Wednesday, 29 May 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: Human Embryo Experimentation Legislation To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That human embryos deserve legal protection to enable the development of their full human potential. Your petitioners request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should: Pass Senator Harradine's Bill to prohibit experiments involving the use of human embryos created by in vitro fertilisation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Peter Baume (from 187 citizens), Bjelke-Petersen (from 1,005 citizens) and Scott (from 164 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. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 107 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That we strongly oppose the 'A.C.T. Smoking and Tobacco Products Advertisements Prohibition Bill' introduced by Senator Jack Evans, because it will adversely affect sporting organisations and small businesses in the A.C.T., it reverses the onus of proof, and represents an unnecessary intrusion by Government into the private affairs of individuals and other groups. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should reject this Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 115 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showth: 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 38 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 have great concern for further development and research of the IVF program and express that we are against (Senator Harradine's) Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1985. The Bill threatens the provisions of IVF as a treatment for infertility because it defines as prohibited experimentation; 1. Any manipulation of a relevant human embryo; 2. Any procedure undertaken on, or involving the use of a relevant human embryo; 3. Creating a relevant human embryo in anticipation that the development of the full human potential of the relevant human embryo will be interrupted. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will protect our interest into the further research of IVF and your petitioners as is duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Peter Baume (from 42 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The undersigned are convinced that an alliance, including full military co-operation, between Australian and the United States is indispensable to the defence security of the Australian Commonwealth; that every alliance involves co-operative arrangements of a practical nature; and that the following arrangements are indispensable to the effective conduct of ANZUS and any similar agreement, to wit; the reception of U.S. naval shipping (nuclear and non-nuclear) in Australian ports; the maintenance of the present US installations in Australia; reasonable co-operation by Australia in US missile testing programs. Your Petitioners, therefore, pray the Senate, in Parliament assembled, that you will give this matter your earnest consideration. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 15 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: The financial plight of grape producers, their families and their respective local communities. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that-the Government act now during the 1985-86 Budget considerations to: Remove the sales tax impost on all Australian produced wine; make funds available for the establishment of an institution to administer the restructuring of the grape producing industry; place revenue raising imposts on all imported wine and wine spirit. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Collard (from 308 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully shows that: We, the undersigned electors, are deeply concerned at the possibility of an increase in indirect taxation currently being considered by the Government. To pose a broadly based consumption tax would mean a proportionately greater burden on low income groups and worsen their already precarious and impoverished position. Women who are supporting mothers, together with their children, are acknowledged as the largest single group forced to exist below the poverty line. As beneficiaries of an already inadequate government pension, their futures would be even more jeopardised if there were to be a change towards increased broadly based consumption taxation. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Federal government not adopt the proposed shift towards increased indirect taxation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reynolds (from 39 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned Australian citizens respectfully showeth that: (i) That the reintroduction of fees would place at risk the access to tertiary education of Australian students from middle-income families, further disadvantage students from country areas, and restrict part-time enrolments, by imposing substantial financial burdens upon these students. (ii) That the imposition of tertiary fees would most severely affect those students currently disadvantaged within our education system, and would have the effect of deterring students from lower-income families from entering tertiary education. Your petitioners therefore pray that: (i) That post-secondary tuition fees not be re-introduced for any category of Australian students. (ii) That Australian youth be encouraged to enter tertiary education through both increased personal financial assistance and through the funding of tertiary education through other sources than the reintroduction of any 'user pays' principle. (iii) That the Minister for Education immediately clarify the Government's attitude concerning the imposition of tertiary fees. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Watson (from 118 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 kgs. to 8.0 million kgs. (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 Robertson (from 92 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Northern Territory respectfully showeth: 1. That we are deeply concerned that the redevelopment of the Darwin International Airport is not to continue on schedule. 2. That failure to complete the project will do great damage to the Northern Territory's, and Australia's, tourism industry. 3. That the north of the Northern Territory will be left with a totally inadequate airport to service its resident population. 4. That general aviation facilities and industry will be adversely affected by failure to continue with the redevelopment. 5. That the RAAF Base in Darwin will be hampered by failure to continue with the redevelopment, which could result in interference with effective defence procedures for the north of Australia. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should ensure the Commonwealth stands by its commitment to complete the redevelopment of Darwin International Airport by the scheduled completion date of 1988. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Kilgariff (from 201 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That we consider the Federal Government's petrol price increase will have a widespread and adverse effect on the people of the Northern Territory and other outback areas of Australia. That the Territory's mining and pastoral industries will suffer as a result of the price increase. That the Territory's tourism industry will suffer as a consequence of increased air fares flowing on from the petrol price rise. That the already high cost of freight to Territory residents, business and industry will increase even further because of the fuel factor of freight charges. That the price increase will generally disadvantage the people of the outback, to whom petrol powered vehicles and equipment are a necessity. Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should urge the Federal Government to give further consideration to the people of the Northern Territory and other outback and isolated regions of Australia in the matter of this petrol price rise. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Kilgariff (from 192 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: Victorian Planning (Brothels) Act 1984 The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That whereas the Commonwealth of Australia ratified the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women in 1983, the Government of Victoria in passing the Planning (Brothels) Act 1984 is in breach of Article 6 of the Convention which says that ''States Parties shall take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to suppress all forms of traffic in women and exploitation of prostitution of women''. That the Victorian Planning (Brothels) Act 1984 provides legal authority to brothel operators to traffic in and exploit the prostitution of women and to live off the earnings of prostitutes. That whereas the Federal Minister for Health has counselled citizens to shun promiscuity (The Australian 26/1/85) because of the serious and sometimes fatal health hazards, the operation of legalised brothels encourages promiscuity and the spread of diseases, including AIDS. Your petitioners therefore pray: That the Government of Australia having ratified the UN Convention on Women remain consistent in its obligations to uphold the Articles of the Convention and request the Victorian Government to immediately repeal the Planning (Brothels) Act 1984. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Harradine (from 155 citizens). Senator COONEY(Vic) —by leave-I present the following petition from 210 petitioners which is not in conformity with the Standing Orders: We, the undersigned, support the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill, introduced to the Senate on April 23rd, 1985, by Senator Brian Harradine. Petitions received. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: (1) That, if the Senate be not sitting when the Standing Committee on Social Welfare has completed its Report on children in institutional and other forms of care, the Committee may send the report to the President, or, if the President is unable to act, to the Deputy President, and, in that event- (a) the report shall be deemed to have been presented to the Senate; (b) the publication of the report is authorised by this resolution; (c) the President or the Deputy President, as the case may be, may give directions for the printing and circulation of the report; and (d) the President or the Deputy President, as the case may be, shall lay the report upon the table at the next sitting of the Senate. (2) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, insofar as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: (1) That, if the Senate be not sitting when the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations has completed any of its reports, the Committee may send the reports to the President, or, if the President is unable to act, to the Deputy-President, and, in that event- (a) the reports shall be deemed to have been presented to the Senate; (b) the publication of the reports is authorised by this resolution; (c) the President or the Deputy-President, as the case may be, may give directions for the printing and circulation of the reports; and (d) the President or the Deputy-President, as the case may be, shall lay the reports upon the table at the next sitting of the Senate. (2) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, insofar as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. Senator LEWIS(Victoria) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate condemns the Government for: (a) failure to maintain the approved establishment of police officers in the Australian Capital Territory; (b) the drafting of police officers out of the ACT while there are vacancies in the ACT establishment; (c) the restriction on over-time for police officers in the ACT which has resulted in diminished services to the community out of working hours, at times they are most likely to be needed; (d) the periodic closure of the Criminal Records Unit and Crime Collation Unit and withdrawal of police from night staffing at the Coastal Protection Unit which could lead to delays in monitoring drug shipments from ships and aircraft; and (e) the failure to replace worn-out police vehicles in the ACT. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That the Senate resolves that counsel be briefed to seek leave to appear on behalf of the President of the Senate at the commencement of the forthcoming trials of His Honour Mr Justice Murphy and His Honour Judge Foord to make submissions as to the law of parliamentary privilege as it may become applicable to those proceedings, such counsel to seek leave to withdraw thereafter and to take no further part in the trial proceedings. The PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that I have received letters from the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) and the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) requesting that Senators Coates, Peter Rae and Withers be discharged from further attendance on the Standing Committee of Privileges and nominating Senators Bolkus, Jessop and Missen to be members of the Committee. Motion (by Senator Grimes)-by leave-agreed to: That Senators Coates, Peter Rae and Withers be discharged from further attendance on the Standing Committee of Privileges and that Senators Bolkus, Jessop and Missen be appointed members of the Committee. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —by leave-It has been brought to my attention that in the cut and thrust of debate on the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill on Monday I made some comments about the permanent head of the Department of Veterans' Affairs which may be open to misinterpretation. After saying that I believed that it was unfair to attack the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) for the legislation as he was overseas, I made the point that one should not attack permanent heads in this place. I then made the comment that I would prefer not to see the present incumbent in that position. While I do not resile from that position, my attention has been drawn to a further sentence in my speech which reads as follows: He may be competent in other areas such as immigration or whatever, but in my view he is not competent in this area. I was, of course, using the word 'competent' in the sense that it embraces suitability for the particular and specific position in the Department. I was not referring to intellectual capacity, integrity or competence in any other sense. As the record shows quite clearly, this person is a public servant who has distinguished himself in many positions of public trust. I certainly wish to remove any reflection on any aspect of his public service other than, in my view, the suitability of his personality to this particular portfolio. Debate resumed from 28 May, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(10.10) —Last night I was speaking on this package of three education Bills which give supplementation, in the normal way, to make up for the cost increases in the schools area, in tertiary education and in the participation and equity program. They show no new initiative in education, no new idea, no creativity and, with the lack of any other initiative coming from the Government this year, they are a demonstration of what could be called a rolling on in a rut supplementation in this Government's approach to education. The only initiatives in education that have come from this Government since the election have been cuts in funding to every area of education. Now, over a two-year period, these cuts have raised particularly serious alarm in the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission report which was put before the Senate yesterday. There has been wide coverage in the newspapers this morning of the serious situation that is described by Mr Hudson, the Chairman of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission, and the Commission as a whole. The marginal supplementation that has been trumpeted as the additional resources given for tertiary education by this Government has in fact led to serious underresourcing of our universities and colleges. First of all, however, I continue my remarks about the process of the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Legislation Amendment Bill relating to the passing of money to schools through the States. I still believe that the initial targets that were set some 12 years ago as goals for resource levels in Australian schools have now been exceeded and well and truly achieved by the Commonwealth over these past 12 years. That has been the fundamental and primary goal of the Commonwealth's involvement in schools; that is, as advised by the Commonwealth Schools Commission, to supplement what the public has been providing, through taxation, to public and private schools in the States. The Commonwealth has been taking an additional initiative over these last 12 years to lift the level of resources in government and non-government schools so that they more suitably provide for the education of our children. The targets that were set have been achieved, and the question that is still in our minds on this side of the Senate is whether there ought to be a fundamental rethinking of the role of the Commonwealth with regard to schools and a fundamental rethinking with regard to the structure of the Schools Commission. I believe that for the next decade and a half the question about schools, funded by whatever manner, is one of improving quality of outcome, quality of curricula, quality of teaching methodology and quality through in-service training of teachers. The teachers of Australia and the curricula which have been developed in a multitude of areas are to be commended, but there is room for improvement. The improvement that will come to the schools will not be quantitative. In the past decade, there has already been a 50 per cent increase in the real recurrent resources available to schools. We need to ensure that the very much increased financial resources for schools in Australia are put together and used to the best qualitative effect. I do not believe that in the existing format of the Commonwealth Schools Commission, or in the whole paraphernalia of the Bills before us-the States grants machinery Bills-we have the best way of achieving that aim. A proposition on which I wish to elaborate further and which I have spoken about in this place in the last few years is that the Commonwealth initiative in schools be transferred to a quite different structure. I suggest that the Commonwealth should facilitate the coming together of representatives directly involved in education in the States to discuss curriculum matters, teacher development, the interface of teachers and schools with teacher training and tertiary education matters and the interface between graduates from schools and post-secondary education, be it in various areas of training, technical and further education or higher education. I think that would be the appropriate way for the Commonwealth to be involved with schools over the next 15 years or more. There is no evidence that this Government has given that sort of fundamental look at the Commonwealth Schools Commission. I refer the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan), who is present in the chamber, to the Commonwealth Schools Commission annual report for 1984, which was tabled yesterday. Appendices to that report show changes in the definitions of the functions of the Schools Commission. I interpret those changes as superficial because the definitions are still full of phrases such as 'The Commission shall consult and co-operate with representatives of the States', or 'the Commission shall furnish information and advice to the Minister'. The members of the Commission are not involved in direct line implementation of programs and curricula; rather they are facilitators and advisers. Their information and advice to the Government is a duplication of what is happening in the States. The approach to education that I would rather have in Australia is the approach that I believe a new government in this country would take; namely, setting up the alternative structure that I have proposed. The Commonwealth should set national goals for education and facilitate the appointment of representatives of the bodies actually responsible for education in the States-be they from departments of education or the private schools-to implement new programs that arise from research. The body to which they are appointed should be a national forum-it could be called the Australian Schools Commission-which is not directly a Commonwealth agency but rather a combined States agency. On this new body the sorts of programs that the national Commonwealth Schools Commission and the Curriculum Development Council deal with now, and the priorities for developing national programs or ideas that could be injected into the education system to improve the actual practices in the States, would be decided by State representatives. I note that last week Senator Macklin of the Australian Democrats criticised the razor gang Budget cuts that affected education in the Fraser Government period. In the same breath, he criticised the cuts of some $100m in the Keating mini-Budget of this month that will affect education. The Minister is right to raise an eyebrow at the fact that the cuts in education were only $73.4m, but when we add the cuts that relate to family allowances that have now been denied to tertiary students and the cuts in the subsidy for pre-school child care, in the global sense of provision for education, about $108m has this month been cut by the present Government in the area of education. It is increasingly well known that whatever the promises of the Labor Government, the Keating mini-Budget has cut back on child care, pre-schools and on the much trumpeted initiative of the Labor Government-the participation and equity program. There have been direct cuts in the technical and further education capital program. The library element of the Commonwealth Schools Commission has been completely eliminated, and it will need to find money for libraries out of the general capital program. Many special purpose programs of the Schools Commission have been cut out. Indeed, there has been a considerable tightening of the eligibility criteria for student assistance under the tertiary education assistance scheme and for other student assistance programs. As we all know, and directly contrary to what Labor members were saying in opposition, there has been an enormous increase in visa fees and charges for overseas students in this country. Senator Peter Baume —How will they save money on the student assistance programs? They never made that clear. Senator TEAGUE —The student assistance programs are still in a fog and the public, including tertiary students, do not know the full extent of these reduced eligibility decisions made in the mini-Budget. Senator Macklin, as a Democrat, will never be in a position of being in government, when a Budget has to be balanced. I disagree with his irresponsible and blanket approach to these matters, because I believe that education should have some share in the Budget reductions in order to cut back the deficit. This series of decisions in the Keating mini-Budget this month has drawn back the curtain completely on the hypocrisy of the original promises and the apparent early momentum of education provision by the Labor Government. There are the same restrictions, cuts and lack of fulfilment of promises from this Government that so many students and persons in education circles were accusing the former Government of. This Government's performance is in enormous contrast to the promises which were irresponsibly made to gain votes and electoral support in the last two elections. The problem is not, as Senator Macklin from the Democrats put it, that there are mini-Budgets, razor gangs or expenditure review committees. From time to time that is a responsible way for governments to make sure that the economy, particularly its own expenditure program, is within the restraints of what the country can afford. I also disagree with Senator Macklin when he said that there was no principled or argued basis for the Fraser Government's amalgamation of higher education institutions or, indeed, for the reforms that we sought at the time for the Curriculum Development Centre. There was an argued basis for those reforms. I am very interested to see in the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission report brought down yesterday for the 1986-87 spending programs recognition that the consolidation that has arisen from those amalgamations of colleges and universities in the Fraser Government period has led to a more rational and efficient use of the money that is available from the public for tertiary education. On the basis of that constructive outcome the Commission is now crying that the only marginal money which has been made available by the present Labor Government is beginning now to be seen as being counterproductive to the overall quality of higher education's provisions for students. My regret about the Curriculum Development Centre decision during the Fraser Government period was that we required 50 per cent of the money for the CDC to come from the States. The States reneged on that offer and I believe that-- Senator Grimes —Do you want to go home on Friday or are you just taking up everybody's time? You are just filibustering. Senator Ryan —You are just filibustering. Senator TEAGUE —Senator Grimes and Senator Ryan say that I am filibustering. They are not happy that I am criticising the lack of initiative by the Labor Government in regard to education. This Government has no ability to do anything other than cut. It has denied the promises to which it committed itself before the last two elections. Senator Grimes and Senator Ryan are also smarting because the Bills which are before us can be rightly described as indicating that this Government is in a rut on education matters. In the five minutes or so remaining to me I want to say that the Curriculum Development Centre proposal that remains-- Senator Grimes —You are the most self-indulgent senator in this place. Everybody else tries to co-operate, but not you. Senator TEAGUE —Senator Grimes continues to object to my ability to speak in this place on education matters. I say to Senator Grimes that the only speeches I am making in this Parliament this week are on these education matters. We have all forgone the ability to speak on many issues. Some 30 different legislative packages are before the Senate this week. As the final speaker on these Bills-there were only three speakers from the Opposition-I will not be sat down by Senator Grimes. The important point I want to make is that the Curriculum Development Centre would have been reformed in the Fraser Government period along the lines about which I was speaking earlier if the Commonwealth had made a 75 per cent or 80 per cent contribution to the costs of that body. The essential reform which was sought and which Liberal senators still seek is that the Curriculum Development Council be a body made up of State representatives, including people from private schools, so that the actual implementers, the persons who actually operate schools, come together in order to gain from a national view of curriculum development and improvements. I believe that it is still wrong that the Commonwealth, which is living in a world of its own and taking a unilateral initiative, chooses the persons who make up the Curriculum Development Council or the Commonwealth Schools Commission. With only some token representatives, as it were, from the State systems-the actual implementers-those bodies manage to develop some quite worthy ideas. But those worthy ideas, in terms of improving education in this country, often remain on a shelf. They are not integrated into the week by week, month by month, year by year programs for which the State departments and the private schools are responsible. That is why I believe that if the Commonwealth injected even some 80 per cent of the cost of that process towards what I would re-call an Australian schools commission and an Australian curriculum development council it would facilitate the coming together of representatives from the States to achieve those programs. I am not quibbling about whether the Schools Commission and the Curriculum Development Council are involved in improving language education. As the initiator of the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts on a national language policy, I am distressed about the way we are proceeding with the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Legislation Amendment Bill when considering the teaching not only of the broad courses of English but also English as a second language; the various community language programs; the needs of Aboriginal schools curriculum; the improved presentation of maths curricula; the best methods of teaching children in primary schools how to read, where there have been recent reports of disquiet amongst educators that we do not have assured, stable foundations for methodology; the many worthy programs in special education developed by the Commonwealth Schools Commission; the country schools program, which takes account of the special needs of country children because they are remote from cities and do not have the same general access to advantages; and even when considering the priority projects. In all of these, in general, worthy matters I am distressed about the way we are proceeding with the Bill. I am concerned about the whole structure and fabric of the Commonwealth's involvement in schools. Often worthy curriculum ideas are left on the shelf and are not implemented because they are developed by an unhinged Commonwealth body, a body which is not sufficiently integrated with the implementers of curriculum and schools programs in the States. It is in this respect that I believe we need to look fundamentally at the structures of the Commonwealth's involvement in schools. While the Commonwealth Schools Commission has been involved mostly in resources distribution, as well as in these national initiatives, including curriculum development, it also ought to be involved more directly in the interface of teacher education, that is, with teachers in schools, and with staff development programs. This is an area for which the present Government has made less provision and in which it has introduced real cuts. Given the Commonwealth's fundamental responsibility for higher education, including its responsibility for teachers in training, there ought to be a deliberate priority to see how Commonwealth initiatives can assist teacher education and staff development generally to be more applicable to the actual needs of schools. I put it to the Senate that when debating these Bills every six months, we should not just accept that the mechanism for passing money on for schools assistance through the States should remain in a rut, without initiative, and without considering the problems of duplication and good work remaining unapplied. Rather we should consider what the fundamental approach ought to be. Under the Education Council, which is the council of all State Ministers and in which the Commonwealth Minister has a primary role, there ought to be an Australian schools commission. The curriculum initiatives I have been speaking of would thereby be entirely the responsibility not of the Commonwealth Minister but much more directly of the State Ministers and the implementers of programs in the States. We should not continue year by year to see Bills introduced in this form which only repeat a process that I believe is not serving Australian schools. