend rebate, the imputed amount will of course be treated as tax-free income in the hands of that entity. Where a company, or a person as trustee of a trust, is allocated a dividend that is deemed to have been paid by a stripped company and the owners of that company, or the beneficiaries of that trust, are the same persons as the former owners of the stripped company at the date of its sale, the company or trustee will, in the first instance, be liable to pay dividend recoupment tax on the dividend at the maximum personal rate applicable to the year of income in which the sale or shares occurred. However, there is to be a right for former owners in this situation to elect to be taxed on amounts equal in total to the amount of the dividend deemed to have been received by the company or trust concerned. If this election is made, and the commissioner is satisfied that the allocation of the deemed dividend among former owners is reasonable and that personal tax, if any, payable by the former owners will, subject to the hardship relief provisions of the income tax law, be paid by them, the interposed company or trust will be freed from its liability for dividend recoupment tax. In a similar fashion a stripped company will, where a liability for personal tax or dividend recoupment tax exists, be freed from its liability for the income year concerned for undistributed profits tax payable under division 7, and the former owners will accordingly no longer be liable for vendors recoupment tax on an unpaid division 7 liability for that year. A liability for personal tax or dividend recoupment tax will not exist in relation to the profits of a particular year of income where the only unpaid company tax for that year giving rise to a liability for vendors recoupment tax is a liability for undistributed profits tax under division 7 of the Income Tax Assessment Act. As with the existing recoupment tax law it will be possible under the provisions being inserted by this Bill to trace from the primary level to the next level and, as necessary, successively to further levels where a company or trust has ceased to exist, has different shareholders or beneficiaries as a result of shares or beneficial interests having been sold, or is unlikely to be able to meet a liability for dividend recoupment tax on the dividend which is deemed to have been paid to it. The automatic tracing process applicable in this case will continue until a dividend is deemed to have been paid to a natural person (or tax-free entity referred to earlier) or to a company or trust that still exists if, in the latter situations, the company or trust is one the ownership of which has not changed since the stripped company was sold and has the capacity to meet the dividend recoupment tax payable. A significant feature of the Bill is the provision of a time-to-pay facility in relation to the personal income tax and dividend recoupment tax liabilities which are to be imposed by this and an associated Bill. This provision is modelled on an existing facility-which is to be retained in a modified form-which permits former owners of companies who are liable to pay a share of unpaid company tax to meet that liability by instalments, typically over 12 months without late payment penalty being charged. Additionally, the present Bill also provides for dividend recoupment tax and related personal tax to be paid over 12 months without attracting additional tax for late payment. The modification of the existing facility I referred to a moment ago is to impose a strict limitation to 12 months as the period for which an arrangement to pay unpaid company tax may be made. Similarly, the proposed facility in relation to personal tax and dividend recoupment tax will require full payment to be made within a period of 12 months if the penalty-free concession is to be attracted. An application for time to pay personal income tax or dividend recoupment tax in respect of a share of a stripped company's profits will need to be made within 30 days after service of the notice of assessment relating to that liability. Pre and Post-Sale Avoidance Schemes The recoupment tax legislation contains a let-out provision that operates where the stripped company was the subject of an unsuccessful post-sale scheme to avoid tax. Under this escape clause there is no liability to recoupment tax liability on the people who benefited by non-payment of the company tax. This provision was inserted by the former Government for reasons which are best known to it. In our view it defies logic and it is our announced policy to abolish it. This is to be done by the Bill. Consistent with the removal of the post-sale avoidance scheme provision, this Bill will also ensure that, in ascertaining the potential tax liability of a company for the purpose of determining whether the recoupment tax legislation applies in relation to it, any pre-sale scheme which is ultimately established to be ineffective of its tax avoidance purpose is to be disregarded. Other Changes There are several further amendments contained in the Bill designed to improve the administration of the legislation or to correct technical deficiencies. The Bill proposes to remove one of the pre-conditions to liability for recoupment tax-the requirement that the company was by a stripping scheme rendered unable to pay its tax-which was inserted by the previous Government, it seems for presentational purposes. The element that the requirement expresses is, in substance, present in all cases of pre-tax profit stripping to which the legislation applies and a specific reference to it is quite unnecessary. It is also proposed by this Bill to re-insert in the recoupment tax legislation a provision removed by the previous Government which authorised the Commissioner of Taxation to report to this Parliament the names of persons who fail to meet their liability for vendors or promoters recoupment tax. The Commissioner is already required to provide in his annual report to Parliament details of breaches or evasions of the taxation laws and it is consistent with that duty that he be authorised, where he considers it appropriate, to report details of failure to pay recoupment tax. A further change to the existing recoupment tax law proposed by this Bill will enable a former owner to whom a refund of company tax is made as a result of a successful objection or appeal against the company assessment to receive interest under the Taxation (Interest on Overpayments) Act on the amount refunded. Finally, this Bill proposes amendments of an evidentiary provision in the existing legislation to overcome some technical deficiencies. The drafting of those amendments also has regard to the views expressed last year by the High Court in a case dealing with the constitutional validity of the recoupment tax legislation. The High Court held unanimously that the substantive provisions of the recoupment tax legislation are constitutionally valid but in so doing expressed some views that the existing conclusive evidence provision might, at least in part, be invalid by rendering the tax uncontestable. The proposed amendment provides that a certificate by the Commissioner of Taxation specifying the amount of company tax remaining unpaid would be prima facie, rather than conclusive, evidence of this fact. This will ensure that recoupment tax is not an uncontestable levy and that the evidentiary provision is constitutionally valid in all respects. As is usual with amendments of the taxation laws, an explanatory memorandum giving technical details of the amendments contained in the Bill is being circulated to honourable senators. By this Bill the Government proposes to strengthen and improve the legislation introduced by the Opposition parties when in government in 1982. Significantly, the measures contained in this Bill are estimated to yield $270 million in revenue. I commend the Bill to the Senate. DIVIDEND RECOUPMENT TAX BILL 1985 This Bill is the second of the ''bottom-of-the-harbour'' Bills to which the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce referred in his statement on 22 February 1985. The measures contained in this Bill are identical with those contained in a Bill by a similar title that was introduced on two earlier occasions. On each occasion, the Bill met the same fate in this chamber as did the associated Bill. This Bill will formally impose a tax-to be called dividend recoupment tax-on the dividend amount determined in accordance with the rules being inserted in the recoupment tax legislation by the amending assessment Bill. The underlying purpose of the amendments is to recover personal income tax escaped by individual former owners of stripped companies. That will be done in a direct manner wherever possible. However, in cases where former owners held their shares through interposed companies or trusts, recovery may in certain circumstances be by way of imposing on one or more of the interposed companies or trusts a tax equivalent to the maximum personal rate of tax applying in the year of income in which the shares in the stripped company were sold. This Bill will impose that tax. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Collard) adjourned. Debate resumed from 28 March, on motion by Senator Jones: That the Senate take note of the report. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.48) —The Senate is debating the report of the Senate Select Committee on Video Material. Debate on this took place some three weeks ago, immediately before Easter. As honourable senators will appreciate, at that stage there was very little time available for us to discuss it. That was not the fault of the Government or of the Committee. The report is well researched. Expressions of appreciation have already been enunciated by the Chairman, Senator Jones, to all of those who gave evidence, to the secretariat and of course to the individual members of the Committee. The Committee had a considerable number of items of evidence, heard witnesses and has now presented its report. The report indicates that after submissions began arriving in significant numbers it became clear that the overwhelming majority of people making submissions expressed objections to the existence of an X-rated category and the vast majority of these submissions also opposed the proposed DR category. The Committee found that the laws of the Commonwealth relating to video violence and video pornography are inconsistent, that they do not cover a number of possibilities and practices and that the laws either are not fully enforced or are not capable of being fully enforced. On the last occasion this debate took place a number of honourable senators referred to the fact that evidence was received by the Committee that the laws were defective and in some cases were unable to be policed adequately. After considering all the evidence that had been submitted to us, the Committee: . . . has formed the firm opinion that the current law is unsatisfactory in that it does not adequately control the importation, reproduction, sale or hire of violent, pornographic or obscene material. The Committee adopted two recommendations which it has submitted to the Senate in this report. I read them as follows: . . . the Committee recommends that the following interim measures be taken: (1) A moratorium is placed on the sale and hire of 'X' rated videos in the ACT consistent with the resolution of the Senate of 17 October 1984 as the most practical interim measure to facilitate regulation of videos throughout Australia until the Joint Committee reports. (2) That the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations be amended, and administrative guidelines issued to Customs Officers be revised, to stop the importation of material that would be refused classification under the Committee's proposal for a moratorium of 'X'-rated and similar material. Unfortunately to date we do not have the response of the Government to these recommendations of the Committee. By their nature the recommendations are for interim measures, which appear to require urgent action. For example, at present all States either have banned or are to ban X-rated videos. It would be a strange thing indeed if the laws of the Australian Capital Territory were allowed to remain as they are, thus enabling material to be hired or sold from the Australian Capital Territory and sent to other States by post or other means. In addition, the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations now allow to come in material which not only would be prevented from being hired or sold in the States but in fact, as the Committee indicated, would be refused classification by the Film Censorship Board. That leads me to the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations. We received from the Customs Officers Association evidence of examples of material which on the face of it were prohibited imports, namely, child pornography. The officers concerned seized the material, warrants were issued to search the importer's home and further material was detected. However, the position is, as indicated by the Customs Officers Association and now apparently verified by the Customs Service, that the laws do not enable a charge to be laid against the offender. This raises a question which I raised last year when I said that the amendments to the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations meant that, in the sense that we are discussing it now, there is no such thing as a prohibited import to the extent that charges could be laid and persons could be convicted of an offence. Clearly then the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations must be amended. I quote from page 41, paragraph 4.26, of the report: An example of the net effect of the current wording of Regulation 4A, and its enforcement, is exemplified in the following recent instance, information about which was supplied by the Customs Officers Association of Australia. Here is the example: (a) An individual has in possession an imported film depicting child pornography. (b) A Customs Officer identifies the film as being one which may 'in the opinion of the Attorney-General or an officer authorised by him' be child pornography, and therefore may be subsequently declared a prohibited import. (c) The film is referred to the Officer authorised by the Attorney-General, who in turn advises Customs that the film is child pornography, as described in Regulation 4A. (d) The individual is informed of the decision, but because he has committed no offence, he suffers no punishment, except the loss of the film. That raises the question whether the law should contain some punitive measures to act as a deterrent. Since we brought down the report there has been only one amendment to the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations. In fact, the amendment was made just prior to our bringing down the report, and it was to do with Regulation 4. I point out, however, that it is drawn to amend Regulation 4 (1A) but in my copy of the regulations there is no such thing. That brings me to the point that those who have been responsible for the drafting of much of this legislation ought to go back to the drawing board quickly so that we have effective laws to prohibit the importation, sale and hire of this material which is offensive to the reasonable adult person. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(5.58) —When the sitting of the Senate was suspended for luncheon we were discussing cognately two Bills relating to extradition. The first of these is the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Amendment Bill 1985; the second is the Extradition (Foreign States) Amendment Bill 1985. Both Bills were introduced into the Parliament on 20 March this year, and are very similar in many ways to Bills introduced into the Senate by the previous Attorney-General in May of last year. The purpose of the first Bill is to regulate extradition between Australia and all other Commonwealth countries based on the London scheme agreed to by Commonwealth law Ministers in 1966 and to incorporate amendments to improve the practical operation of the existing legislation. The purpose of the second Bill, the extradition legislation relating to foreign states, is to regulate Australia's extradition relations with countries that are not members of the Commonwealth and with which Australia has extradition arrangements. As has already been pointed out by a number of speakers both here and in another place, in effect the Bills go some way towards improving our extradition legislation and indeed facilitate extradition procedures resulting from requests made of or by Australia to or from countries which are party to relevant treaties or agreements, whether those countries are foreign states or Commonwealth members. The Bills extend the processes of extradition to include the return of an offender under laws relating to such things as taxation, Customs duties, foreign exchange control and other revenue matters. Presently a person committing these offences is not liable for extradition. The legislation allows, rather quaintly, for voluntary return by a fugitive, if he or she agrees to waive the full extradition process, to the country requesting extradition. I suggest that there is really no big deal in that, although I would say that no harm has been done by including that in the legislation. Voluntarily giving oneself up is going to occur whether or not a procedure for that is provided in the legislation. One other element of the legislation which raises eyebrows a little is that section which allows that a person extradited may be tried in the country requesting extradition only for the offence or offences which are the basis of the extradition request or application. He or she may not, under this legislation, be tried for any other offences until given a chance to leave the country. I suggest that that is included in the legislation more in the hope that it will be a adhered to by some countries than in any sort of reality. There is, for example, presumably no process of checking whether this is actually done and, human nature being what it is-governments are not exempt from human nature-one would think that even in reasonable democracies there would be a good chance that, having got the person into custody on the grounds for which extradition was granted, not too many opportunities would be given to that person to leave the country again before being tried for some other offences. Certainly, I think Australia would be naive in the extreme to expect that less democratic countries would adhere to that restriction. The Bills are in many ways relatively innocuous for the most part. I will come back in a moment to the questionable clauses, the ones specifically raised by the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. The major part of the interest that the two Bills before us today have raised has come from what is generally known, as the Trimbole affair. Charges and counter-charges have been flung around by both the Government and the Opposition regarding whose fault it is that our extradition laws are in such an unsatisfactory state that the Trimbole affair could have occurred at all. The Opposition has asked the Government to indicate, for example, which of Mr Justice Stewart's 1983 recommendations it has implemented or considered. It is, of course, quite right to do so. It is absurd that we have highly paid people such as Mr Justice Stewart putting a great deal of work, effort and intellect into examining procedures and legislation in this country and making recommendations as a result of that and then seeing them languish in somebody's bottom drawer or somebody else's top shelf for years until someone is prodded into doing something. So I support the Opposition in its questioning of the Government in regard to those recommendations from Mr Justice Stewart. The Attorney-General, Mr Lionel Bowen, on the other hand, as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald on 5 April this year, has alleged that the whole Trimbole mess was caused by what he described as bureaucratic inertia which allowed a treaty on which negotiations began in 1972 never to be finalised. Again, presumably, something finished up in somebody else's bottom drawer. Whether it was because of bureaucratic inertia or governmental apathy, this situation was allowed to continue for something like 13 years. One is forced to ask why governments are always so far behind the game, as it were, when it comes to things such as updating mechanisms that will ensure that justice and equity actually occur and are not just talked about. Criminals, it would seem, always manage to keep ahead of these things, and I cannot understand why governments are not able to employ the same brain power, the same lawyers, accountants and so on, to do likewise. If the criminal element can always stay just that little bit in front of law enforcement procedures, I think it is incumbent on governments of all political persuasions to ask themselves why this is so and to make some attempt to avoid it in future and patch it up for the present. There have been some criticisms of the present government for the small amount it has done since the Trimbole affair, but it is just as pertinent to ask why the previous Government allowed our extradition legislation and treaties to become so obsolete that the affair was able to occur at all. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee, which was established under the previous Government and which I say, as a member of that Committee, does a remarkable amount of work-I see Senator Cooney, who is also a member of that Committee, with no self-interest at all, nodding in agreement-has raised a number of questions about a number of specific clauses in these two Bills. Those are clauses 4, 8 and 9 in the Commonwealth countries legislation and the equivalent clauses in the foreign states legislation. I understand that clause 8, which relates to non-reviewable discretion and concerns the repeal of section 12 of the principal Act, which allowed either a magistrate or the Attorney-General to define what was and was not something of a political nature, has been corrected by the amendments moved by Mr John Spender, QC, in another place, and I will not pursue that matter. Clause 9 relates to the use of search warrants, and I understand from a letter which was received by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee this morning from the Attorney-General that the Government itself is planning to move an amendment to correct what I and the Committee considered was a gross invasion of privacy and a distinct problem with civil liberties. The remaining clause is clause 4, which is similar to one which was included in the 1984 Bill, to which the Scrutiny of Bills Committee drew the Senate's attention at that time. Essentially, it delegates extensive powers away from the Parliament in a manner which the Committee considered could be quite inappropriate. The clause is a complex and long one, but it boils down to the fact that a new section 4A is intended to be inserted into the principal Act which would, if it went through, allow changes to be made to the Schedule by regulation rather than by legislation. Those changes would include altering an item, adding or omitting an item or substituting a new item for an existing item. Mr Bowen's letter to the Committee said that he did not share the Committee's concern. His argument was: . . . where a convention imposes an obligation to create offences for which signatories agree to extradite then an Act of Parliament will be required to create those offences for the purposes of domestic law. He went on to say: Having created the offences it should be unnecessary for the Parliament to reconsider the question in relation to the extradition legislation and it is appropriate for the Regulations to modify the Schedule in the extradition legislation so as to encompass those offences. I would have thought that it was not too much to expect of the Parliament that, if we are dealing already with one Act of Parliament which is required to create the offences for the purposes of domestic law, we could deal by way of legislation with consequential amendments required to change the schedule. I put that apparently rather naive theory to both the Opposition and the Government today. I was delighted to receive approval from both sides of the Senate, which indicates that on occasions sanity does prevail in this chamber. You will be pleased to know, Mr Deputy President, that I will now not have to go on at some length during the Committee stage. Senator Durack —It might have been just peace and quiet that he was seeking. Senator HAINES —That could be so. It may be that I just made such a jolly nuisance of myself that everybody caved in, but I am sure that sweet reason prevailed instead. The Democrats will be moving at the Committee stage that clause 4 be deleted and we will be quite delighted to receive the support of both the Liberal Opposition and the Labor Government. I think it is important that the processes of extradition should not be used by criminals or fugitive offenders to avoid apprehension and trial for their actions. Control of international crime is needed. Nevertheless, this has to be balanced against political oppression of dissenters. We must allow those who flee from a country safe exile. I think these Bills go some way towards achieving that although I would share the opinion of Opposition members in another place and, indeed, here that balance needs to go a little beyond that which has been achieved in the two Bills before us today and that more work has to be done to update our extradition arrangements. Having said that, the Bills go some way towards that and the Australian Democrats will, with the exception of clause 4, be supporting the legislation. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(6.12) —I am indebted to honourable senators for the support given to this legislation. I wish it a speedy passage. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time. EXTRADITION (COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES) AMENDMENT BILL 1985 Clauses 1 to 3-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 4. Amendment (by Senator Haines) proposed: That clause 4 be deleted. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(6.14) —The Government will accept the deletion of clause 4. We will join with the Australian Democrats and the Liberals and in effect vote against it for the reasons that were spelled out by Senator Haines during the second reading debate. The way the clause is drafted at the moment enables a new offence, having once been created by a statutory exercise, to then be attached to the Schedule in the extradition legislation by regulation rather than by further legislation. I am persuaded by Senator Haines's arguments that since there is only a one-line change necessary to the extradition legislation when a new offence of the kind we are talking about is created there is no reason why that one-line change to the extradition legislation could not be accomplished at the same time as the legislation is being passed by the Parliament to create the new offence, whether it is for aircraft hijacking or anything else. Senator Haines —It seemed like a good idea at the time. Senator GARETH EVANS —It is a good idea. It is one that I think should have been accommodated earlier on, including by me when I was Attorney-General, when I think the point was first raised by the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee. It is not too late for any of us to learn the errors of our ways and to accept that when it is pointed out graciously to us. It has been pointed out graciously on this occasion, or it was until a moment ago before that interjection. Accordingly, the Government accepts the point that is taken and will cheerfully remove clause 4. Question resolved in the affirmative. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(6.16) —by leave-I intend to move, on behalf of the Government, a series of amendments that have been circulated. I do so in order to accommodate the concerns expressed by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. The particular matters in issue relate to the search warrant provisions of the Bill. The legislation, as presently drafted, circulated and dealt with in this House of Representatives gives certain powers of entry, search and seizure to police officers when executing a warrant for the apprehension of a fugitive. If the police officer has reasonable grounds for suspecting that there may be upon any land or upon or in any premises, vessel, aircraft or vehicle evidence in relation to the offences for which extradition has been sought or any property which has been acquired as a result of such offences he may enter that land, premises and so on and search for and seize such evidence. The Senate Committee looked at these provisions as they are now drafted and drew the conclusion that as presently drafted they may trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties. The Committee argued that the right to enter and search buildings and property is usually accompanied by a requirement that a warrant specifically directed to such action be obtained beforehand. The Government has considered this and takes the view that there is merit in the Senate Committee's comments and that that ought to be accommodated in the series of amendments which have been circulated and which I will move. Clause 37 of the Criminal Investigation Bill 1981, which was in turn based upon the report of the Law Reform Commission of 1975 may, I suppose, be regarded as representing modern thinking in this area. It is the general substance of those provisions in that earlier draft legislative exercise which is incorporated in the amendments which I shall move. The collection of amendments still replace the existing provisions with provisions that a police officer in arresting a fugitive may only search the person and the clothing of the fugitive and property under his immediate control for evidence relevant to the extradition, crimes or property acquired as a result of those crimes. Any such evidence or property discovered may then be seized. The key is that, if there is to be any additional search of land, buildings and so on and any seizure of property or evidence flowing from that, that may only be undertaken pursuant to a warrant properly issued, in accordance with the procedures as set out, by a magistrate. Accordingly, I ask that the group of amendments to accommodate those concerns be accepted by the Committee. I formally move: (1) page 5, lines 38 to 44, and page 6, lines 1 to 13, clause 9, leave out paragraph (b). (2) page 6, after clause 9, insert the following new clause: ''9A. After section 14 of the Principal Act the following sections are inserted: Searches after apprehension '14A (1) A Police Officer who apprehends a person pursuant to a warrant issued under section 14 may search the person or the clothing that the person is wearing, and any property under the control of the person, if the Police Officer has reasonable grounds for suspecting that there is concealed, on, or in the clothing of, the person or in that property, any article, including a sum of money- (a) that may be material as evidence in proving an offence to which the requisition for the surrender of the person relates; or (b) that has been acquired by the person as a result of such an offence. '(2) Sub-section (1) does not authorize a Police Officer to remove, or to require the person to remove, any of the clothing that the person is wearing. '(3) A Police Officer may seize any article found as a result of a search in accordance with sub-section (1) and may retain any article so seized pending any direction from the Attorney-General as to the manner in which the article is to be dealt with. '(4) The powers conferred by this section are in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other powers conferred by law. '(5) In this section, ''Police Officer'' means a member or special member of the Australian Federal Police or a member of the Police Force of a State or Territory. Search warrants '14B. (1) Where an information on oath is laid before a Magistrate alleging that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that there may be upon any land, or upon or in any premises, vessel, aircraft or vehicle, any article, including a sum of money, that may be material as evidence in proving an offence to which the requisition for the surrender of a person relates or that has been acquired by a person as a result of such an offence, and the information sets out those grounds, the Magistrate may issue a search warrant in accordance with the appropriate form prescribed for the purposes of this sub-section authorizing a Police Officer named in the warrant, with such assistance as the Police Officer thinks necessary, and if necessary by force- (a) to enter upon the land or upon or into the premises, vessel, aircraft or vehicle; (b) to search the land, premises, vessel, aircraft or vehicle for any such article; and (c) to seize any such article found upon the land or upon or in the premises, vessel, aircraft or vehicle. '(2) A Magistrate shall not issue a warrant under sub-section (1) unless- (a) the informant or some other person has given to the Magistrate, either orally or by affidavit, such further information (if any) as the Magistrate requires concerning the grounds on which the issue of the warrant is being sought; and (b) the Magistrate is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for issuing the warrant. '(3) There shall be stated in a warrant issued under this section- (a) a statement of the purpose for which the warrant is issued, which shall include a reference to the nature of the offence in relation to which the entry and search are authorized; (b) whether entry is authorized to be made at any time of the day or night or during specified hours of the day or night; (c) a description of the kind of articles authorized to be seized; and (d) a day, not being later than one month after the day of issue of the warrant, upon which the warrant ceases to have effect. '(4) If, in the course of searching in accordance with a warrant issued under this section, for an article, including a sum of money, that may be material as evidence in proving an offence or has been acquired as a result of an offence, being an article of a kind specified in the warrant, a Police Officer finds any article, including a sum of money, that the Police Officer believes on reasonable grounds to be connected with the offence, although not of a kind specified in the warrant, and the Police Officer believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary to seize that article in order to prevent its concealment, loss or destruction, the warrant shall be deemed to authorize the Police Officer to seize the article. '(5) Where a Police Officer seizes an article found as a result of a search in accordance with this section, the Police Officer may retain the article pending any direction from the Attorney-General as to the manner in which the article is to be dealt with. '(6) In this section, ''Police Officer'' has the same meaning as in section 14A.'.''. (3) Page 12, lines 4 to 22, clause 16, leave out the clause, insert the following clause: ''16. After section 25 of the Principal Act the following sections are inserted: Searches after apprehension '25A. (1) A Police Officer who apprehends a person pursuant to a warrant issued under section 24 or 25 may search the person or the clothing that the person is wearing, and any property under the control of the person, if the Police Officer has reasonable grounds for suspecting that there is concealed, on, or in the clothing of, the person or in that property, any article, including a sum of money- (a) that may be material as evidence in proving an offence in respect of which the warrant was issued; or (b) that has been acquired by the person as a result of such an offence. '(2) Sub-section (1) does not authorize a Police Officer to remove, or to require the person to remove, any of the clothing that the person is wearing. '(3) A Police Officer may seize any article found as a result of a search in accordance with sub-section (1) and may retain any article so seized pending any direction from the Attorney-General as to the manner in which the article is to be dealt with. '(4) The powers conferred by this section are in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other powers conferred by law. '(5) In this section, ''Police Officer'' means a member or special member of the Australian Federal Police or a member of the Police Force of a State or Territory. Search warrants '25B. (1) Where an information on oath is laid before a Magistrate alleging that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that there may be upon any land, or upon or in any premises, vessel, aircraft or vehicle, any article, including a sum of money, that may be material as evidence in proving an offence in respect of which a warrant for the apprehension of a person was issued under section 24 or 25 or that has been acquired by a person as a result of such an offence, and the information sets out those grounds, the Magistrate may issue a search warrant in accordance with the appropriate form prescribed for the purposes of this sub-section authorizing a Police Officer named in the warrant, with such assistance as the Police Officer thinks necessary, and if necessary by force- (a) to enter upon the land or upon or into the premises, vessel, aircraft or vehicle; (b) to search the land, premises, vessel, aircraft or vehicle for any such article; and (c) to seize any such article found upon the land or upon or in the premises, vessel, aircraft or vehicle. '(2) A Magistrate shall not issue a warrant under sub-section (1) unless- (a) the informant or some other person has given to the Magistrate, either orally or by affidavit, such further information (if any) as the Magistrate requires concerning the grounds on which the issue of the warrant is being sought; and (b) the Magistrate is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for issuing the warrant. '(3) There shall be stated in a warrant issued under this section- (a) a statement of the purpose for which the warrant is issued, which shall include a reference to the nature of the offence in relation to which the entry and search are authorized; (b) whether entry is authorized to be made at any time of the day or night or during specified hours of the day or night; (c) a description of the kind of articles authorized to be seized; and (d) a day, not being later than one month after the day of issue of the warrant, upon which the warrant ceases to have effect. '(4) If, in the course of searching in accordance with a warrant issued under this section, for an article, including a sum of money, that may be material as evidence in proving an offence or has been acquired as a result of an offence, being an article of a kind specified in the warrant, a Police Officer finds any article, including a sum of money, that the Police Officer believes on reasonable grounds to be connected with the offence, although not of a kind specified in the warrant, and the Police Officer believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary to seize that article in order to prevent its concealment, loss or destruction, the warrant shall be deemed to authorize the Police Officer to seize that article. '(5) Where a Police Officer seizes an article found as a result of a search in accordance with this section, the Police Officer may retain the article pending any direction from the Attorney-General as to the manner in which the article is to be dealt with. '(6) In this section, ''Police Officer'' has the same meaning as in section 25A.'.''. Amendments agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. EXTRADITION (FOREIGN STATES) AMENDMENT BILL 1985 The Bill. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(6.20) —by leave-I move: (1) Page 3, clause 4, after proposed sub-section (1A), insert the following sub-section: '' '(1B) If, after the commencement of this sub-section, an extradition treaty comes into force between Australia and a foreign state specified in the Schedule, this Act has effect as if the reference in the Schedule to that foreign state were omitted.'; and''. (2) Page 4, lines 26 to 43, and page 5, lines 1 and 2, clause 7, leave out paragraph (b). (3) Page 5, after clause 7, insert the following new clause: ''7A. After section 16 of the Principal Act the following sections are inserted: Searches after apprehension '16A. (1) A Police Officer who apprehends a person pursuant to a warrant issued under section 16 may search the person or the clothing that the person is wearing, and any property under the control of the person, if the Police Officer has reasonable grounds for suspecting that there is concealed, on, or in the clothing of, the person or in that property, any article, including a sum of money- (a) that may be material as evidence in proving an offence to which the requisition for the surrender of the person relates; or (b) that has been acquired by the person as a result of such an offence. '(2) Sub-section (1) does not authorize a Police Officer to remove, or to require the person to remove, any of the clothing that the person is wearing. '(3) A Police Officer may seize any article found as a result of a search in accordance with sub-section (1) and may retain any article so seized pending any direction from the Attorney-General as to the manner in which the article is to be dealt with. '(4) The powers conferred by this section are in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other powers conferred by law. '(5) In this section, ''Police Officer'' means a member or special member of the Australian Federal Police or a member of the Police Force of a State or Territory. Search warrants '16B. (1) Where an information on oath is laid before a Magistrate alleging that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that there may be upon any land or upon or in any premises, vessel, aircraft or vehicle, any article, including a sum of money, that may be material as evidence in proving an offence to which the requisition for the surrender of a person relates or that has been acquired by a person as a result of such an offence, and the information sets out those grounds, the Magistrate may issue a search warrant in accordance with the appropriate form prescribed for the purposes of this sub-section authorizing a Police Officer named in the warrant, with such assistance as the Police Officer thinks necessary, and if necessary by force- (a) to enter upon the land or upon or into the premises, vessel, aircraft or vehicle; (b) to search the land, premises, vessel, aircraft or vehicle for any such article; and (c) to seize any such article found upon the land or upon or in the premises, vessel, aircraft or vehicle. '(2) A Magistrate shall not issue a warrant under sub-section (1) unless- (a) the informant or some other person has given to the Magistrate, either orally or by affidavit, such further information (if any) as