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(10.35) — The Senate is debating three cross-supplementation education Bills-the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill 1985, the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1985 and the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Legislation Amendment Bill 1985. These Bills are presented automatically at this time of the year to fulfil the Government's undertaking to give indexation and cross-supplementation on the full range of Commonwealth education programs. Although the Government recognises that these Bills provide an opportunity for senators to make general remarks about education, I must place on record some correction to some of the misapprehensions that Senator Teague, the last honourable senator to speak on the Opposition side, seems to be under. Senator Teague asked why there was not anything new, different, original, creative or exciting in the cross-supplementation Bills and seemed to suggest that it was very boring for the Government to introduce supplementation to the full range of its programs. That sort of questioning suggests that Senator Teague really does not understand the process of supplementing expenditures in the area of education. The answer to Senator Teague's question is that the whole range of Commonwealth programs-the ongoing programs, the innovative programs and the creative programs-are all receiving supplementation under this package of Bills. These Bills simply add to the money already allocated for the full gamut of Commonwealth programs. I do not intend to take up the time of the Senate pointing out what those programs are. The Commonwealth Schools Commission, the Curriculum Development Centre Council, the Tertiary Education Commission and various other areas in my portfolio continually issue reports and accounts of programs that the Commonwealth is engaged in. If Senator Teague addressed himself to those programs he would find that all of the areas he nominated during the course of his remarks-Aboriginal education, mathematics education and education for multicultural societies-are being addressed through a range of programs across the portfolio. Senator Teague would find no lack of innovation, regeneration, new ideas and the continuation of successful old ideas were he to address himself to the program that these funds are devoted to. Senator Teague also seemed to think that there was some lack of participation by State and school authorities in the work of the Commonwealth Schools Commission. Again, this shows that Senator Teague is not familiar with the way that the Commission operates or with the way that the Curriculum Development Centre Council operates. Rather than give Senator Teague a lesson in these matters, I again suggest that he avail himself of the information coming from these agencies of the Commonwealth or perhaps arrange to speak to some of the very helpful departmental officers here on my left who would be very able to set his mind at rest with regard to the extent of co-operation we have established with State agencies, non-government schools authorities, experts, community and union representatives and the full range of interest groups in the community who concern themselves with the implementation of education. During the course of his remarks Senator Peter Baume wanted me to admit in reply that there had been a cut to the participation and equity program. I will not say that I am happy to admit it because I think every senator in this place knows that I am far from happy that the Government found it necessary to make such a cut. There has been a cut in the sense that the amount appropriated for 1986 is to be halved. There will be in the vicinity of $40m rather than $80m spent on this program next year. That is half what we originally intended to spend next year. In that sense, if Senator Baume wants me to describe it as a cut, I will not argue with him. However, what needs to be said to give the full picture is that the remainder of the money, the other $40m, will be appropriated in the following year so that over a four- year period the level of funds going into the participation and equity program will be as originally intended. Senator Peter Baume —Tell that to the people in the sector. Senator RYAN —Since Senator Baume sought it, I am making this correction for his benefit. He wants me to use the word 'cut', and if it will satisfy him I will use the word 'cut'. Obviously the program has been cut back from the way we originally intended to fund it. The overall amount of funding going into the program will be as originally intended but the funds will be spread over four years instead of three years. As we will have numerous opportunities to debate this matter further, I will not take up the time of the Senate now. There are some points to be made in reply to both Senator Baume and Senator Macklin, who commented last evening about the extent of unmet demand in higher education. Let me be quite clear, there is unmet demand in higher education and the Commonwealth is doing what it can to ease that unmet demand. However, the unmet demand is not at the level claimed by Senator Baume and Senator Macklin in the debate last night. They claimed-I am not quite sure which honourable senator made the specific claim-that the estimate for unmet demand for higher education in 1985 was in the vicinity of 30,000 places. This is not the case. I draw honourable senators' attention to the supplementary report of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission tabled in the Senate yesterday. That report, which has the most up to date assessment of the unmet demand, puts it at the level of 10,000 places. Again, I am not happy that we have a shortfall of that extent. Certainly, I would not claim that that is a satisfactory state of affairs and that there is no need for the Commonwealth to take further action. There clearly is. However, if we are to be successful and effective in securing additional funds for tertiary education, our arguments need to be based on facts and not on a very extravagant embroidering of those facts. It is also the case, of course, that there has been a considerable increase in the number of tertiary places provided since the Hawke Government came to office. For 1985-87 there will be an increase of 15,000 places on 1984 levels. In fact, the Government has provided for an enrolment growth by 1987 of some 23,000 places on 1983 levels. This is a quite dramatic increase in numbers compared to the previous situation and ought to be recognised as such. It will be my intention to seek further funding to meet some of that unmet demand. However, it is only right and fair that the dramatic increase in the number of places available under our Government be acknowledged in the course of these debates. In regard to academic and non-academic jobs within higher education, obviously, as a result of the increased funding we have been able to make available, there will be increases in employment opportunities for both academics and general staff within institutions. Those increases, which will mean some 2,500 new jobs by 1987, constitute the first significant increase in academic jobs since the Commission was established in 1977. Because of the tenor of the debate last evening, I think I should place on record the fact that during the previous Government's term in office funding for the higher education sector was actually cut by 5 per cent in real terms between 1977 and 1983, despite the fact that enrolments increased over the same period by more than 46,000. What I can say in summing up is that the funds our Government has been able to devote to higher education and to schools education represent a considerable increase on what had happened under the previous Administration. It is certainly the case that there are unmet demands. It is certainly the case that there are areas, particularly in schools, in which the quality of education is a matter of concern, and it is one which we are addressing. Again I remind Senator Teague, who was interested to know what approach the Government was going to take in regard to this matter, that the Government now has under consideration the report of the Karmel Quality of Education Review Committee. I hope to make that report available in the next couple of weeks. I am sure Senator Teague and other honourable senators who take an interest in education will find that a useful basis for further discussion and debate about ways of ensuring that the Commonwealth's contribution to education is one which achieves improved outcomes in terms of quality and not simply improved resources in terms of greater input. The Bills are not contentious. As I said, they are merely cost supplementation Bills. There will be further opportunities in this place for more general debates on education matters, so at this point I commend the legislation to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time. The Bills. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(10.45) — Clause 6 of the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill amends section 31 of the principal Act to include the Chairman of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission in those to whom the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) may delegate powers. I ask the Minister: Is this to facilitate directly what no doubt was foreshadowed by the Chairman in yesterday's Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission report, particularly the recommendations regarding technical and further education, that Mr Hudson be appointed to convene an inquiry into the fundamentals of TAFE, and the Commonwealth's contribution to TAFE? The report of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission calls for Mr Hudson to look at the effectiveness of existing Commonwealth TAFE grants, the appropriate role of the Commonwealth, the extent of accountability which the States should provide to the Commonwealth and the ability of TAFE to meet strategic national goals. I agree with the need for those four assessments to be made. I am only asking: Does this clause specifically empower, by delegation, Mr Hudson as Chairman to become involved in the participation and equity program aspects of TAFE in regard to that foreshadowed review? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(10.47) —The answer to Senator Teague's question is no. This provision does not specifically involve Mr Hudson as Chairman of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission in any particular review. However, what it does is bring this legislation in line with the States grants Acts which enable me, as Minister, to delegate either to a full time commissioner or to a chairman. In respect of the participation and equity program, this situation will now prevail. The Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission has been involved in the participation and equity program all along because about half of the funds go through technical and further education and are distributed on recommendations of the Technical and Further Education Council. Therefore, there has been a role for the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission. Although it may well be that what Senator Teague expects will eventuate, that is, that Mr Hudson may become more involved in this program, it would not be specifically as a result of this. This clause simply enables delegations from me to the Chairman as well as a full time commissioner in the same way as the States Grants (Schools Assistance) and the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Acts already provide. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(10.48) —In summary, is this virtually just an oversight; it gives more flexibility in such delegations? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(10.48) —Yes. Bills agreed to. Bills reported without amendment; report adopted. Bills (on motion by Senator Ryan) read a third time. Debate resumed from 27 May, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(10.50) —The Conciliation and Arbitration (Electricity Industry) Bill 1985 is a disgraceful Bill. It sets out in stark relief the reality of the Hawke Government's perception of its own accountability. It perceives itself as accountable to the trade union movement, not to the people of Australia. Clearly, the people of Australia have not yet gained a perception of the enormity and disgrace of this piece of legislation. It will be our job today, in the course of this debate, to make it clearer to the Australian people what this Government is trying to perpetrate upon them. It is not simply an attack upon the State of Queensland; it is an attack upon the rights of all Australians. It is that which we will have to face. Central to the debate on this Bill is the issue of accountability. First and foremost, the accountability of the trade unions; secondly, the accountability of employers; and thirdly, the accountability of governments. However, if this Bill is passed it will eliminate accountability in each of those areas within the electricity industry. Unions will no longer be accountable to either State industrial commissions or their State communities. State governments will no longer be accountable for industrial relations within their borders for the operation of their own electricity authorities. This legislation clearly reveals the craven submission of the Hawke socialist Government to the trade union movement. This Bill clearly reveals that the famous accord between the Hawke socialist Government and the trade union movement is a dual-edged sword. Not only does it purport to enable the Government to check wage growth-the reality of that situation is very questionable as we are seeing every day-but it also enables the union movement to make demands upon the Government in return for support for the accord. The fact that the Hawke Labor Government is prepared to go as far as it has in proposing this legislation clearly illustrates just how beholden it is to the trade union movement, particularly expressed through the Australian Council of Trade Unions. This legislation clearly indicates that this Government has taken the old adage of government of the people, by the people, for the people and rewritten it to mean government of the unions, by the unions, for the unions. The Conciliation and Arbitration (Electricity Industry) Bill which we are debating today will-- Senator Grimes —Gee, you're good, Tony! Senator MESSNER —I am glad that the Minister recognises that at last. This Bill relies on a very liberal interpretation of the Commonwealth's industrial powers as set out in the Constitution. Section 51, placitum (xxxv)-I will read it for the benefit of Senator Ray-states: The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:-- . . . . . . . . . Conciliation and arbitration for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes extending beyond the limits of any one State: Clearly, the Queensland industrial dispute does not literally fall within the ambit of that section. It is a State industrial dispute. However, by serving a fictitious, artificial log of claims in another State, the Electrical Trades Union of Australia has created a paper dispute, which has allowed the Hawke Government to take this step today. Senator Childs —Every dispute under the Act is a paper dispute. Senator MESSNER —Senator Childs intervenes, but he knows very well that this is a procedure which is called into play so often-a paper way of creating a dispute across State borders. He knows that. Yet we have Senator Walsh in this place every day claiming that paper taxation agreements should be wiped out and that if they are upheld by the High Court of Australia, the High Court is wrong. If the same point is taken against these types of paper arrangements, no action against them is considered to be inviolate. That is absolutely outrageous. The double standards of this Government are quite plain for all to see these days, and they are growing more and more. There is little doubt that section 51, sub-section (XXXV) was not intended by those who drafted the Constitution to cover this kind of manipulation of the legal system. It is deplorable that a Labor government and the unions can conspire to take action which ignores the spirit of the Constitution and seeks to override legitimate State interests. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) said in his second reading speech: From the outset the Government expressed its strong opposition to this industrial campaign. A study of the Minister's answers to questions in the House of Representatives on that matter does not in any way support that statement. Time and again Mr Willis was asked by the Opposition to state the Government's position on the industrial action and the subsequent blockade in Queensland. Each time he took the opportunity to criticise harshly the Queensland Government, which was acting within its constitutional powers. Never once did he express strong opposition to the outrageous industrial campaign of the ETU. By his lack of condemnation of that action he could be seen to be supporting the campaign, rather than opposing it. In his second reading speech the Minister provided a background to the Queensland dispute. He did that purportedly to allow judgment to be made of the Queensland Government's handling of the dispute. What followed then was either an attempt to rewrite history, which this Government appears to be doing in the whole area of industrial relations, or merely a substantiation of what Oscar Wilde once said about history-that it was all gossip. Clearly, the one-sided account is favourable to the Hawke Government and unfavourable to the Queensland Government. That is the cheap politics of this Bill. There are just two points on which the Opposition agrees with the Government in relation to this matter. Those are: First, that the original dispute developed from a long-standing disagreement between the power unions and the South East Queensland Electricity Board over the use of contract labour by the Board; secondly, that late last year the ETU placed a ban upon work performed by contractors employed by SEQEB. Those are the only two points-and they are points of fact-upon which we have agreement with this Government. In the course of his remarks in his second reading speech, the Minister did not state the other facts of this matter. He did not say that the dispute arose over the issue of whether the SEQEB had the right to organise its work force and its work programs so as to achieve the greatest efficiency possible in the provision of electricity for the consumers of Queensland. Obviously that was an objective of great potential benefit to the people of Queensland. The cheaper the electricity in that State, the better the economy of that State. Conveniently, also, the Minister did not state that no job-not one job-was at threat as a result of the proposal put down by the SEQEB. Not one job was at stake. The Queensland Government's action provided extra benefits for all the people of Queensland by way of the provision of electricity. This Bill stands to make electricity in Queensland more expensive. The Commonwealth Government would rather have that, apparently. In an attempt to gain monopolistic control of the workers in the industry, the Electrical Trades Union took exception to the authority's right to use contract labour. Over the following three months the union rejected no fewer than six recommendations and three orders of the Queensland Industrial Commission to resume work. The union urged its workers to defy the Industrial Commission's rulings and engage in illegal industrial blackmail to threaten the whole electricity generation systems in Queensland. The prolonged power blackouts caused by the union resulted in hundreds of thousands of people being thrown out of work, threatened the continued viability of small businesses throughout the State and caused major disruptions to the whole industrial fabric of the State. The Minister in his second reading speech in the other place attempted to lay blame on the Queensland Government for this state of affairs, when it clearly resulted directly from the illegal industrial blackmail of the union itself. What was the union trying to do? It was trying to gain undemocratic monopoly control of the workers of the industry. The reverse of the Minister's statement is in fact the real case. Rather than causing the dispute, it was the Queensland Government which solved the dispute. The prevailing industrial anarchy which was then in place as a result of the unions having taken their action was resolved and Queensland's electrical power was restored by the action of the Government of the State of Queensland. Responsible workers from the electricity board returned to work, sacked workers were provided with the opportunity to re-apply for jobs, and many did so. Queensland has had its power supply assured and safeguarded by a government which is prepared to take action and to continue to safeguard that supply. Following the resolution of the dispute and the restoration of power supplies came the next black phase in this saga. The Australian Council of Trade Unions, in the fastness of Melbourne, decided that it would conduct a blockade against the State of Queensland. It imposed bans on the handling of mail by employees of the Australian Postal Commission. Trans Australia Airlines and other airlines halted their services to Queensland, as did shipping and other transport operators. This action was taken because the ACTU and the unions involved in the blockade were outraged at the action of the Queensland Government which assured power supplies to Queensland and put the trade union in its place. The ACTU did not stop at a blockade, but also drew up a disgraceful hit list of companies which were subjected to special persecution by the union movement. Those companies were being singled out merely because they were operating within the State of Queensland. That is the kind of bully boy tactics which we see and with which Government members are so familiar. The Queensland Government did not set aside the interests of its 2,500,000 residents and did not back down in the face of that industrial blackmail. It stood firm and truly represented the best interests of the people of Queensland. Thus, so far as the union movement was concerned, the dispute was an absolute stalemate, there was little hope for further action by unions to shift the Queensland Government, and the unions were so locked into an impossible position that they had to be extricated from it. They could seek a general strike or they could simply issue an order to Bob Hawke to fix it for them. Clearly, because the Australian Labor Party is so beholden to the trade union movement, the latter course would have produced an automatic response in favour of the unions. Like a puppet on a string, the Government danced to the tune of the ACTU; hence this legislation today. This Bill, which seeks to hand over to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission power to deal with industrial matters, relates to the Queensland electrical industry, not the national industry. The real motive behind this legislation is an attack on Queensland. It is an extension of the trade unions' action in blockading the State of Queensland. It is not a way of solving the problems of that State; it is a way of increasing the problems for the people of Queensland. This intervention, which some might describe as divine, certainly was not unexpected by the union movement. The ACTU clearly had a large part to play in both the drafting of the legislation and calling a halt-- Senator Robert Ray —Where is your evidence for that? Senator MESSNER —I will come to that in a moment. The ACTU also had a part to play in calling a halt to the blockade, which had already proven so worthless and so hopeless. The reason why it was worthless is that the people of Queensland were behind the State Government in taking the action that it did over this dispute. Senator Robert Ray asked me for evidence that the union movement had some part to play in the drafting of the legislation. This was reported in the Australian of 16 May, where it was stated that Ian Court-who I believe is