the Magistrate requires concerning the grounds on which the issue of the warrant is being sought; and (b) the Magistrate is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for issuing the warrant. '(3) There shall be stated in a warrant issued under this section- (a) a statement of the purpose for which the warrant is issued, which shall include a reference to the nature of the offence in relation to which the entry and search are authorized; (b) whether entry is authorized to be made at any time of the day or night or during specified hours of the day or night; (c) a description of the kind of articles authorized to be seized; and (d) a day, not being later than one month after the day of issue of the warrant, upon which the warrant ceases to have effect. '(4) If, in the course of searching in accordance with a warrant issued under this section, for an article, including a sum of money, that may be material as evidence in proving an offence or has been acquired as result of an offence, being an article of a kind specified in the warrant, a Police Officer finds any article, including a sum of money, that the Police Officer believes on reasonable grounds to be connected with the offence, although not of a kind specified in the warrant, and the Police Officer believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary to seize that article in order to prevent its concealment, loss or destruction, the warrant shall be deemed to authorize the Police Officer to seize that article. '(5) Where a Police Officer seizes an article found as a result of a search in accordance with this section, the Police Officer may retain the article pending any direction from the Attorney-General as to the manner in which the article is to be dealt with. '(6) In this section, ''Police Officer'' has the same meaning as in section 16A.'.''. The amendments cover similar territory, to the provisions contained in the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Amendment Bill relating to search warrants. What is new, so far as the Extradition (Foreign States) Amendment Bill is concerned, is a further provision which relates only to this Bill. It does not relate to the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Amendment Bill. This relates to the creation of a proposed new sub-section 9 (1B) which creates a Schedule listing the countries to which the Act applies by virtue of the existence of a so-called inherited treaty. The amendment that I have moved in this respect simply provides that where one of these inherited treaties is replaced by a modern treaty the reference in the Schedule to the relevant country shall be in effect omitted. The amendment thereby removes the need to amend the Schedule in the Act whenever a modern treaty replaces an inherited treaty. It is a purely technical matter, but that is the explanation for it. It has been the subject of a detailed explanatory memorandum, as have the search warrant provisions. I understand that it is non-controversial. Amendments agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bills reported with amendments; report adopted. Bills (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a third time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(6.23) —I move: That on Thursday, 18 April 1985, Question Time take place at 12 noon. I believe this proposal is in order to accommodate the demands of the timetables for the Estimates committees. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: (1) That, unless otherwise ordered, intervening business be postponed until after the consideration of General Business, Orders of the Day Nos 1 to 3 relating to Government Papers and other General Business, Orders of the Day to take note of Government Papers. (2) That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the foregoing procedure having effect. Debate resumed from 16 April, on motion by Senator Chaney: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(6.24) —The Notice Paper states that I am in continuation. The Senate is considering the report of the Family Law Council entitled 'Administration of Family Law in Australia'. In June 1984 the then Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, wrote to the Family Law Council seeking its advice upon the issues of the image of the Family Court of Australia and the public's perception of the operations of the court, and raising particular aspects of those matters. The Council prepared a consultation paper which was distributed widely. The Council received a number of submissions on that paper. The paper is concerned with the more practical day to day aspects of family law in Australia. I quote from Mr Justice Fogarty, the Chairman of the Family Law Council, in his introductory statement: It makes a number of recommendations to the Attorney-General the implementation of which the Council believes is essential if Family Law in Australia is to function at a satisfactory level. On the last occasion I spoke to this report I had not had a great deal of time to study it. I have now had some time to study it. The more I look at the report the more I believe it really deals with superficialities and, in fact, may not achieve the intended result. The intended result is implicit in the letter that was written by the then Attorney-General to the Family Law Council when he sought advice from the Council upon the issues of the image of the Family Court and the public's perception of the operation of the court. I do know whether the rather superficial recommendations that have been made in this document will do that. When I say superficial I do not use that term in a derogatory fashion. Mr Justice Fogarty, the Chairman of the Council, does say that the paper is concerned with the more practical day to day aspects of family law in Australia. That is the manner in which I use the term. There is no disrespect to the Family Law Council and Mr Justice Fogarty. I used the term in the sense that Mr Justice Fogarty is saying in effect that the paper is concerned with the more practical day to day aspects of family law in Australia, such as whether wigs should be worn, the location of the courts, the size and formality of the courtrooms, public waiting space, conference facilities, court staff, robing, control over the passage of cases, et cetera. These matters are important in the day to day running of the Family Court and of any court, but in the administration of justice in Australia they are, to anyone's examination, peripheral. Just because you, Mr Acting Deputy President, are not wearing a wig it does not mean that I have less respect for you. I suppose these are the questions about which lawyers want to argue. I believe there is need for a far deeper analysis of the problems of the administration of family law in this country and, therefore, the public's perception of the operations of the court which administers the Family Law Act. Some recommendations are important, although they are superficial. Some are a little less superficial than others. For example, the Council has made certain recommendations about the importance of marriage counselling. Paragraph 3.16 at page 57 of the report states: In principle, therefore, the Council considers that the very important function of marriage counselling should be carried out by approved marriage counselling organisations. The report goes on to say: . . . in some instances persons who initially seek the assistance of the Court Counselling Section for conciliation counselling may actually be seeking reconciliation counselling. Marriage counselling has now been redefined to include pre-marriage counselling. We did that I think last year. I believe this is an area to which more and more attention should be given. It is very important that persons intending marriage understand what it is all about. Obviously it is almost an impossibility to understand what it is all about. A person could be married 25 years and not know what it is all about. Such a person should at least have an understanding of the principles which should apply when entering the institution of marriage. Marriage, as defined by law under the provisions of the marriage legislation, is the union of a man and woman voluntarily entered into exclusively for life. Persons who approach that important step in life ought to have some understanding of what it is all about. There have been suggestions around this chamber for some time that maybe it is time to follow the example that has been given by some churches which insist that the intending couples go through a period of instruction and marriage counselling. I see Senator Watson nodding and I understand that he has made similar suggestions that that would be well worth considering. I understand that the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) and, indeed, the previous Attorney-General-to be fair to him-were most concerned and most interested to see that more money was made available to marriage counselling organisations for the purposes of pre-marriage counselling. Unfortunately, whilst the will has been there, the budgetary result has not. I hope that in the forthcoming Budget a decent amount will be set aside for that purpose. Obviously the Council is suggesting also that reconciliation counselling is best done by approved marriage counselling organisations. I would generally agree with that. Because those organisations are community-based they have a fair amount of voluntary input. Generally the people who are engaged in reconciliation counselling are properly equipped to do so. Nevertheless, it is important also that the counsellors be sufficiently trained. They may have all the good will in the world. They may understand, through experience, what marriage is all about. They may understand all about the relationships involved in the marriage-not only between the partners but also between the partners and their children-but it is a different matter to be able to get that across. Also, there may be a threat to the marriage when there is extreme pressure on the marriage-it could be financial pressure or it could be pressure for a number of reasons, including psychological reasons. Reconciliation counsellors must be trained in order to detect the causes, to solve the problem and to bring about the reconciliation. Of course, this sort of training also needs money. I know that a number of honourable senators have received copies of letters that have been sent to the Government about the need for more resources for counsellors to undertake the very important task they are undertaking in Australia. It is clear from this document that the Family Court has virtually abandoned reconciliation counselling. Its counselling services are concentrated on conciliation-namely, counselling for divorce, counselling on the division of property, counselling on access to children and the like. I believe that if that is entrenched too far it may be a backward step because very often the first point of contact, when there is a conflict within a marriage, is the Family Court. The report says somewhere-I cannot quote it-that it is important that counsellors in the Court Counselling Section are aware of agencies to which persons may be more appropriately referred, including the authorised marriage counselling organisations. Nevertheless, I believe that the counselling service and the Court have an obligation to raise with the party that comes to it in the first instance the question of the effect of the proposed dissolution. In other words, the Court should advise the party that he or she should give consideration to the legal, social and financial consequences of a dissolution of the marriage and, in particular, to the effects of a dissolution of the marriage on any children of the marriage. I think it is very important that the Court has that responsibility, even before any proceedings have been taken. As we all know, section 14 of the Act provides that where proceedings have been instituted the judge or magistrate and the parties' legal representatives must give consideration to the possibility of reconciliation between the parties. Under the provisions of the Act the judge or the magistrate and the legal representatives are required to do that. Consistent with, I think, section 46 of the Family Law Act, the Counselling Section of the Court must give that priority. It must in a realistic and understanding manner raise that question with the party which may be the first to come to it or which may eventually come to it. The concentration wholly on divorce counselling gives me a good deal of concern. It gives me a little more concern when I see that the Council is recommending the separation of the conciliation and judicial functions of the Court. On the face of it, that might seem a reasonable thing to do-get conciliation away from the judge and have the counsellors deal with the matter in that way. I would agree with that if we were talking about reconciliation counselling. But when the stage is reached that the parties are determined to proceed towards a divorce-an application has been made and all the procedures have been gone through-it is envisaged by this recommendation that they will go through the conciliation processes distinct from references to the judge. Whilst that might seem appropriate, I believe that it might have an outcome which is undesirable and which may not have been foreseen. Might it not, in effect, prevent the right of a party to be heard? I put it to you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that one of the most important things in the administration of the law is that justice not only be done but be seen to be done. An effective denial of the right of a party to be heard is really a denial of that principle. Admittedly, the law in this area, in my opinion, is defective and the administration of the law is made so much more difficult. But the public's perception of the Family Court would fall even lower than it is at present if the separation of the conciliation and judicial functions were to result in the establishment of a bureaucracy which was concerned simply with counselling for divorce, a process which the parties were forced to attend, leaving them with the feeling that their case would be bogged down if they did not go through that process in a manner which resolved the dispute. When I say 'resolve the dispute', I am referring to the determination of who should have access to the children and how the property should be divided. These are very important issues. I feel that when the principle of fault was done away with the sense of injustice was heightened amongst persons who in many cases not only felt they they were wronged but in fact were wronged. The low public perception of the administration of family law in Australia arises from that situation. From time to time we have all received letters from constituents. Sometimes after speaking in the Senate we receive letters from people who are not constituents. That is why I am diffident about speaking about this issue now. I might as well say: 'Please don't write to me if you live in another State because I am a senator for the State of Tasmania'. But we receive letters from all over Australia. I refer to a recent situation relating to a person living on a farm in a particular State which returned a marginal income. His wife deserted him and he found just over a year later that he had to fight an application for dissolution of marriage in another State. The applicant was provided with legal aid but this individual, because of the tests that are applied, was not granted legal aid. I am sure that those in authority know of such cases. They must be concerned about it. However, the brief of the Family Law Council on this occasion apparently was not sufficient to cover that sort of case; nor was the brief sufficient to cover the type of amendments to the Family Law Act which are required to enhance within the public's mind the view of the Family Court as administering an appropriate and just law. As I said before, the view that is taken-and quite properly taken in many areas-is that the law is not just and therefore the administration of the law is defective. We have reached the stage in our society when I believe we must address ourselves again to the adequacy of the family law legislation. Recently, Katherine West wrote an article about the immense poverty that is being experienced by people in this country as a result of marriage breakdown. Pressures are being applied on public housing and the public purse as a result of marriage breakdown. The cost to the Commonwealth alone of marriage breakdown this year was in the vicinity of $1.2 billion. That factor is most disconcerting. Of course, the greatest problem is the individual trauma and pain that is involved in separation and divorce, and particularly the trauma that is experienced by children. The number of children who have been affected by divorce since 1976 has reached almost half a million. The cumulative figures that I have, which apply until the end of 1983-a year and three months ago-show that 465,765 children have been affected as a result of divorce in Australia. These statistics do not tell the full story. It is a tragic story. I come back to the point that whilst some of the suggestions are suitable and will assist in the day to day running of the court, I believe that it is time that the Attorney-General had another good look at the family law legislation in order to suggest amendments which would enhance and strengthen the institution of marriage and which would give the utmost consideration to those couples who are now in strife and who are looking for help. Very often when they see a lawyer, despite what is contained in the legislation, the lawyer will say: 'Section 14 states that you must consider reconciliation, but the marriage is finished and there is no point in that. We will go ahead'. The legislation should provide practical encouragement for persons who are considering divorce to attend a conference with an expert marriage counsellor who will talk to both parties so that they can consider the social, legal and financial consequences of a dissolution of marriage, and particularly the consequences for the children. I have here-and I am sorry that I have not shown this document to the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes), who is at the table-the amendments to the legislation that I proposed two years ago. I seek permission to have the document incorporated in Hansard. I also apologise to Senator Lewis for not showing it to him. Leave granted. The document read as follows- AUSTRALIAN SENATE Canberra, A.C.T. 5 October 1983 Re: COUNSELLING 1. On 24 August Committee debate ensued on my amendment to the F.L.A. on the above subject. (Hansard p. 188-201). 2. Considerable in principle support was expressed for the amendment and consideration was postponed to enable a redraft. 3. For this purpose the attached amendments to the F.L.A. were drafted and I will move these in place of the amendment I moved at p. 188. 4. The amendments also take into account the following criticisms of their predecessor: (a) That whilst the objective of the amendment was attractive its success was questionable given the fact that the counselling could take place after the application for dissolution had been filed. (b) That the chance of reconciliation diminished the longer the couple have been separated. (c) That it confused conciliation with reconciliation. 5. The attached overcomes these criticisms. The other counselling provisions in the F.L.A. remain intact. 6. Counselling of the type envisaged by the attached will be privileged and not admissable. 7. The amendments are now in a form which should attract widespread support and I would appreciate your support when debated tomorrow or Friday. Regards, 1. Amendment of section 4 ( ) by inserting after the definition of ''matrimonial cause'' the following definition'' '' 'notice of separation' means a notice given under sub-section 15A (1);''; 2. New section 15A After section 15 of the Principal Act the following section is inserted: Notice of separation ''15A. (1) A party to a marriage who is living separately and apart from the other party to the marriage may file in the Family Court of a State a notice stating that the parties to the marriage have separated and are living separately and apart. ''(2) Where a notice is filed under sub-section (1) by a party to a marriage, the Principal Director of Court Counselling of the Family Court or the person who administers the counselling facilities of the Family Court of that State, as the case may be, shall, not later than 14 days after the filing of the notice, cause to be served on each party to the marriage a notice requiring that party to attend at such respective times and places, and on such respective dates, as are specified in the notice- (a) an interview with a marriage counsellor; and (b) a conference with the other party to the marriage and that marriage counsellor, for the purposes of- (c) considering the legal, social and financial consequences of a dissolution of the marriage and, in particular, the effects of a dissolution of the marriage on any children of the marriage; and (d) having regard to the consequences and effects referred to in paragraph (c), considering the possibility of a reconciliation. ''(3) Evidence of anything said or of any admission made at an interview or conference conducted pursuant to sub-section (2) is not admissible in any court (whether exercising federal jurisdiction or not) or in proceedings before a person authorized by a law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory, or by consent of parties, to hear evidence.''