the negotiating head or whatever of the ACTU on this matter-checked the Bill a week before it was presented to Parliament. Senator Robert Ray —He didn't draw it up, did he? Senator MESSNER —Come on! This only further exemplifies the ties that this Government has with the union movement and the fact that it is always willing to place the interests of the trade union movement ahead of the people of Australia. The lead-up to and the style of this Government's handling of the introduction of this legislation are reminiscent of Hawke's pattern when he was President of the ACTU. We all remember how he used to charge in and bludgeon the community into accepting union demands while he was President of the ACTU. He has done it again today by this extension of union power and by using the Parliament in such a disgraceful manner. On this occasion the heavy-handed style of the Government's actions which favour one side will achieve little except more problems in Queensland and more bitterness in Queensland. Yet this comes from the man who was to bring Australia together. Senator Chaney —He can't even bring the Labor Party together. Senator MESSNER —As Senator Chaney has said, he cannot even bring the Labor Party together. We know how the Labor Party is split into four parts. The Labor Party continues to parade itself as the Australian Labor Party when it is nothing more than a coalition of four separate parties, all split even within themselves. In presenting this legislation the Minister has also willingly, but wrongly, raised the expectations of the unemployed workers of the South East Queensland Electricity Board. The Ministers, in touting this Bill, suggested that it would be the saviour of the former linesmen. Senator Robert Ray —Listen to the lobotomy lobby. Senator MESSNER —I would like Government senators to listen because they probably have been misled by their Ministers on this. It is simply not the case that Queensland linesmen will have their jobs guaranteed by this legislation. The reason for that is quite simple: The Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission simply does not have any power to reinstate workers and this Bill will not give it any power to do so. An absolute fraud is being perpetrated on the poor, unfortunate, unemployed workers in Queensland, who are being told that this Bill somehow will fix their problems. It will not. I understand that the Bill will be passed because the Australian Democrats apparently are supporting this nonsense. It is typical of the Democrats that they have no concern for the real interests of the community but only for those sectional interests from which they are trying to gather together support for the next election. Senator Grimes —You don't seem to like them very much. Senator MESSNER —I have noticed that Senator Grimes does not have much feeling for them, either. Senator Jack Evans —We have got you all worried. Senator MESSNER —We are worried? I will now sum up the main points of objection to this legislation. This Bill represents a gross intrusion into the rights of Queensland to secure its own constitutionally sound solutions in the industrial relations area. We can see that quite clearly, and I think I have demonstrated that perfectly well today. Senator Hill —Hear, hear! Senator MESSNER —Thank you very much. This Bill has been conceived by the Government to secure a face-saving solution for the ACTU, which has been pursuing actions with very little grass roots support. That has been evidenced by the overwhelming support for the Queensland Government. I believe a gallup poll showed something like 80 per cent support for the Queensland Government's actions, and that support has been confirmed time and time again by our own personal connections with people in that State. The Australian Democrats will support this legislation because they have received two assurances from the ACTU. The first is that the unions will accept the outcome of arbitration. How often do they ever do that? In the course of arbitration already conducted in Queensland, six times they would not accept the outcome, and they refused to obey a further three orders made by the courts in Queensland. How can we accept their assurances? We cannot. The Democrats, of course, can accept anything that gets them off some kind of hook. The second assurance they have been given is that the arbitration and conciliation will proceed without further industrial action. I suppose we have to accept that the Democrats are naive, but in fact it is absolutely stupid for them to accept that point of view. Obviously they have a very narrow set of views on this whole matter. The Democrats are concerned only, apparently, with winning what they believe to be fringe voters in Queensland. They are prepared to deny the rights of all other Australians by allowing this legislation to pass the Parliament, in order to gather up a few crumbs of votes in Queensland. Senator Jack Evans —From the trade unions? Come on, be realistic. Senator MESSNER —Senator Evans knows what I am talking about. The Democrats are prepared to put at risk the affairs of all Australians, and that is something they ought now to contemplate before they vote on this legislation. I hope they will. Senator Childs —Tell us who the fringe voters are. Senator MESSNER —Senator Georges knows all about them; perhaps Senator Childs should discuss it with him. Like the Australian Labor Party, the Democrats are taking the unions' side and, of course, the unions' word on this. It is not just a simple nudge nudge, wink wink type of relationship. They are submitting abjectly to the power of the trade union movement. The Democrats join with Government senators in doing that. Perhaps the Democrats ought to have some regard for the views of one of their senior members, Mr Lance Milne, who is a Democrat member of the Legislative Council in South Australia. He differs from many Democrats. He is not one of your armchair debaters. At least he has had very long and considerable experience in the business world. He is a chartered accountant and, therefore, has a great deal of experience in these matters. The Canberra Times of 27 May reports that he said: The continued push towards Federal awards is fine for New South Wales and Victoria but it is gradually dismantling the industrial base of the smaller States. I believe that is a very sound summary of what this legislation is all about. It is about dismantling the industrial bases of the smaller States. I see that that strikes home amongst Government senators. Senator Elstob, Senator Aulich, Senator Foreman and even Senator McKiernan and Senator Maguire who are from the smaller States know that that is right. They should be on their feet today claiming that there has been an attack on their States' interests. Where are they? They have cravenly submitted to the power of the trade union movement. We do not expect to see them stand up for their States. We do not expect to see him stand up for South Australia, Tasmania or Western Australia, and not at all for Queensland. Senator Colston will not stand up for Queensland. All they are going to do is to fall into line when the trade unions call the tune. That is where they stand. That is what this legislation is about. We commend to all the Democrats Mr Lance Milne's words. Senator Jack Evans is leaving this place on 30 June. Perhaps he does not care any more about what is going to happen to the rest of Australia. Perhaps it is not in his interests even to contemplate that. All he is concerned about is gathering some kind of reputation among some kinds of voters at the next election. Senator Jack Evans —I raise a point of order. Mr Acting Deputy President, I put it to you that the honourable senator is attributing disreputable reasons for my stance on this position. I ask you to have him withdraw that allegation. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Townley) —Order! There is no point of order. I call Senator Messner. Senator MESSNER —I conclude by imploring the Democrats to reconsider their position. I ask them very sincerely to consider the words of their famous leader, Mr Lance Milne, in South Australia, who is well known in the South Australian business community and, indeed, has connections right across the length and breadth of the industrial structure of Australia. He knows what he is talking about. Senator Elstob —Who, John? Senator MESSNER —Mr Lance Milne in South Australia, who says that this legislation will destroy the industrial bases of the smaller States. Senator Evans and his Party can do something about that. If they refuse to do something about it today they stand condemned by the people of Australia for their inaction in seeking to preserve the rights of all Australians which this outrageous piece of legislation is seeking to destroy. Senator COLSTON(Queensland) —Mr Acting Deputy President, I claim to have been misrepresented. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Does the honourable senator seek leave to make a personal explanation? Senator COLSTON —Yes. Leave granted. Senator Walters —Dear, oh dear. Senator COLSTON —The mouth from the south is at it again. Senator Messner, during his speech, stated quite clearly words to the effect that I would not stand up for Queensland. That is absolute rot. I have been here for as long as has Senator Messner. I have represented the State of Queensland. Like him, I have been re-elected from time to time. I have been re-elected because I represent Queensland. The statement that he made is totally incorrect. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I call Senator Georges and I trust that he will be heard in the quiet in which Senator Messner was heard. Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(11.20) — I do not care if I am not so heard because no interjection from the other side is likely to confuse me. Before I commence my remarks in support of the Conciliation and Arbitration (Electricity Industry) Bill 1985, I wish to comment on the speech made by Senator Messner. This legislation before us involves a serious matter. It concerns the livelihood of many people. Senator Messner managed to reduce it to a charade, possibly because, in fairness to Senator Messner, he does not properly understand either the purpose of the legislation or the situation existing in Queensland. It would have been better for the Opposition's case if he had not entered into the debate. I have been very close to the events that have occurred recently in Queensland and in a way have suffered the penalty of the legislation which has been imposed upon not only the workers in the industrial movement and the electricity industry but also all other Queenslanders. What has occurred in Queensland because of an industrial dispute is a gross over-reaction which will have far-reaching consequences for the industrial and conciliation institutions of Australia. The purpose of this legislation is to take out of the Queensland arena and away from the Queensland legislation those workers who have been seriously disadvantaged. I do not say that the legislation is the best legislation that we could have, but it is the only way in which the situation in Queensland can be met without further confrontation. Once we get out of the-shall I term it-exaggerations that developed during the dispute, once we get past the confrontation of an industrial dispute, we get to the point where the parties have to consider coming together in a conference, to forget the errors on both sides and to come to a solution which is to the benefit not only of the parties concerned but of all of the people of the State concerned. That is not what has happened. What has happened in Queensland has been the passing through the Queensland Parliament of legislation which on even the scantest scrutiny is horrific. It imposes upon those who work within the electricity industry conditions which no reasonable person would be prepared to accept. It has forced people in the industry to return to work under conditions that can be described only as disgraceful. Many men who have found themselves in intolerable economic conditions have had to go back to work, against their will and against the opposition of their fellow workers, and accept conditions that are considerably worse than the conditions under which they were previously employed. That was a punishment that was inflicted upon them as a condition of their returning to work. I, and many other Queenslanders, in spite of what Senator Messner says, find that very difficult to accept. The legislation was passed through a parliament which, in effect, has become an institution that we recognise as not having a Westminster system but a one-party system inflicted upon the people of Queensland by an electoral system which reinforces the National Party of Australia, which is in government with the support of a couple of renegade Liberals. Legislation which is at the base of this dispute, this confrontation, which this legislation seeks to solve, was forced through the Queensland Parliament in a few hours. It would not have been necessary to bring down this legislation if the Bjelke-Petersen Government had decided to confer, as recommended by its own Industrial Commission, whose advice it rejected. It set up another tribunal so that it would not have to submit to the determination of that Commission which recommended a return to work. If it were not for the Bjelke-Petersen Government changing the rules, that Commission could have ordered a reinstatement. I have spoken about the men who found it necessary to go back under those conditions, but let me now talk about the men who have been displaced. There are still 800 men-800 families-who are the victims of the failure of the Queensland Government to-- Senator Walters —They can go back tomorrow. Senator GEORGES —I am sorry; they cannot go back tomorrow, and I will explain why in a moment. If the Government had been prepared to come to the conference table many problems would have been solved. Let us look at the method of dismissal of these men and its consequences to them all. I am not talking about a few of them; I am talking about all the men who suffered as a result of this confrontation in Queensland. They were dismissed and not one of the privileges to which they were entitled flowed to them due to the nature of their dismissal. They were men who had worked in the industry for 19 years; some for longer, and some who were a mere six months away from retirement. They had given all their skills and, if I might say so, all their loyalty to that industry because it was, until this point, a good and well run industry and one equal to any in Australia. But those men lost up to $80,000 or $100,000 and any entitlements were stripped from them without any consideration. The ruthless Premier of Queensland said: 'That is your fault. That is it; finish; no chance; no reconciliation; no consideration and no reinstatement'. When we look at this dispute we begin to suspect the motives behind it because the Queensland Government, on the advice of one Wayne Gilbert, the Manager of the South East Queensland Electricity Board, reorganised SEQEB's work force at the expense of its employees. The dispute started well before January of this year; it goes back to last year. I am not certain whether the role of the Electrical Trades Union of Australia in this is one that can at all times be supported, nevertheless the arrangement was that some level of contract labour would be acceptable-one per cent of the budget. That was understandable because in an industry such as the electricity industry, and some other industries, certain peaks are reached momentarily and have to be dealt with but as they are not permanent arrangements some level of contract labour is acceptable, and I believe the agreement in this case was one per cent. It is fairly obvious that Mr Gilbert had other arrangements. He had in mind the restructuring of the whole industry based on a substantial level of contract labour. This is an industry that needs extreme skill and care, because it is a dangerous industry. Care and consideration are needed in maintaining it. Mr Gilbert therefore seized upon the first opportunity, as did the Government, to thrash the ETU and to reorganise the work force. I return to Senator Walters's interjection that the workers could go back if they wished to. One of the first things I did when I became involved, well after the dispute, was to go to see the Electricity Commissioner in Queensland. I made an appointment on behalf of Queensland senators. He said that he was not prepared to see a delegation-that it would have to go to the Minister-but that he was prepared to see me, a person who had been employed in the electricity industry before becoming a member of parliament. I knew many of the men who worked in the Commission. I spent half an hour with Mr Galway and we discussed all these matters concerning reinstatement. He said: 'There is no longer any place for any more men. We have sufficient. It has been the policy of the SEQEB for some time to increase the level of contract labour'. He said: 'One hundred and sixty seven men have returned of their own volition and have been employed under the conditions that we have set'. They signed a statutory declaration and did a number of other things and accepted less favourable conditions. He said that there were 160 new employees, that some 200 contractors had been employed by the Commission and that some 400 workers had not been originally affected by the dispute. So in effect the Commission had virtually 1,000 employees, 400 below what I considered to be the work force necessary to maintain the system effectively and safely in Queensland. I asked whether there was any chance of reinstating the men and he said that he could not see it. I asked: 'How about the contractors?'. It was at that stage that he told me that the SEQEB had for some time had a policy of increasing the number of contractors and that he could not see how that could be changed. So, in effect, there were no jobs left for the 800 men still affected. Let me get back to the fact that the SEQEB this year will be able to balance its books using the $15m to $20m of superannuation payments made by the employer which should have flowed to the employees but did not. When we consider the enormity of that we see that it was time for some conference, some conciliation, but the answer from the Premier's Department was: 'Not on'. I spoke to Mr Lester, the Minister who is responsible for this area. Let me talk to honourable senators about Mr Lester. I have had experience with Mr Lester before. His electorate includes Moranbah. The coal miners had a dispute in Moranbah concerning rental subsidies. It was a major dispute. The coal miners were out for 11 weeks and Mr Lester was on their side. I was asked to go to Moranbah to address a meeting and to take part in a march at Moranbah when marches of that sort were prohibited in Queensland. As I marched down the street in Moranbah I looked around and saw a person about my size, with hair the same length as mine and wearing a hat, which I do not. I asked: 'Who is that?'. I was told that it was Mr Lester. Mr Lester, the Minister who is taking such a harsh position against these workers, at that time was prepared to march in an illegal march in Moranbah in support of the coal miners. I asked him how he could reconcile the two positions. He said: 'It's different'. But the circumstances are not different; they are exactly the same. Senator Sheil —He had a permit. Senator GEORGES —There was no permit; I know. There was no permit at the time. One did not have to have a permit in Moranbah. The only place in which one had to have a permit to march, to breathe or to amplify one's voice, was Brisbane. If one did not have a permit to do those things there, one was arrested-as people were arrested recently in Brisbane for amplifying their voices. This is the situation that exists in Queensland. For amplifying one's voice, one is arrested and put in a watch-house. Under the system of justice in Queensland, the bail money exacted for that offence was $600. By comparison, the person next in line for bail and release was on a drunk and disorderly charge, and he got away with bail of 10c. One starts thinking that one is dealing with cuckoo-land. Perhaps that is how it should be described. Let me get back to the draconian legislation which this Bill seeks to avoid. I know that serious objection will be taken to this Bill. But it is the only way in which trade unionists in Queensland can escape the consequences of the Acts that were imposed by the National Party Government in Queensland. This Bill will bring all workers in the electricity industry throughout Queensland under Federal awards and allow them to escape the draconian provisions of the State legislation. That is what it is about. Senator Messner is correct. It does not reinstate the workers. That injustice will persist. Unless there is consultation, reasonable advice and reasonable recommendation coming from a source outside Queensland, we will have continuing disputation. My view is that the men concerned ought to be reinstated. If they are not reinstated, they should receive some equity-not be destroyed in a machiavellian way by the ruthless Premier of Queensland. That is what he has done. He has crushed these people completely and ruthlessly, and it appears they may not have any escape unless the whole of the trade union movement in Australia comes to their defence. That is what the blockade was all about. It was to expose the iniquities of the Queensland Act. It was to try to get justice for 800 workers-no matter who is considered to have been at fault originally. I found it reprehensible that in Queensland I could not go into a depot leading a delegation without being under the threat of arrest. I said that the first person I spoke to was the Electricity Commissioner. The next person I spoke to was the area engineer on the Gold Coast. I went there; there was a picket outside; I went into the depot and the engineer and I talked for some time. He expressed the opinion that his best men were out and said that the policy was that he had to do without them. While I was there the police came in and said: 'Look, there are picketers outside. Now, provided that they just stand there with their placards and say nothing, do nothing aggressively, we are prepared to allow them to stand'. I went out and I spoke to those picketers and said: 'The police recognise your right to picket but do not do anything like obstructing traffic in and out of the depot. Just express your opinion by way of placards and the police will just stand by'. They did that. The next day the Premier of Queensland matted the Commissioner of Police and his deputy and said: 'You have got to impose the conditions of the Act'-which says that people cannot gather anywhere or stand anywhere in such a way that it could be considered or calculated to harass a SEQEB worker. From that point the arrests started. It was after the Premier said to the Commissioner 'Impose the Act' that the police reluctantly imposed it and the arrests began. Senator Elstob —Hitler started in the same way. Senator GEORGES —Yes. When one considers how fascism emerged, one could say that it emerged in the same manner. It is not properly realised that defending certain decisions can eventually lead to extreme positions. That is what we have to be very careful about and that is why we have very considerable concern about what is happening in Queensland. I was arrested on three occasions. I consider those arrests to have caused a breach of my responsibilities as a member of parliament. I searched various Acts to find out whether my actions were covered. Strangely enough, they were not covered federally; they were covered by State law. Section 45 of the Queensland Criminal Code provides: It is lawful for any person to act in good faith to call for the removal of matters which are producing or have a tendency to produce feelings of ill-will or enmity between different classes of Her Majesty's subjects. That is a section of Bjelke's criminal code. The only time I was not arrested for taking a delegation or being on a picket was when the police were informed of that section. Wayne Gilbert, the General Manager of SEQEB, objected to my seeing the depot engineer, Mr Argent, whom I had known for some time, and who was the area engineer for the northern section. I took a delegation to see him. He saw only me and not the rest of the delegation. What did I discuss with him? We discussed the reinstatement of former employees of the South East Queensland Electricity Board and the reimbursement of those employees' superannuation contributions. I reminded him of some other matters. I was not harassing him, though under the Queensland Act it could be termed harassment. I said to him: 'Some of the men who are out of work are sons of men whom you have worked with; in fact, men who trained you as a young engineer'. Some of the sons of the men who had entered the industry were affected and had no chance of getting their jobs back. They have less chance if they attend a picket, are part of a picket or do anything else against the Queensland Act because a security officer goes around taking the numbers of the cars belonging to everyone on a picket. He takes photographs of people on pickets. The intention is that those people will never be employed again. I mentioned to Mr Argent that a couple of the people on the pickets were sons of former employees with whom he had worked. What did Mr Gilbert have to say to me? He said: You are hereby advised, in the clearest terms that any matter of inquiry by any person relating to any former employee of THE SOUTH EAST QUEENSLAND ELECTRICITY BOARD can only be made directly to the General Manager of THE SOUTH EAST QUEENSLAND ELECTRICITY BOARD or a person nominated by him, at the Head Office . . . Accordingly, such an inquiry cannot be made to, or, through, any person attached to any depot or any other establishment of THE SOUTH EAST QUEENSLAND ELECTRICITY BOARD. Because of your declared responsibilities to your constituents as a Senator of the State of Queensland I require you, in accordance with such responsibilities, to suitably advise all of your constituents in the terms of the advices contained in this communication. That letter came from the man who is responsible for the management of SEQEB. I lay at his feet the blame for the situation in Queensland because he thinks he is smart enough to run the system in Queensland on the cheap. That system cannot be run on the cheap, by contract labour. It cannot expose itself to all the weaknesses of contract labour, which in the short term may be cheaper but in the long term is highly dangerous. Mr Gilbert has exposed the present workers of SEQEB to highly dangerous situations. I give an example. A linesman takes at least a year to train. As well he takes associated correspondence courses and is gradually introduced into dangerous situations. Mr Gilbert expects to train people in a crash course of three weeks for this highly dangerous work and to expose to this highly dangerous work contractors who have not the experience. The system will run down. Unfortunately, that will not happen immediately. It takes maybe two or three years for the lines to become slack because they were not properly prepared, for houses to become dangerous because periodic inspections are not carried out and the earthings inspected. The errors of the Wayne Gilbert approach will not be evident for another five or six years. In the meantime, all these errors have been imposed and the people who are suffering most are the people who are still out of work. This legislation will ensure that conferences take place. There is no doubt that it will lead parties to the conference table. The Queensland Government will not be able to avoid going to the conference table. It may not be possible for the Commission to order reinstatement but it can provide the environment for reinstatement. As to support for the Bjelke-Petersen Government, the path that those honourable senators who are members of the National Party in Queensland are following will be to their electoral disadvantage, no matter how gerrymandered the State may be. The Labor Party has the answers and deserves to be elected. One thing is certain; the Liberal Party has much to gain. I am surprised at Senator Messner and Senator Chaney from the Liberal Party, who will no doubt give great support to what Bjelke-Petersen is doing. Talk about support and popularity polls! The raids on those health clinics were an abomination-an invasion of privacy. The mind that made the decision to carry out those raids is the mind that created the Queensland legislation that has led to the legislation before us. Senator Harradine —Stick to the legislation before you. Senator GEORGES —We will see what the honourable senator has to say in defence of the sacked workers. If I know him well, he will come out in their support. Senator Harradine —You are talking about the raid on abortion clinics, which is not associated with this legislation. Senator GEORGES —I merely said that the mind-- Senator Harradine —That is your view. Senator GEORGES —That is right. That is the mind that led to those raids, the method of those raids and the invasion of privacy. I am not talking about the basic issue with which the honourable senator is concerned. I am talking about the method-and the method came from those who were responsible for the legislation which has made it necessary for us to support and pass this legislation in this House. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(11.50) —I want to put this matter into context because it is quite apparent that we will have a very emotional debate today. It is an emotional issue because many people's lives and livelihoods are at stake, not just in Queensland but also, potentially, around Australia. This matter stems initially from the irresponsible action of trade union leaders in Queensland, people responsible for the provision of essential services, people who reneged on that responsibility to ensure the continuous supply of electricity-an essential service-and people who took industrial action which ran counter not only to all the things the Australian Democrats stand for but also, I believe, to the principles of the Liberal Party of Australia, the National Party of Australia and the Australian Labor Party. Their action and, in part, one of the steps they took to reject a decision by the Queensland Industrial Court, gave the opportunity for the South East Queensland Electricity Board to provoke a dispute at a local level into a State-wide dispute and, subsequently, into a dispute which has become national in its impact. This is the classic situation where two organisations and their representatives-wilful people who are willing to put the public at risk, to put people's jobs in jeopardy, to put people's livelihoods at risk-confronted each other head on and ignored the likely consequences and, as it has transpired, the real consequences of this disputation. The situation had the potential for disaster. For many people it has gone from disaster to tragedy. I suspect that the 850 people who have been sacked will never be re-employed by SEQEB and will find it very difficult, because of their specific skills, to find employment anywhere in their home State. As a result, those people may have to move to other States, leave their families, or disrupt their children's education. I do not think this is a pretty scene. I happened to be in Queensland when much of this sequence of events took place. I was able to talk with many people living in Queensland who were not directly involved with the dispute but who were suffering from the consequences. Small business people who owned delicatessens found food was being destroyed. People with ice-cream parlours had to shut their shops. Small manufacturers, small factories and some service organisations which rely on a continuous supply of electricity were either set back or, in some cases, put out of business because they were already in a hazardous position due to the declined Queensland economy. In this situation there was scope for a statesman to enter the fray, to bring the parties together, and to find a resolution. Instead, what happened? We saw a State government introduce the most draconian industrial legislation this country has ever seen. It was not an Act designed to bring about conciliation or peace in the industrial movement in Queensland but an Act which, on the Premier's admission, was designed to destroy the trade union movement in his State and, if possible, in this country. Because I have had representations from people, including some from South Australia, I am aware that there is nothing these people would like better than to have the trade union movement in this country destroyed. They live in some sort of wonderland which allows them to believe that the destruction of the trade union movement will create an economic paradise. It allows them to continue blithely along that path without ever suggesting an alternative, without ever suggesting what would take the place of the trade union movement in this country and without indicating how workers' rights would be protected. By workers' rights I mean safety issues, the protection of young people, of women and of all workers who receive a degree of protection through the existence of the trade union movement. I ask those people, whether they be politically motivated or motivated for any other reason, to think very carefully about the consequences that would arise in this country if Premier Bjelke-Petersen were successful and destroyed not only the trade union movement but also the industrial relations system, which is the path he has set for himself. I talked of the loss of industrial rights. However, the legislation introduced by Premier Bjelke-Petersen goes further than that. It attacks the basic human rights of the people of Queensland. That is not just a personal opinion. I quote from report No. 14 of the Human Rights Commission on the Queensland Electricity Supply and Related Industrial Legislation. I remind honourable senators that the Human Rights Commission was created by the Fraser Liberal Government to examine and report to this Parliament on issues such as this. I read into Hansard each of the Commission's recommendations: The Human Rights Commission having found that a number of provisions in the package of Queensland industrial legislation examined in this report are inconsistent with Articles 14 (2), 19 and 22 of the ICCPR accordingly recommends- (a) that the inconsistencies be brought to the attention of the Queensland Government with the object of persuading that Government to repeal the offending provisions or at least amend them to limit their operation in a manner consistent with the observance of human rights; and (b) that if the Queensland Government does not repeal these provisions or bring them into line with Australia's obligations under the ICCPR, the Commonwealth Government-- we are talking about this Government, this Parliament- should take whatever action is necessary to ensure that any application the relevant unions may decide to make for registration under the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act is able to be heard without delay by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Unless the provisions in the industrial legislation identified in this report and the Commission's Report No. 12 are repealed or suitably amended, Queensland's industrial relations system will continue to be subject to restrictions which infringe human rights. The Commission therefore further recommends- (c) that if at the end of 1985 the situation remains unsatisfactory in human rights terms, the Government-- the Federal Government- consider referring appropriate issues to the Commission for further inquiry and report. The Human Rights Commission, appointed by legislation of the Fraser Government, has reported to this Parliament in those terms. The Queensland Government in the first instance responded by vigorously attacking the Commission. A ploy well known to people in this Parliament is that if one does not have an argument one attacks the individual. If one cannot get any reason or logic into one's defence, one attacks the person making the criticism. That is what happened in Queensland. The Queensland Government attacked the chairperson of that Commission and the Commission as well as its recommendations. I will not give credence in this Parliament to some of the words that were used to denigrate the Commission, but they have been seen by the people of Queensland in their newspapers. I think it is worth recapping one of those recommendations because it is the genesis of this legislation. It says: . . . the Commonwealth Government should take whatever action is necessary to ensure that any application the relevant unions may decide to make for registration under the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act is able to be heard without delay by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. We all know that the normal processes of application for registration under the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission are long and tedious, and in fact can be spread out through the appeals process not just by months but potentially by years. If the Government was going to take cognisance of that report, its only option was to introduce the Bill before us today. This Bill does one thing only. It speeds up the processes by which the Electrical Trades Union of Australia can obtain access to the Federal arbitration system. It does not create an access which is not already there. It does not make it possible for the ETU to do something which it would be otherwise prohibited from doing. All that the Bill does is to speed up the process. This obviously runs counter to the wishes of those who want a continuing conflagration in Queensland. If one wants chaos and disruption in Queensland, one will keep this dispute going for months-for years, if possible. On the other hand, if one wants some industrial harmony in Queensland, this Bill will at least speed the day when the matter can get into the industrial arena and out of the political arena. As a politician, I am willing to admit that politicians handle industrial matters very poorly. No matter what political party they come from, politicians are not interested primarily in the subject of the industrial dispute; they are concerned with getting as much political capital out of the dispute as they possibly can. That applies across the board. I admit that it probably applies to the Australian Democrats. It certainly applies to the Australian Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the National Party. Above all it applies to the party in government in Queensland at this moment. We have an opportunity to get this dispute off the political agenda and into the hands of industrial commissioners, where it should have been all along. It was taken out of the hands of the commissioners by the Queensland Government. When the dispute was on the Australian Democrats deliberately refrained from provoking and exacerbating the dispute. We stayed right out of it because there were already too many politicians involved. We did not take sides. We hoped, vain hope though it was, that somebody would be able to see reason in Queensland or apply a bit of reason to what was going on in Queensland and get the whole dispute before the Industrial Commission and thus minimise the dislocation that was apparent there. If it is possible to resolve this dispute-I believe it is-by getting it before the Federal Arbitration Commission, I just cannot understand why any honourable senator would talk against this Bill or vote against this Bill today because the only effect of the loss of this Bill would be to ensure that Queensland goes through industrial chaos for at least the next six months. The Democrats were faced with the challenge. The Federal Government, acting on the Human Rights Commission report, introduced the Bill and we were brought into the debate. The Federal Government claimed that it had introduced the Bill as a result of an agreement it had reached with the Australian Council of Trade Unions to stop the blockade imposed on Queensland aimed at putting pressure on the Queensland Government to get the matter before the Queensland Industrial Commission again. When the accord was reached between the Federal Government and the ACTU to call off the blockade, the Federal Government introduced the Bill. The Australian Democrats studied the Bill and felt that whilst it was heading in the right direction there were several areas of great concern. One of them was the potential for the blockade to be reimposed immediately after this legislation was passed. Another area of concern was the potential for the ETU to gain access to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and then conduct itself in the manner that it did at the start of this dispute, in other words, prevent people from getting their essential services, their electricity, in Queensland. So then we would be back to square one. Instead of dealing with a State industrial commission we would be dealing with a Federal arbitration commission while essential services would still be denied to the people of Queensland. On behalf of the Australian Democrats I indicated to the ACTU and through it to the Queensland Trades and Labor Council and the ETU in Queensland that we would not allow the passage of this Bill unless we got watertight guarantees that there would be no resumption of the blockade. Further, we wanted an agreement that the ETU would agree to and accept the insertion of a no strike clause in the proposed new Federal award. Senator Collard —Did you get that guarantee? Senator JACK EVANS —I have that guarantee. I intend to table the telex which contains that guarantee. Senator Boswell —What about the Latrobe Valley? Senator JACK EVANS —I will come to the Latrobe Valley in a moment. Those guarantees are acceptable to the Australian Democrats. I believe those guarantees will be acceptable to all honourable senators when they have had the opportunity to read them. Senator Messner —Is that the same guarantee you got from the coal unions yesterday? Senator JACK EVANS —So far Senator Messner has not had the opportunity to read them. I intend to table those guarantees in a moment. The Australian Democrats, having accepted that there would be no prevention of the supply of electricity by the ETU in the future and that there would be no blockade of Queensland by the ACTU on this issue, had their attention drawn by Mr Vince Lester, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Affairs in the Queensland Government, to a possible breaking away from this assurance. He sent a telegram to the Leader of the Australian Democrats (Senator Chipp) which reads as follows: Urgent . . .Before the Senate votes on industrial legislation draw your attention to todays meeting between combined coal mining unions and coal employers. . . . The coal mining unions have declared they want the coal companies to publicly denounce the Queensland Government's legislation re: continuity of electricity supply. . . . If employers refuse the union will commence 48 hour rolling stoppages. This would lead to shortage of coal at Queensland's power stations and subsequent rationing of power. . . . Urge Democrats be made aware of this latest situation re: union demands before voting on todays important Bill, and do not support the Federal Government's legislation. Having received that telegram I recognised that there was a possibility of a union not directly involved with this dispute breaking ranks with the ACTU and breaking the promise that I had received from the ACTU. Senator Messner —Ha! Senator JACK EVANS —Senator Messner has a mocking sneer. While he was sitting contemplating his navel-he came in here this morning and accused me of not being interested, of not doing anything-for the past three weeks I have spent at least five hours a day endeavouring to resolve this dispute and its ramifications. And we have resolved it. Senator Chipp —While he has been scoring political points. Senator JACK EVANS —While the honourable senator has been scoring political points. I can understand Senator Messner's disappointment because this matter might go off the agenda in Queensland and around Australia. Opposition senators will not be able to score those political points after today. I then sought from the ACTU- Senator Messner —Just read us the telegram again. Senator JACK EVANS —The honourable senator is not going to get much wiser if he opens his mouth when somebody is giving him information which he has sought. I sought from the ETU through the ACTU an unconditional guarantee that the coal mining unions would cancel their proposed meeting with the coal mine owners-this was the threat meeting to which Vince Lester referred-and, further, they would not precipitate any industrial action against the coal industry or any other employer on this issue. That guarantee confirms what I believed was a valid promise by the ACTU and it confirms that the ACTU can maintain that promise because it put pressure on the Queensland coal mining unions and made them toe the line. Within two hours of my request I had that promise. I believe that that shows the bona fides and the ability to keep the promise made to me by the ACTU. I have not the slightest doubt that today and over the next few days, perhaps the next few weeks if Opposition senators can string it on that long, some honourable senators in this place will be able to introduce red herrings, total and absolute irrelevancies such as the one that was introduced last night by Senator Boswell. He made a plea for some union contributions to help the 850 sacked workers in Queensland. He said: 'There you are. Your ACTU promise has been broken already'. What crass nonsense! What absolute garbage! That has no relevance to this dispute. I put it to Senator Boswell that he is dragging in a red herring already before this matter has even gone to the Federal arbitration system. I suggest that the industrial disputation in Queensland has gone far enough. Every industrial dispute in this land, thank God, has finished around the table-every single one. This dispute will finish around the table. It will finish before an arbitrator who is neutral, not somebody who has been appointed at the direction of the Queensland Premier. Somebody who is absolutely and totally neutral will look at all the sides of this dispute. As a result, there is the potential for a resolution for the first time in several months. We have a choice and this Parliament has a choice today. We can relight the fuse, and that fuse is attached to potentially the biggest industrial explosion that this country has ever seen. Alternatively, we can move the politicians out of the dispute-I think we have seen a pretty good sample of politicians' behaviour in the last two or three minutes-because they look like having to move out of it. They are starting to get all upset. They enjoy it. As we heard from Senator Boswell, he wants a war. He wants the fight to continue. Senator Mason —And Senator Messner. Senator JACK EVANS —Senator Messner is disappointed because this matter will disappear off the political agenda. I remind the Senate that we are not talking about just the heavies in this dispute; we are talking about the people of Queensland who will suffer and have already suffered as a consequence of it. The people of Queensland will be well served by the Australian Democrats today because, as a result of our vote, the people of Queensland will have industrial peace. I know that industrial peace suits the aspirations of neither Senator Messner nor Senator Boswell; nor does it suit the aspirations of the Queensland Premier. They are an interesting and very harmonious trio on this issue. They want industrial confrontation and they do not care a damn who suffers. They want the dispute to go beyond Queensland; they want it to spread across Australia. Amendments to this legislation which will be moved later today will make it quite clear that they want it to be a national dispute, not just a Queensland dispute. They want it spread far and wide across this land. They want small businesses in Queensland destroyed. They want industrial chaos because that is the way they think they can win votes. They want not just 850 SEQEB workers' jobs destroyed; they want more workers sacked. Let us lay it on the line. That is what this Queensland legislation is about, because the more workers who are retrenched, the more industrial disputation there is in Queensland, the greater-this is the incredible thing-the rampant support from a few people in Queensland for the Queensland Premier. In exactly the same way Maggie Thatcher rallied some troops around her by declaring war. As a result of declaring war on the worker in Queensland and small business in Queensland, families in Queensland and all the people who rely on the essential services in Queensland, the Queensland Government will not just destroy and disrupt its economy; it will destroy and disrupt the Australian economy, and all of us will suffer as a result. I make one final rhetorical point. Senator Flo Bjelke-Petersen is obviously not convinced that industrial matters should remain in industrial courts. She is obviously not convinced that the sooner we get this dispute into the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission the sooner the matter will be put to bed and the people of Queensland will be able to resume their normal lives. If Senator Bjelke-Petersen believes that the path this Government should take-having received the report from the Human Rights Commission-is to allow the matter to grow and get back to the situation we had in Queensland a month or so back, I suspect that we now have demonstrated to us the reason for the uproar coming from the Queensland senators. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Tate) —Senator Evans, you indicated during your speech that you would seek leave to table certain telexes. Do you still wish to do that? Senator JACK EVANS —I seek leave to table a telex from Bill Kelty, the Secretary of the ACTU; from Vince Lester, the Queensland Minister for Employment and Industrial Affairs; and from Mr Vickers, the Secretary of the State Council of Combined Mining Unions, Queensland. Leave granted. Senator COLLARD(Queensland)(12.21) —We have just heard half an hour of the most sanctimonious humbug from some of the greatest political hypocrites who have ever sat in this chamber. Senator Jack Evans took half an hour to give a reason why the Australian Democrats are copping out of this dispute. Yet despite that, no reason was given. After all the guarantees the Democrats asked for but did not get beforehand, they have spent the last half an hour copping out and leaving the power users in Queensland to the mercy-or it would be to the mercy but for the fact that we have a strong government in Queensland-of these unions. I might add that the reason politicians ultimately get involved in these disputes is that politicians are elected to govern. The Electrical Trades Union of Australia is not elected to govern, nor is any other union. It is all very well for the ETU, or any other union, to defy the courts, but apparently it is not all right for the politicians to buy in and guarantee a supply of power to the people who elected them. So we have this cop-out from the political camp followers of the Australian political scene-the Australian Democrats. They are the people who were going to 'keep the bastards honest'. At least Jo Vallentine might keep the bastards honest who are going to keep the bastards honest. At least after 30 June we will not have to listen to the sort of sanctimonious humbuggery that we have just been subjected to. We are dealing with the Conciliation and Arbitration (Electricity Industry) Bill 1985, one of the most obnoxious pieces of legislation ever brought into this chamber. It is obnoxious not because of any strength that might be in it-in fact it is a rather wishy-washy piece of legislation-but because of what it is trying to do. Here we have a government seeking to subvert the sovereign rights of a State government. It might come as no surprise to a lot of people who are interested, but it will probably come as a surprise to the Australian Democrats, to hear that there is already an application by the ETU for Federal registration before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The whole thing has been a fraud because the unions have tried to make an interstate dispute out of this so that it could become a Federal matter. We see a situation in which officials of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the unelected government of this nation, are the puppeteers hiding behind the screen, pulling strings so that Mr Hawke and his Government will jump and go clickety-clack as they give the performance that is required of them. The history of this matter has been gone over a few times so I shall state it only very briefly. We have the story of a maverick organiser of a militant union getting out of his depth. I have said on other occasions in this chamber that if the Queensland Trades and Labour Council had bought into this a lot sooner perhaps we would not have got to this stage because there is a lot of accumulated wisdom there. Senator MacGibbon —People like Georgie. Senator COLLARD —Yes, with due respect to Senator Georges, I believe that if he had come into the situation a bit earlier we possibly would not be going down this track today. We have a maverick organiser and a militant union and the whole thing got out of hand. We have heard a lot of things about the Queensland Government not obeying recommendations. Nothing has been said about the ETU not obeying directions from the Queensland Industrial Commission. It started in mid-January after the disastrous storm. Employees were ordered back for two weeks, and within the two weeks, on Thursday, 17 January, they were on strike-all over the fact that contract labour was being used on three transmission lines and in one sub-station. They were then directed back to work on the Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday until, ultimately, the Queensland Government said: 'Enough is enough; you are now unemployed'. I reiterate that the ETU started the battle and chose the battlefield. The fact that the unionists picked a battle and a battlefield on which they could not win is now history. They have paid an awful price. Senator MacGibbon —They lost. Senator COLLARD —Yes, they lost completely. The Government elected to govern that State reacted to that given situation. The ETU is not elected by anybody in Australia, let alone in Queensland. Much has been said about the 1,500 people who are out of work. There were originally in the work force 1,552-these figures are at 3 April 1985. What people do not realise is that 483 members of the work force would not go on strike. There were 146 who were away normally, on sick leave, holidays and all the rest of it, who have returned. That makes a total of 629 Queensland employees in the organisation now at work. New recruits not previously employed by the South East Queensland Electricity Board numbering 141, former SEQEB employees who returned after signing on as new employees on the new terms number 192. From the original 1,552, that gives a total of 962. On top of that, some 250 previous employees are now being employed by about 60 contractors. That takes the figure up to 1,212 for previous employees who are working in one way or another. Currently 80 ex-employees have their names on the books seeking employment at SEQEB. So let us forget about the 800 or 900 people supposedly still out of work. They have voted with their feet against all that has gone on. Senator Jack Evans —You are forgetting about their families, too. Senator COLLARD —Their families are obviously well off. I probably know more about the travails of families in such situations than the honourable senator ever would. I wish to quote a few excerpts from the second reading speech of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis): The independent processes of conciliation and arbitration have been rejected in favour of a policy of unilateral legislative action to change terms and conditions of employment which were previously agreed by the Queensland Government and to impose sanctions on those who breach the provisions of this legislation. What utter rubbish! As I have just explained, we know who rejected the processes of conciliation and arbitration, who rejected directions from the Commission, but the Minister still tries to justify this ridiculous legislation. The Minister continued in his speech: An essential part of that process of negotiations was that the ACTU, and all its affiliates, would call off all industrial action against Queensland. Later in that speech he admitted: The Queensland trade union movement and the ACTU imposed a prolonged transport blockade-- That was against Queensland. In that passage the Minister in regard to the ACTU-the puppeteers, the people who pull strings when he jumps clickety-clack in front of the screen-admits what was being done against a sovereign State of this nation. I remind the Senate once again that this Prime Minister got into power because of his 'special relationship' with the union movement. My word, he has a special relationship! As soon as it pulls the strings he jumps, and we can hear his bones going clickety-clack every day now. One of the things most people do not realise is that not only were jobs lost because of the power dispute-jobs are just not there now because small businesses went under-but they were also lost because of the blockade. These were the jobs of the people-the people whom this Labor Government says it supports, the people whom the Government says it represents better than anybody else. The whole sorry story of this episode is lost jobs, lost jobs and more lost jobs. So we have this awful scenario, and we also have the threat of further problems. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, a member of the Government that admits it has a special relationship with the unions, also stated in his second reading speech: Industrial action was taken or threatened in the building, brewing, communications and mining industries . . . He said also that this 'threatened serious damage both to national economic recovery and to our international trading situation'. Go on! He could have fooled me. It is about time the Government woke up to the ramification of what it has been doing. There will be further action and we will be driven deeper into the mire in which we find ourselves in the international community. This is reflected, even as late as today, in the value of the Australian dollar, in how the international community sees us and our performance. We have this sorry state of affairs, and we have an impotent Government and an impotent Prime Minister going clickety-clack as the ACTU puppeteers pull the strings. We find also in the Minister's second reading speech the story about people's democratic right to strike. If ever there were a misused or abused idea in the few months in particular, it is the idea of a democratic right to strike. When the ancient Greeks talked about democracy they really talked about the rule of the people in their own self-interest. That hardly comes under this idea of a democratic right to strike. The second point I raise is that rights to do not exist independently of the society in which we exist, yet we hide behind this idea of a democratic right to strike. In other words, we can go off at a tangent irrespective of the harm, hardship, travail or turmoil that might bring upon our fellows. The third point I make is that most Queenslanders, and indeed most Australians, would agree that no one group should abuse the power it holds by virtue of its position to the detriment of the society in which it finds itself. Other people have rights. The people of Queensland, small businesses, those who lost their jobs, all have a right to a continuous power supply. People have a right to be able to obtain foodstuffs. An elderly couple have a right to believe that a lift will work if they live on the sixth floor of a retirement unit block. Many other rights have been forgotten in this so-called democratic right to strike. The main right is the right of everybody else to work. Nobody is saying that those people who are dissatisfied with their work conditions cannot pick up their bundles and go and find another job. That is their democratic right. It is certainly not their democratic right, particularly when we understand their wages and the conditions under which they are employed, to go off at a tangent to the detriment of the rest of society. With all the talk we have heard and all the sanctimonious attitudes we have had from the Australian Democrats, it is very interesting to note what the Minister said a couple of times in his second reading speech: Since there is no constitutional power for the Commonwealth to do so, this Bill does not seek to directly provide for reinstatement of the dismissed SEQEB employees. There it is. The Government accepts what a lot of rot this whole piece of legislation is, because it accepts the fact that it cannot do a thing. Of course, this is the tragedy. All the way through, these dismissed employees who have not yet got a job have been led up the garden path; first of all by their own union-- Senator Messner —Now by Hawke. Senator COLLARD —Now by Mr Hawke. I say to any of those dismissed employees who are listening to this debate that they have no chance of getting back their jobs under the conditions which previously existed, so they had better start looking around for something else. They have been given a bum steer by the very people who should know better and who should be telling them the truth. Now we come to the political camp followers of the Australian political system-the Australian Democrats. To illustrate their cop-out, I quote from the Age of 23 May: The Democrats' industrial spokesman, Senator Jack Evans, said his party wanted the ACTU to guarantee that if the legislation was passed, the Electrical Trades Union would have a 'no strike' clause inserted in a new federal award, and a promise of no further blockades against Queensland. That is quite clear and unequivocal; there would be a no strike clause inserted in a new Federal award and a promise of no further blockades against Queensland. The very next sentence states: The Queensland branch of the ETU last night rejected the 'no strike' proposal. The next day, on 24 May, an article in the Sydney Morning Herald stated: The Democrats' spokesman on industrial relations, Senator Jack Evans, said it was his understanding that the ACTU would not engage in further blockades of Queensland if the bill is passed and is allowed to come into effect. He also said the ACTU and the unions involved, in agreeing to abide by decisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, had in effect agreed to accept a no-strike clause, if the commission decides such a clause is necessary. Is that a watertight guarantee? Who believes it? Of course, it has already been mentioned-Senator Jack Evans tried to make something of the fact-that the combined mining unions were ready to go on strike, but so that they do not upset the Democrats, they will withdraw the strike because the Bill is coming up in the Senate. Is that a guarantee that it will not happen in the future? Can anybody believe it? If ever a group of people should understand that their jobs are on the line, it should be the members of the combined mining unions. Heaven knows, our name for high prices and unreliability on world markets is bad enough as it is, yet here we have the combined mining unions sending out signals to all the world that as soon as this legislation is passed they will try to get something out of the bosses. The bosses will have to sign an agreement that the legislation is awful, otherwise we will have 48-hour rolling strikes. If ever a group of people should be knuckling down and protecting their jobs, it should be the combined mining unions. It might come as news to a lot of people, particularly honourable senators opposite, that no-strike agreements, or continuous supply of power agreements, have been discussed already with the power generating unions in Queensland. Arrangements were made that they would have special conditions. There was to be a loading on their salaries, help with their superannuation and rent, a shorter working week and a nine-day fortnight. I might say that most unions agreed to that provision. Some of them broke it, but the ETU took the conditions and did not agree to a continuous supply of power. Where does that now put Senator Jack Evans and the Australian Democrats, who see themselves as the protectors of the underdog in this country and who have copped out and gone to water? Obviously, one would believe that the tooth fairy is still alive and well in Australia if one followed the political philosophies of the Australian Democrats. The Queensland Government reached the stage where there was nothing left for it to do but to introduce legislation. Bearing in mind all the talk that we have had, it gets down to one thing: We had an elected government, a government elected by legislative processes, seeking to guarantee to the people who elected it a continuous supply of power-nothing more and nothing less. Queensland is not the only place in which such a situation has arisen. It has happened in other countries. It was brought to my attention just before this debate began that President Reagan found himself having to do something similar so that the airlines system in America could operate. President Reagan took similar action. Is it not the right, indeed the duty, of an elected government to guarantee that its citizens, the people who elected it, should have a continuous supply of power? That is what the Queensland legislation is all about. This Government, the puppet whose strings are being pulled by the unelected government of Australia, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, which is hiding behind the screen, has found itself in the position where, as its strings are pulled and it jumps, it has had to bring in this legislation. We can hear the clickety-clacking as we go through this legislation. Clauses 7, 8 and 9 really mean nothing. The legislation is a sop to the ACTU movement. We have a threat hanging over us all the time. The Democrats have vacated the chamber, but I hope that they are listening to the debate. Once again I quote from the Sydney Morning Herald of 24 May: An ACTU industrial officer, Mr Ian Court, said the assurance of no further industrial action was conditional upon the legislation becoming law quickly and would not hold if there was a drawn-out High Court challenge. That is blackmail. What else would one call it? In other words, the ACTU, the unelected government of this country, is saying to Queensland: 'Once this legislation is passed you have to accept it. The due processes of law cannot take place. We are the masters. We are the people who tell Mr Hawke what to do. We are the people who pull the strings. Once it is passed it has to be accepted and you cannot use the due processes of law to challenge that legislation'. The legislation is questionable constitutionally anyhow. Today we find ourselves in a situation in which the Democrats, the tooth fairy party, are going to water and using any excuse to cop out. It is copping out on the most flimsy of guarantees. It is very interesting that today's Bulletin published the results of an opinion poll which was taken in Queensland when the blockade was running regarding the stand of the Australian Labor Party on the whole question. The poll indicates that during the blockade the ALP dropped five points. I reiterate that the Queensland Government is doing nothing more and nothing less than guaranteeing its citizens, the people who elected it, a continuous supply of power. Yet we have this sham of legislation being brought in by the puppets because the puppeteers have demanded it. As the debate proceeds we can hear the puppets clickety-clack as they shimmer and shake across the stage when the unelected government pulls the strings. Debate interrupted. Sitting suspended from 12.44 to 2 p.m. Senator MacGIBBON —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. It concerns the value of the Australian dollar and action which the Government might take to increase confidence in the currency. Does the Minister agree that national and international financial markets are not satisfied with the Government's refusal to state a definite position on discounting wages for the effects of depreciation and that this continues to be a major factor affecting the dollar? Notwithstanding the Minister's remarks yesterday about hypothetical situations, will he give an assurance that, if there is a measurable impact on the consumer price index by the time of the next national wage case, the Government will argue for discounting of wages? Senator BUTTON —Many factors have been suggested as to why international and local financial markets may have a view about the dollar. Some which were suggested a month or two ago have been abandoned now in the lexicon of wild suggestions about this matter. Others are still being pursued, like the one that Senator MacGibbon is pursuing in this question. I cannot speak for what people who may be influential in these matters feel about a wide variety of issues. Apart from that, I have nothing to add to the answers I have given on previous occasions. Senator MacGIBBON —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I take it then that the matter of the status of the Australian economy is of no concern to the Government? Government senators-Oh! Senator ROBERT RAY —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to an article in today's Age in which the chief scientist for the United States of America's Star Wars program indicated that ground based lasers designed to knock out Soviet ballistic missiles would be so vulnerable to atmospheric interference that they could not be used on a cloudy day? Can the Minister tell me how many cloudy days per year the United States averages? The PRESIDENT —I call the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs or the chief meteorologist, Senator Gareth Evans. Senator GARETH EVANS —I did see the article to which Senator Ray refers, although I have no briefing before me which will enable me to comment on either the scientific validity of the points made or for that matter the meteorology of the United States. However, I make the point that has been made on a number of occasions previously in this chamber that that sort of report, if indeed it does prove to be accurate, coming from a person of that status, does reinforce the kinds of doubts that have been expressed by Australia and so many other countries about the technological viability of the absolute defence Star Wars or strategic defence initiative concept. One of the major doubts about SDI remains, as it always has been, that defensive technology ever could move fast enough to comprehensively outstrip offensive technology in a way that is required if the strategic defence initiative or mutually assured defence concept is ever to make any sense. Senator KNOWLES —I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer the Minister to comments by the head of Western Mining Corporation Ltd, Sir Arvi Parbo, that Australia is in danger of becoming the latest banana republic of the Southern Hemisphere unless the wage indexation system is abandoned. Does the Minister agree with Sir Arvi that the present wage fixation system is unrealistic in that it is not related to the ability of the economy to pay? I ask whether he further agrees with Sir Arvi when he says: There is no logic in saying rewards can only go up when everyone knows the economy goes up and down. Wages must go up and down as they have done in the United States. Senator BUTTON —I did see the reports published over the signature or under the name of Sir Arvi Parbo relating to the matters to which Senator Knowles referred. I find it extraordinary that when the standard of living in this country, relative to those of other countries, has been going down for 25 years, Sir Arvi Parbo has now locked himself into the banana republic syndrome. That decline has been happening under previous governments and various wage systems and many factors have contributed to it. Those honourable senators who think seriously about this question will recognise that some of the factors relate to the competitiveness of Australian industry, in respect of which the wage fixation system over a period has had some influence. I do not think the position is served by people such as Sir Arvi Parbo-who has himself put these views to me; I did not have to read them in the newspapers-making these dramatic analogies with banana republics. It is clear that as chairman of a substantial mining company Sir Arvi Parbo has very strong and quite legitimate views about the wage fixation system, particularly insofar as it applies to the companies of which he is chairman or a senior executive-- Senator Crichton-Browne —You are not suggesting self-interest, are you? Senator BUTTON —I am not suggesting anything to the honourable senator; I am answering Senator Knowles's question. The point I simply make is that this Government has made a judgment about the question of the centralised wage fixation system. We believe that in the two and a half years we have been in government it has served this country very well by comparison with the so-called wage system which operated under our predecessors. If honourable senators look at the wage pattern of the early 1980s under the Fraser Government they will see a dramatic difference with the pattern of wage fixation and wage levels under the present Government. If Senator Knowles is asking me the more serious question as to whether I believe greater flexibility should be introduced over time into the Australian wage fixation system, my answer is yes, but the present Government is committed to the centralised wage fixation system because of the history and structure of wage fixation over a long period. The theory which emanates from some of these people is that if we allow complete deregulation of the wage fixation system labour resources will flow to growth industries. That is not entirely true and I think it is very likely to be quite untrue. The sad fact of the matter is that without a centralised wage fixing system industries which are perhaps less able to support wage claims in the international community in terms of international competitiveness may be those most exposed to heavy wage claims, as happened in 1981 and 1982 under the Fraser Government. Senator DEVLIN —Can the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations inform this House of the attitude of the Government to the industrial dispute at the Renison mine in Tasmania, where the workers are not being allowed to return to work until they sign a no-strike agreement? Further, will the Minister inform the Senate of the Government's attitude to this proliferation of such measures by the captains of industry and this flagrant abuse of the rights of workers? Senator WALSH —I understand that the origins of the dispute to which Senator Devlin has referred can be traced to the proposed installation of a ventilation fan in the mine by contract labour. Consequently, there has been a series of 24-hour stoppages beginning on 1 May. I am told by Mr Willis that there have been meetings of the parties this week and that further meetings are scheduled for next week. The Government is closely monitoring the developments. In a more general sense, the type of confrontation which is apparently currently occurring at Renison is, of course, not in accordance with either the policy or the record of this Government. The policies of this Government, which seek as far as possible to avoid that sort of confrontation, have produced the lowest level of strikes for some 17 years, a level-this has particular relevance to the previous question-which is 71 per cent lower than the peak or worst level of industrial disruption and confrontation under the Fraser Government. Senator MASON —Will the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs clarify the Government's position towards the review conference on the Treaty on the Non- Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons to be held in September in Geneva, in which most of the 127 parties to the Treaty are expected to participate? Specifically, will Australia stand with other non-nuclear countries at the review conference when demands are made on the nuclear weapons states for an immediate negotiation of a comprehensive test ban treaty, or will Australia side with its nuclear ally, the United States of America, if the latter refuses to enter into such negotiations? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government's position, which I am asked to clarify, is pretty straightforward. We attach great importance to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. We have taken the view that for 15 years it has made a major contribution to regional and international stability and security. It has become the centrepiece of efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to additional countries and provides the essential framework for international co-operation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. The Treaty is certainly a major element in Australia's nuclear arms control policy and it is also the basis of our stringent bilateral safeguards policy applied to exports of uranium. The Treaty is reviewed every five years and the third review conference will take place, as Senator Mason has indicated, in Geneva from 27 August to 24 September this year. We have been working very actively around the diplomatic traps to try to ensure a constructive outcome. We will seek to defend the Treaty and work to maintain and strengthen its effectiveness. We are giving particular attention to nuclear disarmament issues which arise under Article 6 of the Treaty and to an Australian initiative to require, under Article 3 of the Treaty, the application of International Atomic Energy Agency full-scope safeguards to all nuclear exports to non-nuclear weapon states. At the third preparatory committee meeting for the conference, held in Geneva in April, Australia circulated two papers setting out our views on safeguards, including this question of full-scope safeguards, and international co-operation in the peaceful use of nuclear energy under Article 4 of the Treaty. We have also been actively encouraging additional states to adhere to the Treaty. When I was Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs I sent on the Government's behalf messages to three regional countries which have just joined the Treaty-Brunei, the Seychelles and Kiribati. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, as is well known, also raised the NPT issue during his recent visits to Pakistan and India, two all-too prominent non-NPT states. As to the last part of Senator Mason's question, we will be making clear at the conference, as we have in so many other forums, our unequivocal support for the immediate negotiation of a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. We do not see this as a question of taking sides, although it is an issue on which we have had differences of opinion or emphases of opinion with both the super-powers in recent times. We do not wish to see the conference split, even on an issue as important as a CTB. We will be working to ensure that our views and those of others on the urgency of a CTB are nonetheless registered at the conference. We shall be doing everything that we can in the run-up to the conference to ensure the operation of a wider non-proliferation regime consistent with that aspiration. That is about as much as I can usefully say. The rest of my brief is in the nature of rhetoric. The main point that needs to be made is that our commitment is absolute and total, and there is no question of our backing away from that, in the context of the CTB or anything else. Senator COATES —Is the Minister for Finance and Minister representing the Treasurer aware of yesterday's statement by a Tasmanian Liberal senator accusing Tasmania's Labor members of parliament of lacking backbone in pressing Tasmania's case to the Federal Government prior to this week's Premiers Conference? Is it not a fact that the Tasmanian Leader of the Opposition, Ken Wriedt, has consistently put Tasmania's case to the Federal Government with the intention of protecting Tasmania's interests? Will the Minister confirm that the Government will take notice of Mr Wriedt's representations? Is it not also a fact that the Tasmanian Premier has deliberately distorted every effort by the Federal Government to assist Tasmania? Finally, has the Minister's attention been drawn to any alternative proposals affecting Commonwealth grants to Tasmania? Senator WALSH —It is certainly a fact that the Tasmanian Premier tries to distort not only proposals put up by the Commonwealth Government but just about any issue that one can think of. It is the case that Mr Wriedt has presented Tasmanian views and has argued for Tasmanian interests to me personally on a number of occasions, and to the Prime Minister and other members of the Government. It is something that he does extremely well-as, of course, he discharged his duties when he was a member of this Senate and of the former Labor Government. I have seen some drivel which apparently was published in the Launceston Examiner and which originated from Senator Archer. From what he was saying a while ago, I gather that he is not trying to deny that he is the source of this drivel. In it he referred, among other things, to the Federal Government having cancelled an irrigation agreement. I am not aware of what irrigation agreement. There never was any such irrigation agreement. I suppose what he was referring to was the outrageous attempt by the Tasmanian Government to spend an initial $5m and, ultimately, $56m, on the Craigbourne irrigation area, the original justification being that when asked what sort of crops it was intended to grow, those concerned said 'Principally oats' because sometimes they have a dry spring. But the beneficiaries of that would have been about 36 farmers in that valley, the largest of whom, of course, is Mr Casimaty, who is very well connected in the Tasmanian Liberal Party. So what Senator Archer was defending there was the sort of little in-house, in-club, sweetheart deal by which taxpayers' funds, be they State or Federal taxpayers' funds, are transferred to enrich certain favoured sons or favoured daughters of the Liberal Party-the procedures which are actually being implemented in Queensland, where the Premier has arranged to have his son's 20,000-acre farm irrigated at taxpayers' expense. Senator Coates referred to the level of funding to the States in general. I suppose that one could extend that very easily to the levels of Commonwealth expenditure in general. If Opposition senators, Senator Archer in particular, are concerned about any of the States being harshly treated at the Premiers Conference, I remind them of the comments made by senior Federal Liberals in Sydney at the weekend, and in particular, the report of the address by Mr Howard to the Liberal Party's northern Sydney area conference, which states: The Liberal Party should offer nothing by way of new spending proposals at the next election. Mr Julian Beale, who I understand is regarded as one of the rising stars in the parliamentary Liberal Party, told the same conference: . . . the next Liberal Party Government should cut $3 billion from the deficit and take $3 billion from other programs in its first budget. Among Mr Beale's proposals were cuts of $1 billion in Commonwealth grants to the States. So if Senator Archer thinks that Tasmania will face some financial difficulties because of decisions made at the Premiers Conference later this week, he and other Tasmanians should count themselves lucky that they are not dealing with a Liberal government, which, according to one of its rising stars, would immediately cut $1 billion off Commonwealth payments to the States. Senator Chaney —I ask the Minister to table the paper from which he has quoted. Senator WALSH —I table the paper. Senator VANSTONE —I refer the Minister for Finance to varying reports about the cost of recalling the House of Representatives for approximately a one-hour sitting on Friday. Some reports place the cost at $100,000, while others suggest it will be only half of that amount. Can the Minister give a reasonably accurate figure of the cost of the recall? Further, what is the estimated saving to the Government in having its amended repatriation legislation operating between now and the Budget? Senator WALSH —I was rather hoping that I might get a question on this subject from a Queensland senator, particularly a Queensland Opposition senator; nevertheless, the question has been asked. I am not able to give a precise figure on the cost of recalling the House of Representatives, but I understand that the figure of $100,000 which has been thrown around-some figures are even higher-is higher than the cost is likely to be. It is necessary to recall the House of Representatives because of the obstructionism of the Opposition. I refer to the meddling in policy changes by the Liberal Party of Australia, which has the fond hope that one day it will be back in government and realises that it is essential that the veterans' legislation be passed. Therefore, the Liberal Party has had sufficient sense of responsibility, or has had some discipline imposed upon it, not to reject the legislation outright. But, at the same time, it wanted to dissociate itself from any fairly narrow sectional political odium that might be attached to supporting the policy. No such constraints apply to the Australian Democrats, who, in their typically dilettantish way were-- The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister is clearly debating the matter. I suggest that he get back to the question. If he is not debating it, he is certainly reflecting on a vote of the Senate. Senator WALSH —It is a well known fact that no such discipline ever applies to the Democrats. Were the House of Representatives not to be brought back, the estimated cost in additional outlays would be $10m or quite a bit more. More importantly, in the longer term, the chances of actually achieving on an ongoing basis the policy change which is proposed, which I certainly know the Liberal Party supports privately and which, I expect, it will ultimately support in a permanent and enduring form, would also be jeopardised. Senator HEARN —I refer the Minister for Resources and Energy, in his capacity either as Minister representing the Attorney-General or as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, to a Press headline stating that the Federal Government is to consult with the States on measures to protect nuclear material and facilities from theft or sabotage. Will the Federal Government also consult with the States to protect the rights and safety of people in the event of a nuclear accident? Who would be responsible for this protection? In the event of an accident to a nuclear-powered or nuclear-armed United States ship in an Australian port, would the Pentagon's nuclear accident response procedure manual recommendations apply and, if not, what procedure would? Senator GARETH EVANS —I think there is a combination of Defence and Resources and Energy involved in this answer. Let the record so disclose. Senator Messner —Have you got a few notes there? Senator GARETH EVANS —They say that in the United States Senate, and I thought it sounded rather nice. Senator Lewis —Why don't you go there? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am working on it. If I could get away from you for half a day I would be delighted. I assume that the reference to consultation with the States refers to the Prime Minister's statement of 23 May responding to the Australian Science and Technology Council report on Australia's role in the nuclear fuel cycle in which the Prime Minister announced the Government's intention of ratifying the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and also indicated that, in accordance with established procedures for the ratification of treaties, the States would be consulted. Concerning Federal-State consultation on issues of nuclear safety, there are quite well established procedures in place between the Federal Government and the relevant States. Only one State has a nuclear facility. That is New South Wales, with the Lucas Heights Atomic Energy Commission's research establishment. An emergency plan is in place there between Federal and State authorities in order to protect the public in the highly unlikely event of a serious accident. The only other context in which this matter arises is the visit of nuclear-powered warships, which are permitted to visit Australia only in accordance with conditions of entry which I outlined in the Senate, on behalf of the Minister for Defence, on 15 December 1983. The authorities responsible for implementing emergency plans vary with local conditions. In the case of nuclear warships, responsibility rests in the first instance with port authorities integrated into and supported by State or Territory emergency services, with Federal support as necessary. Senator BOSWELL —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer him to Senator Walsh's comments in the Senate a week ago. I quote from page 2366 of Hansard: I serve notice on the wimps and wankers on the other side that the Government will not accept their ill informed meddling and grandstanding. They will have to accept the responsibility, if they persist with this attitude, for there being no Australian Wheat Board as from 1 October. Now that the Senate has voted to amend the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill, will Senator Button say whether Senator Walsh's position on disbanding the Australian Wheat Board has the backing of the Cabinet and Caucus? Senator BUTTON —I recall Senator Walsh's comments. I did not think they were quite as colourful as the quotation suggested. There are opportunities for the Government to reintroduce this legislation and time alone will tell whether there will be an Australian Wheat Board after the date in question. The Government will announce its position before that date. Senator RICHARDSON —My question is addressed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. Is he aware of the extension of the dispute in the Mount Thorley coal mine to all open-cut coal mines in the Hunter Valley? Have coal shipments from Newcastle been affected by the dispute? What are the prospects for a quick settlement? Senator GARETH EVANS —The dispute between the Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen's Association of Australasia and management at the Mount Thorley coal mine originally concerned a specific issue of manning an International 580 front-end loader as well as a broader issue of the introduction of new technology. These issues appear to have been largely resolved. Regrettably, however, this seems not to be the end of the dispute. At a meeting on 27 May FEDFA members decided on a general stoppage at all Hunter Valley open-cut mines until 30 May. We understand that this is in protest at the action by R. W. Miller and Co. Pty Ltd in employing 21 additional plant operators at Mount Thorley outside what the FEDFA regards as normal channels. The worsening in relations resulting from the loader dispute has been translated into a wider dispute which has stopped production at all Hunter Valley open-cuts. It is certainly to be hoped that the parties concerned in the Mount Thorley dispute do not lose sight of the co-operative efforts that have been made by governments, State and Federal, the coal companies and the unions, through the Australian Coal Consultative Council, to strengthen our reputation as a reliable international supplier. Our past achievements in this regard have been considerable in recent times but they will undoubtedly be seriously jeopardised if this sort of dispute is allowed to drag on or escalate. Regarding the last part of Senator Richardson's question, coal shipments from Newcastle, fortunately, have not been affected so far and, I understand, are not likely to be in the foreseeable future. Obviously it is crucial that all parties to the dispute seek an early solution. Certainly the Commonwealth Government is encouraging that outcome. Senator LEWIS —My question is directed to Senator Ryan, who I think is representing the Minister for Territories in the absence of Senator Gietzelt, who seems to have disappeared totally from the face of the earth. I refer to recent announcements on the restructuring of the Australian Capital Territory Health Authority, the National Capital Development Commission and the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority and also to the Government's decision to impose self-government on the Australian Capital Territory next year. Why are Government Ministers pre-empting the future Australian Capital Territory government by locking it into these new structures at this late stage? Why will Ministers not allow members of the local House of Assembly to have any input at all into the structure or membership of these bodies? Senator RYAN —It is certainly not the case that members of the House of Assembly are not able to have input into various restructurings which are under consideration. That is certainly not the case in relation to the matters for which I have ministerial responsibility-the restructuring of the Schools Authority and co-ordination of higher education in the Australian Capital Territory. On both of those matters extensive public consultation has taken place. Submissions have been invited from every interested party including, of course, the House of Assembly. So if members of the House of Assembly, either collectively or individually, want to make views known to me on any of those issues they are perfectly at liberty to do so and have been for some time. Senator Lewis —They might as well be ordinary citizens. Senator RYAN —With regard to the restructuring of the Health Authority, I am not absolutely sure what procedures for consultation were laid down. But I am sure that there would have been ample opportunity for any House of Assembly member to make his or her views known. Senator Lewis —Why don't you let them nominate somebody to the bodies? Senator RYAN —The question as to why some restructuring is under consideration prior to a form of territorial government- Senator Lewis —Some? Total! The PRESIDENT —Order, Senator Lewis! Senator RYAN —I do not know whether Senator Lewis wants me to answer the question or allow him to grunt and groan. Perhaps I can sit down and he can just continue to make a noise. The PRESIDENT —Order! Will the Minister answer the question and ignore the interjections. Senator RYAN —In the case of both the Health Authority and the Schools Authority it is necessary to carry out some restructuring because there have been substantial public pressures in that direction. In the case of the Schools Authority, for example, the Authority has already had its legal life extended for six months to the end of June. I do not intend to extend it any further because I think it is unsatisfactory to have such an important body under a temporary governance. I hope to be announcing fairly soon some arrangements for the restructuring of that body. I can only emphasise that there has been ample opportunity for any interested members of the community or of the House of Assembly to make a contribution to that decision. With regard to self-government, a Cabinet submission making proposals for self-government will shortly be considered by the Government. When the Government has made up its mind we will let the Senate know. Senator BLACK —Is the Minister for Finance aware of Press reports concerning a leaked Queensland Treasury document which shows that the Queensland Government is planning to lift fees, charges and fines in July, a mere nine months after increases of between 8 and 100 per cent in fees and charges, despite the fact that the Queensland Premier continues to claim that his is a low tax State? Is the Minister aware of reports that the Queensland Government intends to blame this premature rise in State charges on the Federal Government? Is he concerned that this early increase in State charges will have an adverse effect on the already fragile Queensland economy? Senator WALSH —It is a fact which has been known for some considerable time, of course, that the Queensland economy is the sickest economy in Australia and that Queensland is a debt ridden State. Under the Petersen Government Queensland has been going down the Argentinian road and has accumulated a very much higher per capita debt than any other State. After a long period of proceeding down the Argentinian road, ultimately there comes a day of reckoning. I suppose that day of reckoning for Queensland is coming. I am aware of the reports to which Senator Black referred. In yesterday's Australian Financial Review there is a reasonably comprehensive coverage of them. I am not sure whether the article repeats the actual percentage increases to which Senator Black referred, that is, percentage increases of between 8 per cent and 100 per cent in fees, fines and charges which were increased substantially only eight months previously. I do not think they are in the Financial Review. However, I understand that the documents which have been acquired by the Opposition in Queensland show the Queensland Government's firm plans to increase charges, fees and fines. Given the understandable desire of the Queensland Government to conceal from its electors the fact that Queensland is in desperate financial trouble because of mismanagement and past profligacy, one can take it for granted that the Queensland Premier will be desperately trying to do everything he can to blame the outcome of this week's Premiers Conference for the increased taxes and charges which he had planned many weeks, if not months, ago. It is very important to note that these increases in taxes and charges were planned by the Queensland Government weeks, if not months, ago. However, they will, of course, be attributed by the Queensland Premier to the outcome of this week's Premiers Conference. I might make a helpful suggestion in passing. Even at this late stage the people of Queensland could be spared some of the consequences of the mismanagement of their State by the Government if there were a sufficiently strong political campaign to prevent the Premier from squandering $5m of taxpayers' funds on building a dam on the Mackenzie River to irrigate his son's 20,000-acre farm in order to line his son's pockets before his son inherits his seat in Parliament. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I take a point of order. I ask the Minister to withdraw his last comment. We have allowed the Minister for Finance a fair amount of latitude. The suggestion that the Premier is lining his son's pockets is, I am sure, offensive and contravenes the Standing Orders. It should be withdrawn. The PRESIDENT —I did not quite hear the Minister's remarks. I was distracted at the time. However, if those remarks were made by the Minister, there is a clear imputation in them and I ask the Minister to withdraw. Senator WALSH —Very well, Mr President. I understand that the test of acceptability is the Standing Orders and not truth, so I withdraw. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Minister to withdraw. Senator Grimes —Bloody two-faced Chaney. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Minister to withdraw. Senator WALSH —I withdraw, Mr President. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I also ask the Minister for Community Services to withdraw. The PRESIDENT —I ask Senator Grimes to withdraw. Senator Grimes —I withdraw, for the benefit of the poor little sensitive souls opposite. Senator CHANEY —I can understand the Government's panic, given the state of the opinion polls-- The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Leader of the Opposition to ask his question. Senator CHANEY —I ask the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce: Is it a fact that the current Telecom Australia monopoly on PABX systems excludes many small Australian producers from supplying consumers using the telephone system? Does the Minister agree that the monopoly on PABX systems does not fit in with the Minister's views on encouraging competitive Australian industry? If the Minister agrees with that, what action, if any, is he taking to remedy the situation and to end the Telecom monopoly? Senator BUTTON —This matter is essentially one for the Minister for Communications. My understanding of the matter is that Telecom no longer has a monopoly in respect of PABX systems and that the monopoly in respect of attachments to the telephone network has been significantly broken down. I believe my understanding to be correct. I hope that it is because it is a position I always supported as Opposition spokesman on telecommunications and have continued to support since. It is the position which obtains in most other countries where the networks, as in Australia, are in public sector hands-something which I also think is highly desirable in the interests of telephone subscribers in a country of this size and geography. In order to check the position, I will consult the Minister for Communications, who I believe shares my view of the matter. I would like to check on the facts. Senator McINTOSH —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Defence aware of allegations by the Premier of Queensland that Mr Simon Crean of the Australian Council of Trade Unions has been junketing around Australia at taxpayers' expense and with the approval of the Federal Government? Can the Minister inform the Senate of the facts behind the Premier's latest allegations? Senator GARETH EVANS —The facts of the matter as set out by the Minister for Defence yesterday are very straightforward. Simon Crean was present on a VIP flight from Canberra to Melbourne on 17 April, as were two leading industry representatives, Mr David Asimus from the Australian Wool Corporation and Mr Leach from the Myer corporation. Members of the Economic Planning Advisory Council who are requested to attend meetings-on an unpaid basis, I add-have their fares paid by the Federal Government. The particular meeting in question was to enable Hu Yaobang to meet with some EPAC members. It was therefore obviously an extremely important meeting in terms of Australia's future economic relations with a major trading partner. The aircraft home was to enable the three men to meet commitments in Melbourne which they would otherwise have been unable to meet. The flight was approved by the Prime Minister under exactly the same guidelines as those used in 1982 by a former Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, to approve a similar flight on which Mr Crean flew. The Government has not been secretive about this flight in any way at all. As a further demonstration of that, I table a copy of the manifest for this occasion on which four names are listed. Only three names are ticked off as only three gentlemen flew. Details of VIP flights are tabled in the House of Representatives every six months, in stark contrast with information on the Queensland Premier's VIP flights, which are not tabled at all. It should be said that no aircraft in Australia operate on public funds in a more secretive way than do those of the Premier of Queensland. Not even the Queensland Parliament is told where that aircraft flies, when it flies, why it flies or who flies in it. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. This has nothing to do with the question that was asked. It is yet another gratuitous attack on the Queensland Government. It is another pathetic effort by the most discredited Minister in this place, who used the Royal Australian Air Force against a State of this Commonwealth. It ill sits in his mouth to be talking about the use of aircraft by any government in Australia. The PRESIDENT —Order! The question clearly involved comments made by the Premier of Queensland and I think the Minister is in order. Senator GARETH EVANS —Thank you, Mr President. Senator Chaney will have to do a damn sight more than take off his glasses- The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator GARETH EVANS —And grow his eyebrows to ever establish any credibility in this Parliament. The PRESIDENT —Order! Will the Minister answer the question. Senator GARETH EVANS —The only information given in the Queensland Parliament comes in the Auditor-General's report which gives basic costs and total flying hours only. This usually shows that it averages only seven or eight hours flying time a week at astronomical cost. In 1973 more detailed information was provided for the first and only time in Queensland. That was discontinued after it was identified that about 70 per cent of flights were between Brisbane and Kingaroy with Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen being the only passenger. That is not all. Worse is to follow. The Queensland Premier has a long history of not even allowing to be recorded, let alone publicly disclosed, the names of his passengers. In January this year there were reports, which I understand to be reliable reports, that five pilots were sacked from the Government air wing in Queensland because those pilots insisted on logging the names of their passengers in accordance with what they believed to be their obligations under the air navigation regulations. They refused to break the law as they understood it to be and they were sacked after reportedly having reported the matter to the Commonwealth Department of Aviation and expressing their distaste for the administrative procedures involved. And this is the man who is criticising the Federal Government for this particular flight. This is the man whose unctuous preoccupation with law and order creates so much havoc in the affairs of his State and this nation. This is the man whose unctuous, oozing hypocrisy must be unrivalled in the history of this nation. The PRESIDENT —Order! Under standing order 418 I ask the Minister to withdraw those remarks. Senator GARETH EVANS —Mr President, I withdraw in deference to your ruling. I conclude by saying that it is a fascinating contrast. The Commonwealth VIP passengers lists are open for the world to see; they are tabled regularly in Parliament and are available for anyone to see at any time employing properly the procedures of the Freedom of Information Act. If the Premier of Queensland is so preoccupied with the use of VIP flights why does he not have a freedom of information Act in Queensland or the kind of procedures in Queensland which would enable us, or anyone else, to see who flies on his particular planes-when, where and why? Senator Chaney —I ask the Minister to table the papers from which he has extensively quoted, including the prepared insults. The PRESIDENT —Will the Minister table the papers? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not claim confidentiality in respect of them. I am very happy for the world to see them. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. It will put paid to some of the arguments we have listened to here today. I refer the Minister to figures released yesterday by the Commonwealth Statistician which reveal that Australians are moving out of the south-eastern States and heading in their thousands for Queensland. I ask-- Government senators interjecting- Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —I ask the Minister-if I get a chance-whether he can forward an explanation as to why New South Wales and Victoria both suffered a net loss of 13,580 people and 6,739 people respectively, as opposed to Queensland, which experienced a net gain of 14,203 people from internal migration-that is not including the people who have come from all the other places-in the 18 months to the end of last year. Will the Minister concede that, regardless of the criticism which is levelled by his Government against Queensland in the chamber-we have heard a lot of it today-Australians apparently are content to vote with their feet, so to speak, in their own commendation of the Queensland style of life and politics? Senator BUTTON —I have not seen any Australian Bureau of Statistics figures on these matters but I naturally assume that the figures cited by Senator Bjelke-Petersen are correct. I am no interpreter of people's motives. Certainly I would recognise many of the things which appear in Queensland tourist brochures. It is a beautiful State. The sunshine is beautiful and the spaces are nice. Queensland has a lot to commend it. It is a place where-I do not know who it was, although probably it was Tennyson, who said this-'every prospect pleases, and only man is vile'. Senator BOLKUS —My question, addressed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General, relates to the administration of the Sex Discrimination Act and the Human Rights Commission. I refer the Minister to the mass media debate on sex education conducted by wives of Queensland Government Ministers. Is it a fact there is a wide division between these people in influential positions in the Queensland Government? Is it a fact that the Premier's wife is reported as holding the view that there is no room for sex education and that she has taught her children all she thought they needed to know about it, whilst the wife of the pretender to the Premiership, Mrs Ahern, recognises an urgent need for sex education in schools? In order that Queensland children can get proper education in this area and not have to resort to the processes adopted by the Minister for Racing and Main Roads, who has claimed-- The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask Senator Bolkus to relate his question to a Federal responsibility. Senator BOLKUS —Mr President, I will get straight to the guts of my question. In order that the children of Queensland do not have to resort to the processes adopted by the Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Racing, who has claimed to have received his sex education on canvas cinema seats-- The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator will ask his question or I will ask him to resume his seat. Senator BOLKUS —Can the Minister say whether there is any facility or avenue under the Sex Discrimination Act or through the Human Rights Commission which could be available to people in Queensland seeking sex education? Senator GARETH EVANS —Mr President, I make it clear that this question is certainly not a dorothy dixer. I have seen reports of various opinions on sex education by wives of Queensland Ministers. I make the point, as far as my former Federal responsibilities are concerned, that the Sex Discrimination Act does not require sex education. Whether it will do any good in that environment is a question on which opinions may differ, in any event. There is an office of the Human Rights Commission in Brisbane which has very good publications. I believe there is one on sexism which may give some guidance. Unfortunately, I believe there are no how-to-do-it manuals in the stock of that particular organisation. Senator MISSEN —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment. I refer to the recent fire in the ceiling of the National Library of Australia. I ask: Firstly, why was fire retardant asbestos material in the ceiling of the Library removed by the Government against the recommendations of Messrs Gersh Majors and Alan Rogers, both experts in occupational health? Their report to the National Capital Development