. 3. Amendment of section 44 ( ) By inserting after sub-section (2) the following sub-sections: ''(2A) An application for dissolution of marriage shall not, without the leave of the Court granted under sub-section (2B), be filed by a party to a marriage after the expiration of a period of 12 months commencing at the commencement of Part II of the Family Law Amendment Act 1983 unless- (a) that party or the other party to the marriage has filed a notice of separation; (b) a period of not less than 12 months has elapsed since the filing of that notice; and (c) there is filed with the application a certificate in the prescribed form- (i) stating that the parties to the marriage have, pursuant to notices served on them under sub-section 15A (2), attended interviews and a conference for the purposes set out in paragraphs 15A (2) (c) and (d); and (ii) signed by the marriage counsellor who conducted the interviews and the conference. ''(2B) Notwithstanding sub-section (2A), if the court is satisfied that there are special circumstances by reason of which the hearing of an application for dissolution of a marriage should proceed notwithstanding that a paragraph or paragraphs of that sub-section has or have not been compiled with, the court may- (a) if the application has not been filed-give leave for the application to be filed; or (b) if the application has been filed-at any time before or during the hearing of the application, declare that it is so satisfied. and, where the court makes a declaration under paragraph (b), the application shall be deemed to have been duly filed and everything done pursuant to that application shall be as valid and effectual as if the court had, before the application was filed, given leave under paragraph (a) for the application to be filed.''. Senator HARRADINE —I thank the Senate. Some recommendations in the document are very worthy of consideration but in implementing them care must be taken because the result may not be what is desired. Debate (on motion by Senator Sheil) adjourned. Debate resumed from 16 April, on motion by Senator Peter Baume: That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 16 April, on motion by Senator Puplick: That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 16 April, on motion by Senator Walters: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(6.53) —Yesterday time limitations denied me the opportunity of finalising my remarks in support of the recommendation by the Human Rights Commission that heroin be made available to the terminally ill patients who cannot obtain effective relief through other treatment or drugs. I believe quite strongly that the terminally ill have the right to decide for themselves in their last hours how they wish their illness to be treated. In the final stages of illness, the physical condition, especially of cancer patients, may make the oral administration of drugs difficult or impossible. For an emaciated patient who has little muscle tissue left continual large doses of morphia by injections lead to more pain and more discomfort. Therefore, the procedure of using a small volume injection is clearly the most humane practice. However diamorphine hydrochloride or heroin is not seen as a panacea for terminal cancer but it should be available to those to whom it can be of some benefit in controlling pain. A question not covered in the report, and which I believe must be examined in the future, is that of the right of total patient care for the terminally ill. It is the sort of care that is available only for hospice-type situations to enable the terminally ill to die with a degree of dignity. Therefore, I totally support the recommendations of the Human Rights Commission in relation to the right of terminally ill patients to have access to heroin for pain-taking purposes. Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned. Debate resumed from 16 April, on motion by Senator Brownhill: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(6.56) —I will take a few moments to refer to the papers which have been tabled in accordance with the Airlines Agreement Act 1981. The documents that have been tabled are the two reports required from the major domestic airlines-Trans Australia Airlines and Ansett Airlines of Australia-under the airlines agreement. Also tabled was a document on the consultations which have taken place in respect of air fares during 1984. Basically, the documents relating to TAA and Ansett are financial documents which include profit and loss statements and balance sheets. It is pleasing to see that in the financial year to the end of June 1984 TAA had an operating profit, before abnormal items are taken into account, of $14m compared with a loss of $19m in the previous year. That was a very pleasing turnaround and it reflected a very large rise in revenue collected by the airline-from $536m at June 1983 to $622m at 1984. Tonight, I refer particularly to the vexed question of parallel scheduling between the two airlines which still continues at a high rate in Australia. I was so concerned about this question-the duplicated flight times out of Adelaide-that I carried out an analysis of the times when flights leave within 15 minutes of each other from Adelaide Airport. In respect of flights to Adelaide from Melbourne, it is striking that out of a total of 69 departures by the two airlines combined-that is, 35 departures by TAA and 34 by Ansett-there is a choice of only 36 different departure times. Instead of the apparent 69 departure times which appear in the airline schedules the number of choices available to travellers-not those flights taking place within 15 minutes of each other-comes down to only 36. So there is a huge difference between what the schedules suggest about choice of departure times and the reality. A similar situation occurs in the reverse direction, from Adelaide to Melbourne. Again a total of 69 flights are in the schedules. However, it is very interesting to note that of the 35 Ansett weekly flights from Adelaide to Melbourne, 23 have a parallel departure time with TAA. I know that this problem is a vexed question. It has been the subject of great interest in Western Australia as well as South Australia. It is high time that something was done about this problem which would not be tolerated in any other country. Debate interrupted. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being near the hour of 7 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(7.00) —I understood that some information was to be provided to the Senate. I would like to speak briefly and, if the information does not arrive in time, I shall seek to raise the matter further at a later time. Senator Ryan —I am expecting the information. Senator PETER RAE —I have an indication from the Minister for Education that she is expecting the information. At Question Time today and on other occasions the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), in giving certain statistics on Queensland, has indicated that he believes Queensland is dragging its feet, as it were, with regard to the economic recovery which he claims is taking place in Australia. Today the Minister drew attention in particular to retail sales and suggested that the figures for Queensland indicated that that State, under its present Government, was dragging its feet behind the efforts of the other States of Australia. It seems that the economic commentator for the Courier-Mail Business Extra would not agree with the Minister. I quote from the edition of Business Extra for 17 April, which refers to the damaging February plunge in retail sales generally: This was not quite the growth record, after allowing for inflation, that supports forecasts of strong growth in consumption spending and thus stimulation for the economy. Inevitably, the outcome politically was seen as damaging for the Federal Government and economic prospects, but some economists said that sales still should be seen as showing significant growth over the longer-term despite a 7.3 per cent fall . . . from January to February. Queensland seemed to bear out these claims more than the rest of the country. Its total sales, hit by electricity disruptions, dipped by 12.8 per cent from the buoyant January level but still were-- this is the part I wish to emphasise- 7.5 per cent higher than in February last year while on a quarterly basis Queensland sales still were 9.3 per cent higher than in the three months to February, 1984. In short, despite the power problems, Queensland still is ahead of the national average for the quarter. In other words, what the Minister for Finance said is the total reverse of the facts. It makes all the more important my seeking under standing order 364 the tabling of the documents from which the Minister quoted during Question Time today. I understand that the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) now has those documents available. I hope that they will be tabled so that I may make some further comments. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(7.02) —I have the documents sought by Senator Peter Rae under standing order 364 to be tabled. On behalf of Senator Walsh, I have been asked to point out that there is no obligation on Senator Walsh to table the documents, nor was there at the end of Question Time. Senator Walsh presumed that Senator Peter Rae was aware of that. He could have requested the tabling of the documents at the time, but he did not do so. However, Senator Walsh is anxious to assist Senator Peter Rae to understand the parlous state of the Queensland economy under the incompetent administration of the Bjelke-Petersen Government. Therefore, on Senator Walsh's behalf and at his request, I am happy to table the two documents used by Senator Walsh at Question Time today. I point out for the benefit of honourable senators present that the first document is a comprehensive survey by Senator Maguire entitled 'Inside the Faltering Queensland Economy'. The second is a brief paper on recent economic indicators. Both documents demonstrate that the Queensland economy is retarding the performance of the national economy. Queensland is performing below average according to virtually every economic indicator. Senator Walsh points out that Senator Peter Rae will have the opportunity to pursue these matters at Question Time tomorrow. On behalf of Senator Walsh, I now table the two documents requested by Senator Rae under standing order 364. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(7.04) —I seek clarification, Mr President. The Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) said that the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) did not have an obligation to table the papers. Am I not correct in assuming that standing order 363 requires a document relating to public affairs quoted from by a Minister of the Crown, unless stated to be of a confidential nature, or such as should more properly be obtained by address, to be called for and made public? In other words, the Minister is obliged to do so unless it is declared to be confidential. Such a document is required to be made public under standing order 363 if requested. I understand that standing order 364, which relates to other Ministers-- Senator Peter Rae —I mistakenly referred to 364. I meant 363. Senator PETER BAUME —I want to be clear that, if Senator Ryan's caveat was that under 364 it was not necessary, she would still acknowledge that under 363 there is an obligation on the Minister to table such material if it is called for. The PRESIDENT —Order! I think that when Senator Peter Rae moved for the tabling of the documents this afternoon I mentioned that the Minister was not present at the time. I did not know at that time whether he claimed confidentiality. That is why Senator Rae indicated that he would raise the matter later on the adjournment. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education) —by leave-On Senator Walsh's behalf I was asked to point out that Senator Peter Rae could have requested the documents at the time at Question Time this morning when Senator Walsh referred to them. I think it was Senator Walsh's view that there was no obligation at this later stage to table the documents, but he was happy to do so and I have now done that on his behalf. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales) —by leave-I do not want to cavil about the matter, but it is a question of Standing Orders. I would point out that standing order 364, which relates to people other than Ministers, puts an obligation on people to act immediately, but standing order 363 in relation to Ministers has no such restriction. It is not necessary to call for it immediately; it can be called for at any time under the provision of standing order 363. I think the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) is incorrect. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania) —by leave-I thought that the appropriate procedure was to wait until the end of Question Time rather than intervening in the middle of Question Time, which was already being substantially delayed as the result of some quite lengthy answers. I therefore sought the tabling of the document at the end which, as Senator Baume said, was quite in order. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 7.07 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Christmas Island Act-Ordinance 1985-No. 1-Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Export Control Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 37 Health Insurance Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 36 National Health Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 32 Public Service Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 34 Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Ordinances 1985- No. 14-Dog Control (Amendment) No. 15-Lakes (Amendment) Regulations 1985- No. 9 (Building and Services Ordinance) Student Assistance Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 35 Superannuation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 33 The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 43) Senator Chaney asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 27 February 1985: (1) Has the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce sought legal opinion in relation to the constitutional validity of State Government purchasing preference schemes; if so, did the legal advice obtained indicate that these purchase preference schemes would probably be found to be constitutional by the High Court. (2) What further action has the Department and/or the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce initiated to end these purchasing schemes. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: Regarding the first part of Question 1, the answer is yes. Regarding the second part of Question 1, I refer the honourable senator to Senate Standing Order No. 99 which states, inter alia, that questions shall not ask for legal opinion. With regard to Question 2 the honourable senator would be aware of the strenuous efforts that this Government has made in attempting to end this extremely deleterious practice. The Prime Minister wrote to all State Premiers in late 1983 and suggested a rethinking of the States' positions on the matter. With the agreement by New South Wales to enter into discussions with Victoria and South Australia to establish a three State preference-free zone, the Government was cautiously confident that this would encourage other States to end preferential treatment to in-State suppliers. However, with New South Wales indefinitely deferring its participation in the trilateral agreement, this Government set in train new initiatives leading to the special meeting of Industry and Technology Ministers held in Sydney on 28 February/1 March. At this meeting Victoria, South Australia, Queensland and Tasmania agreed in principle to the removal of purchasing preferences subject to consideration of particular circumstances. New South Wales and Western Australia indicated they would review their position regarding preference abolition in the near future. Further details are provided in a communique which was issued by the Ministers after the special meeting. I welcome the support evident in the honourable senator's press releases on 28 February and 1 March. Given the extent of bipartisan support on this issue, I am sure the honourable senator would be pleased to hear that the Government will continue to vigorously pursue the matter and make every effort to bring about the abolition of State purchasing preference arrangements that have contributed to the unnecessary fragmentation of our industrial base. (Question No. 56) Senator Missen asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 28 February 1985: (1) Does the 'Program for Cultural Co-operation', a cultural agreement entered into by the USSR and Australian Governments on 19 December 1984, refer to an academic exchange program between Leningrad University and Melbourne University when, in fact, the exchange program operates with Monash not Melbourne University. (2) Was the document referred to in (1) above, as is apparent from errors, its language structure and other intrinsic evidence, in fact drafted by Soviet Russian sources. (3) Was any advice sought by the Australian Government from Australian citizens with experience or backgrounds in Soviet areas as to the proposed terms of the agreement. (4) Is the Australian Government aware that the agreement, with its detailed requirements for promotion of the Russian language, has given great offence to the 400,000 Australian citizens of Ukrainian origin and other national and cultural groups who have suffered under Russian imperialism. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The document signed on 19 December 1984 was a program of cultural co-operation between Australia and USSR for the years 1985-86. This was in accordance with the basic cultural agreement between Australia and the USSR signed on 15 January 1975. The current program, to which the question refers, follows very closely both in substance and expression the previous programs agreed between the two countries, covering the years 1976-78 and 1978-80. In respect of the four specific questions: (1) No. While an exchange program does exist between Monash and Leningrad University, the University of Melbourne is also interested in arranging an exchange program between itself and a Soviet university. The purpose of the Cultural exchange program is to embrace arrangements already existing between universities, and to encourage future exchange arrangements, of which Melbourne University hopes to become part. (2) The text of the current program derived very largely from the wording of previous programs, with both sides introducing modifications or new proposals to cover the current period. Following detailed negotiation, the text of the agreed program, in both the English and Russian languages, was signed on 19 December 1984. (3) Normal procedures were followed before, and during, the negotiation of the program, namely consultation with a wide range of governmental, semi-governmental and private bodies with interests in developing cultural and educational relations between Australia and the USSR. These bodies included, for example, the Australian Vice-Chancellor's Committee, the International Cultural Corporation of Australia, Michael Edgley International, and Musica Viva, plus major art galleries, film bodies, the Australian Ballet and the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia. (4) The provision for mutual promotion of national language in the other country is consistent with provisions contained in the 1978-80 program concluded in Moscow between the Australian and Soviet Governments on 28 March 1979. It is also consistent with the provisions of the cultural programs Australia has with other countries for which language training is relevant. (Question No. 123) Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: Was an inter-departmental committee (IDC) established in May 1983 to review the financial objectives and financial structure of Telecom and Australia Post; if so: (a) what were the terms of reference for the IDC; (b) has the IDC reported; if not, what are the reasons for failure to report after a period of almost 2 years since the IDC was established, and when can it be expected that it will report; and (c) will the Minister for Communications table the IDC report in the Parliament. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Yes, (see p. 164 1983-84 Budget Paper No. 1). (a) Broadly the terms of reference are to review existing legislative provisions relating to the financial structure and financial objectives of Telecom and Australia Post and the relationship between the authorities and the Government. (b) No. Officials are still considering the matter and hope to finalise a report at an early date. (c) No. (Question No. 146) Senator Reid asked the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 26 March 1985: What aids for the deaf are available through the program of aids for disabled people. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: There are no aids available for people with hearing problems under the Program of Aids for Disabled Persons. However, assistance is available through the National Acoustic Laboratories which fall within the responsibilities of my colleague the Hon. Neal Blewett, Minister for Health. Those eligible for this assistance are persons under the age of 21 years and persons with Pensioner Health Benefits entitlements.