Commission in 1983 stated: Removal of the asbestos-containing material, which at present presents no health hazard, does not appear to be a rational decision. . . Secondly, why was the removal of the material begun when it was placed there in order to avoid the very disaster which recently occurred? Thirdly, why was the material not immediately replaced by new fire retardant material upon removal? Fourthly, is it true that the plastic sheeting which was placed in areas after the removal of asbestos constituted a highly dangerous fire risk, which produced dense smoke which severely hampered the efforts of firemen? Finally, how does the Government justify the expenditure of $850,000 of taxpayers' money for removal of the material which produced no advantage and which arguably resulted in $3.5m to $4m worth of damage? Senator RYAN —Senator Missen's question appears to be based on an article in the Bulletin of 14 May 1985 which refers to conflicting technical reports on the potential benefits of removing the fire retardant asbestos from the roof structure of the National Library building and attempts to relate them to fire damage caused to the roof of the building on 8 March this year. I am advised that after considering all of the available reports on this issue the Government accepted the recommendations of Purse and Furness in 1983 and agreed to remove the asbestos from the National Library building. I believe that as the asbestos was being removed it was being progressively replaced with a new fire retardant material. The cause and effect of the fire at the National Library are still the subjects of a coronial inquiry and report. In these circumstances, it would be improper for me to comment on how the fire occurred. Senator Missen in his question cited an amount of money as the cost of the removal of the asbestos. I will have to seek confirmation and explanation of that figure from the Minister. Senator FOREMAN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Acting Minister for Veterans' Affairs. I refer the Minister to several media reports in recent days relating to amendments to the Repatriation Act arising from the Treasurer's May economic statement. Can the Minister comment on the accuracy of allegations in some of those reports that war widows will be hit hard by the changes; pension claimants will now have to prove their claims instead of the onus of proof falling on the authorities; and many pensioners will lose their pension entitlements, contrary to the Prime Minister's assurances in his 1984 election policy speech? Senator RYAN —Regrettably there have been a number of reports regarding amendments to the Repatriation Act arising from the Treasurer's economic statement. I say 'regrettably' because many of those reports, such as the ones alluded to in Senator Foreman's question, contain wildly inaccurate claims regarding these changes, resulting in unnecessary confusion and distress among the veteran community. It must be stressed that no existing repatriation pensioner will lose any of his or her current pension entitlements as a result of these changes. This includes war widows, the totally and permanently incapacitated and other disability pensioners, orphans and dependants. This is totally in accord with the assurance given by the Prime Minister in his 1984 election policy speech. It is also important to stress that under no circumstances will any onus of proof be placed on a claimant. Section 25 of the Act guarantees this and this section is not being amended. Also the Department will continue to be responsible for placing before the Authorities any evidence available to it which is relevant to the claim. Where the veteran served overseas, or engaged in direct combat with the enemy in Australia, any future claim for war widow's pension by his widow will be determined under the criminal standard of proof as is the case at present except where the veteran's death occurred 40 years or more after eligible service. In these circumstances a claim will be accepted whenever the authorities are reasonably satisfied that there is a link between service and death. Widows of TPI pensioners will still be granted pensions automatically. Hence, the wives and widows of Vietnam veterans in particular have no cause for concern regarding these changes. Senator WATSON —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. I refer to the Commonwealth Grants Commission recommendation of a severe funding cut to Tasmania and the visit of the Leader of the Opposition in the Tasmanian Parliament, Ken Wriedt, to his colleagues in Canberra-the Treasurer and Minister for Finance. Was the Tasmanian Leader of the Opposition, Ken Wriedt, successful in his discussions with the Minister for Finance in avoiding cuts to Tasmania. If so, to what extent? Senator WALSH —Wait and see. Senator CROWLEY —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs been drawn to the recent escalation of fighting in Beirut, particularly in the southern suburbs and the Palestinian refuge camps of Sabra, Chatila and Bourj al-Brajneh? In particular, has his attention been drawn to reports of horrifying losses of life and suffering caused to the civilian populations? Is he aware of reports that 25 patients in one hospital have been shot and that doctors and nurses in that hospital have come under attack? Is he aware of the Australian Associated Press reports that four Palestinian registered nurses, who recently trained in Australia, are feared dead in that attack? What action has the Government undertaken in order to assist with the restoration of peace and order in Lebanon? Will the Government protest the outrage against humanity of attacking patients, nurses and doctors in hospitals? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am all too aware of the disturbing reports to which the honourable senator refers. The Government is gravely concerned about this most recent escalation of violence in Lebanon and, in particular, the appalling loss of life and suffering amongst the civilian population, both within the Palestinian camps and the surrounding suburbs. The Government repeats its appeal to all sides involved to exercise restraint to ensure the protection of innocent civilians and to look for a peaceful settlement of the problems confronting the country. On 23 May I informed the Senate that the United Nations Security Council was expected to consider the situation in Lebanon following the Israeli withdrawal in early June and that Australia would participate actively in that consideration. In response to the current violence in Beirut, Australia, as a member of the Security Council, was party to the statement issued by the Council on 24 May. That statement took note of and fully supported the Secretary-General's statement of a couple of days earlier which appealed to all concerned to make every possible effort to put an end to the violence involving civilians in Lebanon. While Australia is not a party principal to efforts to promote a solution to the problems of Lebanon, the Government remains very willing to contribute to the greatest possible extent toward the objective of securing peace and reconciliation in that very tragic country. However, it requires all parties directly involved to show a willingness to cease hostilities, to lay down their arms and to come together to negotiate in a spirit of compromise with the aim of re-establishing the peace, independence, sovereignty and unity of Lebanon. As to the last part of Senator Crowley's question, I am also aware of concerns being expressed about the safety of Palestinian nurses trained in Australia who are believed to have been working in hospitals located in the area of the present fighting. Because of the enormous difficulty in obtaining information on civilians within this area it has not been possible to learn of their welfare. However, I understand that the International Committee of the Red Cross has been asked to make inquiries about their safety and I will keep Senator Crowley as best informed as I can. Senator JESSOP —My question is directed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to comments made a few days ago by Mr Hugh Morgan, of Western Mining Corporation, when he stated that bureaucratic red tape, overregulation and interdepartmental rivalries were strangling the mining industry? Is it a fact that the Olympic Dam mining project has to disentangle the red tape of no fewer than 20 Federal and 24 State departments, which is costing the company an incredible amount of money, in order to make progress with that development? Is the Minister aware of the Confederation of Australian Industry report which shows that the Federal Government spent $304m between 1978 and 1979 on business regulation and also that the direct cost to the private sector of complying with the regulations was $720m and secondary costs amounted to $360m? Is the Minister concerned about this and what does the Government propose to do to alleviate this horrendous economic disincentive to developing Australian resources? Senator BUTTON —I apologise to Senator Jessop if I do not accurately answer the last part of his question because I missed some of the figures that he gave. I was not aware of Mr Hugh Morgan's comments about bureaucratic overregulation strangling the mining industry. As is the case with most of these comments, I think that he has probably expressed himself in a colourful way. However, Mr Morgan has made a serious point about the extent of regulation on Australian industry and on the mining industry in particular, and I think there is a lot of substance to what he has said about that matter. Late last year the Government sought from a wide variety of business organisations some expression of views about the matters which were of most concern to them in terms of the regulatory environment. In the last few weeks we have had contributions on these questions from the Business Council of Australia, the Confederation of Australian Industry, the Australian Chamber of Commerce-I think-and various other bodies. There is no doubt that these concerns channel into some particular areas. I recall from my perusal of these papers that one area of express concern was the number of bureaucratic steps that the mining industry had to go through in obtaining mining leases. I use that example by way of illustration. In response to the discussions which have been going on on this matter, today I announced the establishment within my Department of what is called a business regulation review unit which will be small and will have a watchdog role, working in conjunction with other departments on the question of the removal of unnecessary and outmoded regulations. I know that the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, is addressing this question already in relation to his own portfolio and other Ministers are doing the same. There is a need for some co-ordination of that activity and particularly there is a need for co-ordination of deregulatory activities with State governments. That unit will also serve that function of co-ordinating and liaising with State governments, most of which have now established their own review procedures in respect of industry and business regulation. That unit will serve that purpose. I am not aware of the particular case of the Olympic Dam about which Senator Jessop and I do not know whether the figures he quoted, which I believe to be illustrative of the point he was making, are necessarily relevant or require any response from me. Senator BUTTON —At Question Time today I answered a question from Senator Bjelke-Petersen in which I used a quotation that I said was from Alfred, Lord Tennyson. I do not wish to mislead the Senate. I believe that it is probably correct to say that the quotation was from Reginald Heber. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland) -by leave-Mr President, I wish to make a personal explanation concerning an answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), who imputed improper motives to my family. He inferred that a dam to provide irrigation on the Mackenzie River at taxpayers' expense was being built especially for my son's property. I would point out that the proposed dam is 45 kilometres away from John's property. He has plenty of water in a branch of the Mackenzie River, which is why he bought the property in the first place. I ask that the Minister retract his statements as they are completely untrue. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister for Finance has been asked by the Chair to withdraw the statement, and he has done so. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania) —by leave-Mr President, I wish to make a personal explanation in case there has been any confusion, because I have been contacted by certain sections of the media on this matter. I want to make clear that last year when a reference was given by this chamber to the Privileges Committee, two of the Liberal members of the Committee were overseas. I refer to Senator Jessop and Senator Missen. It was therefore sought to have two people replace them so that the matter could proceed. The two people were Senator Withers and myself. We replaced those members temporarily for the purposes of one inquiry only, and as soon as that inquiry was over we resigned. They have now been restored to the Committee and there is nothing to it other than that. That is the simple and total fact in relation to it. There is nothing more mysterious than that. While the Committee has reported, a fact which has been noted by the Fairfax Press, the reason for our being on the Committee has been completed, and that was simply to replace Senator Jessop and Senator Missen, who were overseas. They have now been restored to their rightful positions on the Committee. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —by leave-In view of what Senator Peter Rae has said, it is possibly necessary for me to make a personal explanation. I make the explanation for a slightly different reason. I was put on the Privileges Committee instead of Senator Bolkus, for the purpose of this particular inquiry, because he was a member of the Committee inquiring into the matter that led to the reference to the Privileges Committee. Merely because that issue has now been finished, I have resigned from the Committee and Senator Bolkus has returned to it. The PRESIDENT —In accordance with usual practice, I table a list of parliamentary committee reports to which the Government has not responded within the prescribed period. The list has been circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, the report will be incorporated in Hansard. The report read as follows- PRESIDENT'S REPORT TO THE SENATE ON GOVERNMENT RESPONSES OUTSTANDING TO PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE REPORTS Date Government Title of Report Tabled Response Senate Standing Committees Constitutional and Legal Affairs 1. The Burden of Proof in Criminal Proceedings 25.11.82 I: 15.12.83 I: 22.10.84 2. The Feasibility of a compact, or ''Makarrata'', between the Commonwealth and Aboriginal people-''Two Hundred Years Later'' 13.9.83 I: 22.10.84 Education and the Arts 1. Tenure of Employment of Academics 9.9.82 I: 15.12.83 I: 22.10.84 2. A National Language Policy 21.2.85 I: 28.5.85 Finance and Government 1. Statutory Authorities of the Commonwealth (5th Report) 16.9.82 I: 15.12.83 2. Superannuation Fund Investment Trust and the Commissioner for Superannuation-Annual Reports 1980-81 1.12.83 I: 22.10.84 3. The Practical Operation of the Prescribed Payments System of Taxation 4.9.84 . . 4. Further Report on Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Christmas Island Administrations 18.10.84 . . 5. Policy Questions Underlying Division 312 of Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1983-84 19.10.84 . . Foreign Affairs and Defence 1. Australia's Defence Co-operation with its Neighbours in the Asian-Pacific Region 23.10.84 . . Industry and Trade 1. Development of the Australian Fishing Industry 21.4.83 I: 15.12.83 I: 22.10.84 2. Australia-China Trade 23.8.84 . . 3. Development of Closer Economic Relations Between Australia and New Zealand (1st Report) 11.10.84 . . National Resources 1. The Development of the Bauxite, Alumina and Aluminium Industries 25.11.81 I: 15.12.83 I: 16.10.84 Science, Technology and the Environment 1. The Preservation of the Abbott's Booby on Christmas Island 2.11.83 I: 7.3.84 I: 22.10.84 2. Land Use Policy in Australia 21.2.85 . . Social Welfare 1. Another side to the Drug Debate-a medicated society? 14.5.81 I: 15.12.83 I: 22.10.84 2. Income Support for the Retired and the Aged (Progress Report) 21.8.84 . . Joint Committees Australian Capital Territory 1. Retail Trading Hours in the ACT 21.10.82 I: 15.12.83 2. The Parliamentary Zone Draft Development Plan 1.3.84 . . 3. Murrumbidgee River in the ACT Region 11.9.84 I: 22.10.84 Foreign Affairs and Defence 1. The Australian Defence Force: its structure and capabilities 11.10.84 I: 23.5.85 Select Committees 1. Statutory Authority Financing (a) Volume 1 8.9.83 I: 15.12.83 I: 22.10.84 (b) Volume 2 13.10.83 I: 15.12.83 I: 22.10.84 2. Conduct of a Judge 24.8.84 . . 3. Allegations Concerning a Judge 21.2.85 . . 4. Private Nursing Homes in Australia 21.2.85 . . 5. Video Material 21.3.85 . . Note: I: Interim Response Only. As at 28 May 1985 Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.08) —Since the paper has not yet hit our desks, I seek leave to move a motion with respect to that, although I do not wish to speak to the matter now. Leave granted. Senator CHANEY —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(3.09) —I present report 233 of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts on the reports of the Auditor-General for 1982-83 and September 1983. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator COONEY —I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Senator COONEY —Report 233 examines the reports of the Auditor-General for 1982-83 and September 1983. Honourable senators will be aware that each year the Committee examines recently published reports of the Auditor-General. Following the tabling of the reports of the Auditor-General for 1982-83 and September 1983, the Committee sought written submissions from 13 departments and authorities in respect of 16 items. This report analyses the responses by departments and authorities to the Public Accounts Committee, explaining the criticisms raised by the Auditor-General in his report. The Auditor-General's Office undertook a review of the fraudulent negotiation of cheques in March to April 1983. The Department of Finance, the Australian Federal Police and departments incurring major expenditure by way of recurring payments-Education and Youth Affairs, Social Security, and Veterans' Affairs-provided advice. In 1982-83, the Commonwealth issued in excess of 89 million cheques of which 14,414, a value of at least $2m, are known or suspected to have been fraudulently negotiated. In that year the amount the Department of Social Security recovered was nearly $1.3m and $286,203 was written off. The total amount written off by all departments on fraudulently negotiated cheques was $292,131. Many of the issues discussed in this report were also raised in the Committee's 232nd report, on the report of the Auditor-General for May 1983, tabled yesterday, dealing with the 'recovery of overpayments' and in the Committee's 213th report, on income maintenance programs. Approximately 90 per cent of all cheques fraudulently negotiated were issued by the Department of Social Security. However, the Committee found a general lack of case statistics in both the Department of Social Security and the Australian Federal Police. For instance, the Department of Social Security did not classify the dual negotiation of cheques by the payee, that is, the original and a replacement cheque, as fraud. Rather this situation is called an 'improper payment' and is treated as an overpayment. The Department advised that its overpayment records do not differentiate between those for which prosecution action has been taken and those for which it has not. However, in 1982-83, 132,000 overpayments were raised to the value of $46.8m. During the same year, $8.2m was recovered by cash refund and $14.6m was recovered by withholdings from continuing entitlement. The Committee is of the opinion that the Department of Social Security should take further measures to draw its clients' attention to the obligation to return either the original or the replacement cheque if both are received. The Committee noted that draft guidelines were being prepared by the Department of Finance, for departments, providing an assessment of the likely outcomes of cases referred to the Australian Federal Police of cheques suspected of fraudulent negotiation. The Committee draws attention to the Bills of Exchange Act, which provides that a person accepting a 'not negotiable' cheque-bank and/or trader-has no better title than the previous holder. As drawer the Department of Social Security claims reimbursement from the person to whose account such a fraudulently negotiated cheque is credited. The Committee is most concerned that, in the majority of cases, recovery of the value of a fraudulently negotiated cheque is obtained from the trader or bank which accepted the cheque. As was stressed yesterday when Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle tabled the Committee's 232nd report, the Committee firmly believes that the adoption of the direct credit method of payment of benefits and allowances removes the opportunity for fraudulent negotiation of cheques and again recommends that the direct credit method of payment be the principal means of payment of all benefits, with only exceptional cases being paid by other means. The Committee notes that the Department of Social Security has conducted and implemented a national review on the correct identification of applicants prior to receiving payments from the Commonwealth. The Committee is most concerned that beneficiaries are properly identified prior to becoming entitled to, or receiving, benefits. The Committee also did not accept the arguments put forward by the Department of Education on the use of the direct credit mode and believes that the Department has not addressed itself fully to the identification and recovery of overpayments of student assistance. The Committee has noted the Auditor-General's continuing interest in the adequacy of departmental procedures for the recovery of outstanding revenue, debts and overpayments. The Committee is concerned at the frequency with which this matter occurs in individual departmental audits and will be looking for evidence that the revised debt management framework cited by the Department of Finance is effective in minimising the problem. There are many other issues covered in this report which I have not raised here. I therefore commend this report to honourable senators. Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory) —On behalf of Senator Tate I present the eighth report of 1985 for the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills concerning the Australian Federal Police Amendment Bill 1985, the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill 1985, the Broadcasting and Television Amendment (Tribunal's Powers) Bill 1985, Communications Legislation Amendment Bill 1985, Conciliation and Arbitration (Electricity Industry) Bill 1985, the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment Bill 1985, the Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1985, the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill 1985, the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Amendment Bill 1985, the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1) 1985 and the Wool Tax (Nos. 1 to 5) Amendment Bills 1985. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator ROBERTSON —I also lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 7 dated 29 May 1985. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —I seek leave to table and incorporate in Hansard some brief observations in response to the comments by the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills on the Broadcasting and Television Amendment (Tribunal's Powers) Bill which I introduced. Leave granted. The document read as follows- EIGHTH REPORT OF THE SCRUTINY OF BILLS COMMITTEE Comments by the Committee on the Broadcasting and Television Amendment (Tribunal's Powers) Bill 1985 (Senator Vigor's Bill). Observations by Senator Vigor The Committee expresses the fear that the new sub-section 16 (1A) proposed to be inserted in the Broadcasting and Television Act by the Bill might be interpreted as giving the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal a power to censor television programs without any criteria to govern the exercise of that power. The Committee has not had regard to the following factors. (1) The Tribunal already possesses an unlimited power of censorship over all radio and television material under section 101 of the Act. If the Tribunal wished to censor programs in the manner envisaged by the Committee it would use that section. (2) The Bill would merely clarify the powers of the Tribunal under section 16 of the Act to make it clear that the Tribunal can continue to exercise the control over programs under that section which it has been exercising for many years. (3) Clause 8 of the Bill, which continues in force the standards and conditions already determined by the Tribunal, makes it clear that the purpose of the Bill is to allow the Tribunal to determine standards and conditions of the type which it has already determined. Assent to the following Bills reported: Housing Loans Insurance Amendment Bill 1985. National Occupational Health and Safety Commission Bill 1985. Debate resumed. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland)(3.16) —I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important piece of legislation today, particularly because a number of my Queensland colleagues withdrew from the list of speakers so that this legislation can be expedited and we can start to get some sanity into the industrial debate in Queensland. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the 800 or more sacked South East Queensland Electricity Board workers who have extremely disadvantaged themselves by taking what I would argue is a principled stand in order to defend the rights of all Australian workers. I say 'all Australian workers' because, although one might say that this is a Queensland dispute, this dispute has far-reaching ramifications. If Australians are prepared to accept the kind of draconian legislation that has been passed by what passes for a Westminster parliament in Queensland, we can be sure that this type of legislation will be adopted by conservative governments in other States in the future. Senator Georges has outlined already the extreme hardship experienced by SEQEB workers and their families. I am afraid I cannot understand how the so-called Christian Premier of Queensland can use SEQEB workers and their families in a political anti-union strategy. I also place on the record my appreciation, and certainly that of the workers in Queensland, of the extensive financial and moral support of trade unionists and citizens throughout Australia who have been absolutely appalled at the treatment of workers and the trampling of unionists' and citizens' rights by the Queensland minority Government. All those workers have been recognised as being victimised, and this has been supported by many prominent people throughout the country, including eminent churchmen. In particular I mention the Archbishop of Canterbury, who mentioned his surprise-he did it diplomatically, of course-at the way trade unions and workers were treated in the State of Queensland. I believe that all fair-minded Australians have condemned the industrial legislation introduced by a militant Premier. He is very keen on calling all trade unionists militant, but he has a very dictatorial attitude. If militancy is to be used to describe anyone, I would say it can just as easily be used to describe the Queensland Premier as trade unionists who, after all, are only trying to maintain the hard won rights that they have battled to achieve over a number of years. The Queensland Premier is determined to crush trade unions and he has said that on a number of occasions in the past. It really comes as no surprise that he has manipulated the events of the past three months to his own end. The situation in Queensland has now become a matter of grave concern for all Australians. The Queensland Government, by its actions, has created a potentially very dangerous state of affairs, not just in Queensland but throughout Australia-the implications will spread right around the nation. By rejecting every opportunity to achieve a rational and reasonable resolution to this matter, the Queensland minority Government is placing at risk the successful economic and industrial situation which my Government has worked so hard to achieve-with outstanding results, I might say-over the past two years. In these circumstances the Federal Government has had no option but to act and to act decisively in introducing this legislation to bring this matter to a resolution. This morning we heard from Opposition speakers, with the exception, of course, of Senator Jack Evans, who said that this legislation is unnecessary. Senator Collard even went so far as to say that the legislation is ridiculous. I could almost agree with Senator Collard and I could almost agree with people who have said that this legislation is unnecessary. Of course it is unnecessary. If we did not have the kind of approach that Queenslanders have to put up with in terms of the approach of their minority Government to industrial relations then, of course, the Federal Government would not have to introduce legislation of this kind. But the Queensland Government has a jack-boot mentality when it comes to industrial relations and to civil liberties. It has provoked confrontation. It has deliberately perpetuated this conflict. It is all very well for members on the other side and for the Queensland minority Premier to cry 'What about State rights? What about our sovereignty?', as was mentioned here this morning. The National Party of Australia and, I am sorry to say, the Liberal Party have had three months in which to deal with this dispute in Queensland. The Federal Government has other things that it would prefer to be doing rather than having to tell Queensland how to manage its industrial relations, but when there is a tyrant like the Queensland Premier who would rather trample- Senator Peter Baume —Mr Deputy President, I take a point of order. It is not correct to describe the Premier as a tyrant. I do not believe that is consistent with standing order 418 and with the general meaning of the word 'tyrant'. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The Standing Orders protect State members of parliament and members of this chamber. The word 'tyrant' should be withdrawn. Senator REYNOLDS —Mr Deputy President, can I call him a tyrant-like Premier? Would that be better? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I am not in the negotiating stages of what you may or may not say, Senator Reynolds. I will tell you if you go wrong. You may proceed. Will you withdraw your earlier remark? Senator REYNOLDS —I withdraw the statement that the Premier is a tyrant, but I would say that the Premier of Queensland reminds me of a tyrant. The Queensland minority Premier, who acts like a tyrant, has had three months in which to resolve this dispute of the Queensland Government's own making. There have been numerous opportunities for the Queensland Government to initiate a resolution of this conflict. Of course, the Queensland Government does not want a resolution of this conflict because it finds it convenient for the media to be preoccupied with industrial confrontation in Queensland instead of focusing on some of the Queensland minority Government's problems. The Queensland Government has shown itself to be totally unwilling to seek a rational basis for satisfactory resolution of this dispute. It has been left to the Federal Government to act to restore some sanity into this matter and to take measures which will both address, in a reasonable way, the issues at the heart of the dispute and help to achieve the principal objective of a guaranteed, stable supply of electricity to Queensland. The Queensland Government has abrogated its responsibilities in this area. I believe it has done so for short term political gains. The original matters in the dispute in the Queensland power industry have long since been lost sight of, as the Queensland Government has eagerly seized on the dispute as a means of mounting a savage attack on the trade union movement and, of course, on the Federal Government. The Queensland Government's handling of this dispute, its attitude to the State Industrial Commission, its use of legislative powers to override basic industrial and democratic rights and its total refusal to enter into any discussions are, taken together, quite unprecedented in Australia's industrial relations history. These actions have sought to overthrow all the established and respected industrial relations practices of which we are so proud in this country. It is because of this that the Federal Government has been obliged to introduce this legislation. Conciliation and arbitration have been rejected in favour of a policy of unilateral legislative action to change terms and conditions of employment which were previously agreed by the Queensland Government and to impose sanctions on those who breach the provisions of that legislation. These actions have gone way beyond what was necessary to ensure what we are supposed to be concerned about-the fundamental stable electricity supplies of the State of Queensland. As I have said, the Queensland Government has repeatedly rejected calls by the Federal Government to enter into discussions with it, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the other parties involved in the dispute. Several weeks ago on television we saw Simon Crean very responsibly almost pleading for a resolution, a coming to terms and the possibility of discussion about the dispute. This Government has offered to convene such discussions in an attempt to resolve the dispute through negotiation of the central issues involved. One essential part of the process of negotiation was that the ACTU and all its affiliates would call off all industrial action against Queensland. In addition, the ACTU was to ensure that dispute settlement procedures were put in place which would effectively guarantee a stable and continuous supply of electricity to Queensland consumers. But still, again and again, the Queensland Government refused to negotiate. Even Mr Ken Williams of the Confederation of Australian Industry stated publicly that the only end possible in the dispute in Queensland was for negotiations to take place. But all these initiatives, whether they have come from the Federal Government, the ACTU or the Confederation of Australian Industry, have been rejected out of hand. As the Queensland Premier has admitted, he is more interested in prolonging this dispute as a means of attacking the Hawke Government than in achieving a resolution of the issues involved. He is intent on pursuing this absurd course regardless of the cost to Queensland, to Queensland individuals, to the sacked SEQEB workers and their families or to the nation as a whole. Queensland people have every reason to demand an explanation from the Premier of his real motives in this dispute. At this point I take the opportunity to bring to the attention of honourable senators the text of an AM interview conducted on 8 May. The interviewer asked the Queensland Premier: Will the Government negotiate at any time . . . The Queensland Premier said: No, we won't negotiate on it. You know that. I've said it so many times. No way. They can go to doomsday. But there's one or two other things-you know, we've got one or two other things that would be very interesting for them if this proceeds. The interviewer said: I suppose there's some feeling that perhaps your interest in bringing the Hawke Government down might be above your interest in resolving this dispute. The Premier of Queensland, who is so concerned about his State and about the rights of Queenslanders in having their electricity guaranteed, said: Well my main objective is to get rid of the Hawke Government. That's the main, prime objective. The following day, on a talk-back radio program on 4BC in Brisbane, what have become known as the Joh tapes were played. They were recorded by a very reputable journalist from the Sydney Morning Herald. That interview spelt out precisely what the Queensland Premier's motives have been all along in precipitating and prolonging this industrial dispute. Although the Queensland Premier was on record as boasting that he had dreamt up this whole charade for the purpose of attacking the Federal Labor Government, that morning he said in an interview that the idea of using the power dispute to bring down the Hawke Government had never entered his thoughts during the confrontation between the Government and the unions. He said: I never thought of it at all. I want to find out if there was someone who impersonated me on that tape. We have so many people who can take me off these days you never know. It has since been found that of course that tape was genuine and of course the Queensland Premier had in fact boasted that he was using the power dispute to attack the Federal Government. That is the sort of person and the sort of government we are dealing with in trying to get a resolution. The Queensland Premier is intent on pursuing this absurd course regardless of the cost to Queensland or the nation. Not surprisingly, the union movement has reacted strongly to these moves. I for one am certainly not going to apologise for that. The Queensland trade union movement and the ACTU have been deliberately provoked. Of course they will respond accordingly to protect their rights and the rights of thousands of Australian workers, both now and in the future. The ACTU, as we know, imposed a prolonged blockade affecting road, rail, sea and air transport to and from Queensland, and we then had the absurdity of the Queensland Government daring to scream that it was being discriminated against. What did the National Party expect from the trade union movement? Queensland had declared war on trade unionism; of course the ACTU would have to respond. Initially the ACTU tried every reasonable course to negotiate, but all realistic overtures were rejected. The Queensland Government did not want a truce; it wanted war with the trade union movement in Queensland, it wanted war with the ACTU and it still wants war with the Federal Government. I wonder what the Queensland National Party would do if draconian Federal legislation were introduced to negate the rights of members of the National Party. Just imagine if I were to introduce a private members' Bill outlawing the National Party in Queensland. It is a lovely idea, but of course it would be a gross infringement of human rights. This is precisely the nub of what has happened in Queensland-just because people disagree with the Government they can be blatantly discriminated against. This dispute has been deliberately engineered to distract attention from the State's ailing economy and record unemployment. The Queensland Premier knew that a conflict with the Electrical Trades Union and the disruption of power supplies in Queensland would precipitate an uproar in the trade union movement in Queensland and in the ACTU, but of course his motives went so much further. What can the reasonable people of Queensland-and there are thousands and thousands and thousands of them-do to try to deal with the type of draconian legislation that has been introduced in their State? They cannot deal with their minority Government and apparently they cannot even appeal to their Queensland Governor. I now quote from a letter written to the Queensland Governor, Sir James Ramsey, on behalf of those many, many thousands of Queenslanders who are so frustrated about their situation: We are most disappointed that you have twice refused to meet a delegation of Queensland's five Labor Senators. This is of particular concern when the Human Rights Commission has found that the Queensland Government is in breach of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. We draw your attention to its conclusions- The Human Rights Commission has found that the Queensland Act is in breach of Article 8 of the international Covenant in that it provides for a power in Queensland Electricity Commissioner to direct any person whom he considers capable of carrying out the necessary work, to perform work to provide, maintain or restore a supply of electricity. Article 8 of the Covenant prohibits forced or compulsory labour except in limited circumstances such as emergency situations, but the Queensland Act is not confined to such situations. The Commission has also found a breach of Article 22 of the Covenant which deals with freedom of association which includes the right of workers to form and join trade unions for the protection of their interests. Its concern was that the terms and conditions of employment appear to have been unilaterally fixed by the Queensland Government without negotiations between unions and management. We enclose this report for your urgent scrutiny and trust that, through reading it, you will be made aware of the gravity of the situation in Queensland if this legislation is not repealed or suitably amended. We do not seek to embarrass you in your present position, but would remind you that, in continuing to deny us an opportunity to discuss our serious concerns about Queensland industrial relations, you are ignoring the opinion of over 550,000 Queenslanders who elected us as Senators. Furthermore, it is pertinent to remind you that, as ALP Senators we represent some 50,000 more Queenslanders than the entire minority government presently responsible for the current impasse. Senator Messner —Don't you represent all Queenslanders or only those who vote Labor? Senator REYNOLDS —Many Liberals are complaining too. Many Liberals are complaining to me about how disgusted they are with the stance that their leader, the puppet Peacock, has taken in this regard. The letter continues: It is most depressing for this number of Queenslanders-- including Liberal Queenslanders- to have been neglected by your high office. This is especially frustrating when we now have full documentation by the Human Rights Commission illustrating that the Queensland Government is out of step with fundamental international democratic standards. We therefore again seek your reconsideration of our request. We believe that once you have read the report of the Human Rights Commission, you will understand why we have persisted with our request to meet you. Unfortunately, the Queensland Governor, whose term is about to expire, did not see fit even to comment on the report and he felt that a meeting with us was not required. However, I am sure that his successor, on taking up his duties, will have different views if he has to deal with the sort of agitation and confrontation that are going on in Queensland. Therefore I anticipate that in the near future we will have the opportunity to take our concerns to the new Queensland Governor. I wish now to quote from the second report of the Human Rights Commission. There seems to be a view on the other side of the chamber that we can just disregard what the Human Rights Commission says. I suppose that nobody on the other side has even bothered to read the Human Rights Commission's report on the industrial legislation package in Queensland; that is, no one except Senator Missen who supports what has been said by the Commission and who said that in the Senate last week. The report states: An overview of the New Queensland Industrial Legislation The overall effect of the industrial legislation package is to remove electricity supply workers from the jurisdiction of the State Industrial Commission, prohibit strikes and picketing in that industry and set up a separate industrial tribunal for that industry. In addition, the legislation makes it more difficult for unions in Queensland to resort to certain forms of industrial action, e.g. certain types of strikes, which are generally accepted in other States as legitimate union activities; reverses the onus of proof in cases of offences under these Acts; and removes discrimination against non-unionists. The consequence of these changes is that the Queensland unions would come under a less favourable system of industrial relations than obtains in other States or under the Commonwealth industrial relations system. In the recommendations, as outlined by Senator Jack Evans this morning, it becomes clear that the Human Rights Commission, in regard to a number of provisions in the package of Queensland industrial legislation, recommends that the inconsistencies be brought to the Queensland Government's attention-although while we have the present Queensland Government, that is a waste of time; it is not concerned about human rights-and furthermore, that if the Queensland Government does not repeal these provisions or bring them into line with Australia's obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Commonwealth Government should take whatever action is necessary to ensure that any application which the relevant unions may decide to make for registration under the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act is able to be heard without delay by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Furthermore, the Human Rights Commission recommends that, if at the end of 1985 the situation remains unsatisfactory in human rights terms, the Government consider referring appropriate issues to the Commission for further inquiry and report. I suppose that one of the most depressing parts of the debate here today is the attitude adopted by Liberal senators. I would not expect National Party senators to agree with the intent of this legislation. But I must say that very many people, particularly in Queensland, expect more of Liberal senators and they expect a much more enlightened outlook than the one we have heard this morning from Liberal spokesmen. In conclusion, I should like to quote from a document given to me by the President of the Queensland Council of Civil Liberties, who is visiting Canberra today. It is titled 'Loss of Liberty-Continuing Breaches of International Human Rights Law in Queensland after the Introduction of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration (Electricity Industry) Act'. It is pertinent for us to remember that by passing this legislation-thanks to the Democrats, for their enlightened stand, it will pass-we cannot assume that all problems are over for Queenslanders. I quote from the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties paper: The new Commonwealth legislation will not however overcome a number of fundamental breaches of human rights caused by the spate of recent Queensland industrial legislation. Australia will continue to be in breach of its obligations under international human rights law in the following areas: Civil conscription; Restrictions on freedom of expression; Alteration of rules of evidence; Restrictions on freedom to associate; Extended definition of 'strike'. Therefore, even after the passage into law of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration (Electricity Industry) Bill, Queensland citizens will continue to experience a loss of civil liberties of sufficient gravity to amount to breaches of Australia's obligations under international law. Therefore, it is argued that a national Bill of Rights is long overdue to entrench into Australia's domestic law those fundamental human rights which we have promised to uphold under international law. I certainly look forward to the time when we will introduce a Bill of Rights, because such a Bill is long overdue, particularly in a State such as Queensland. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(3.44) —History is replete with governors and governments who were unable to see the real issues that confronted them. From Roman times, with Nero, who fiddled while Rome burnt, through to the French Revolution and Marie Antoinette talking about giving the poor and the needy cake, we have had governors and governments who were unable to see the issues that were staring them right in the face. To that long list we now add the Australian Labor Government in the Federal Parliament today. It cannot see that Australia is in crisis, that we have a dollar that is worth 66c and is falling fast. It cannot analyse the relationship between the price of the dollar, the judgment the world puts on it, and its own incompetence in governing this country. Today, the Leader of the Government (Senator Button) chose not to answer a question of mine on what future action the Government would take as the crisis deepened-cowardly, he ran; would not face the issue. Yet he is one of the few people in the whole of the Labor Government who have the intelligence to realise that there is a crisis facing this country. Like his colleagues, he is running away from the issue. We cannot run away from such problems. Senator Colston —Mr Acting Deputy President, I take a point of order. About a minute ago Senator MacGibbon referred to Senator Button and used the word 'cowardly'. I think that that word should be expunged from the record. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Townley) —Order! I ask Senator MacGibbon to withdraw the word 'cowardly'. Senator MacGIBBON —Pusillanimous, then. I withdraw. I was saying that the Government did not have the intelligence to realise that a crisis is now facing Australia. The reason for the 66c dollar we have relates to what this Government is doing. It relates to the defence cuts it is making in this country, to the way it is breaching our alliances with our tried and trusted friends, to the financial practices it is following, and, above all, to the industrial relations practices it is following. The judgment of its peers is that this is an incompetent Government. That is why the Australian dollar is not worth $US1 on world markets; it is worth US66c. I come to the last item I mentioned-industrial relations practices-and I want to relate those practices to the lack of confidence of our peers overseas in the way this country is being governed. The biggest reform we face today is in our archaic industrial relations. Tax reform is important, but it is not in the same league as fixing the industrial relations problems of this country. We have a falling standard of living. We have a crippling debt burden. We have a crippling overseas debt that has to be serviced overseas. We have very high unemployment. We have declining production. All these problems are avoidable and unnecessary. We have a great work force in Australia-a work force in which I have every confidence, a work force that can compete on a productivity basis with any other work force in the world, provided it is given the chance to work. What is more important, we do not have any shortage of people in this country who want to work. They are happy to do a full day's work for a full day's pay. They want the opportunity to get out and work and to improve themselves and the economic lot of this country. What is happening? We are being tied up by rules and regulations. People who want to work and people who want to employ them and use their productivity for the benefit of themselves and the community are denied that chance by the overregulation of the Australian community, and most importantly, by the archaic union system in this country, which imposes a monopoly power on the supply of labour through the union movement. It is a totally discredited system. It is totally outdated and irrelevant. The Australian community recognises that it is outdated. The Australian community now recognises that the basic right of a person is to work on terms which are mutually acceptable to both the employer and the employee. The Australian work force no longer wants the intervention of an impersonal third party, in the form of a union, to regulate the conditions under which it works. We have moved to a condition of voluntary unionism in this country, and the sooner governments, at both State and Federal level, recognise this the better our industrial relations will be. All governments, whether of the Liberal-National Party or of the Australian Labor Party, while they have given lip service in bygone times to voluntary unionism, have in effect practised de facto compulsory unionism. Those days are gone. It always amazes me that the Labor Party, with its equal opportunity legislation, gender equivalence or whatever is the buzz of the time, has never dealt with the problem of human rights in relation to unionism-whether one wants to be a member of a union or not. I speak with some personal experience on this because I am one of the few in this chamber who were unionists at one time in their working careers. I have seen the operation of the union movement from the inside, and at some time I will enlighten the community on some of the sharp practices that are so much the stock in trade of a minority of officials who control the union movement. There is a feeling in this country that we will no longer support compulsory unionism, but the right to withhold labour is not at challenge. The community has matured to the point of view that, while the right to withhold labour on a permanent or temporary basis should not be restricted, someone who has the qualifications should be allowed to do the job that the person on strike refuses to do. There are two consequences of that: Primary boycotts are no longer tenable, and nor is the secondary boycott concept. The primary boycott, the picket line, as shown in Queensland over the last few months, is not acceptable to the community. The licence for thuggery and bullying that the picket line gives those on strike to stand over their colleagues who are prepared to work under the employer's terms is no longer acceptable. Secondary boycotts, strikes by people who are not involved in the actual industrial dispute and who say 'You cannot work for the persons at the centre of the dispute' or 'You cannot supply goods or services to them', are also no longer tenable. Almost 10 years ago the Fraser Government passed section 45D of the Trade Practices Act. That has had the support of the majority community for the time it has been on the statute books. If we need any further confirmation of the untenable position of secondary boycotts we have only to look at the failure of the blockade of Queensland in recent months that the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Federal Labor Government tried to impose on the people of Queensland. It has not worked and it will not work because community values and hopes have moved away from that sort of nonsense. Another change in the community is the belief that essential industries are entitled to strike-free performance from their employees. Society today is far too complex and interdependent for some small minority group, usually a very well paid group earning two or three times the average weekly wage, to hold society to ransom. Society expects that basic services such as electrical supply, water supply and transport will be available on demand irrespective of any circumstances, as it is in most civilised countries in the Western world. Above all, there is recognition that we all live under the rule of law and that unions are not an exception to that rule. At present we live under the practice that unions are outside any legislation on the statute books. They can do what they like. They can damage society in any way at all without being held accountable for their actions. Society is no longer prepared to tolerate that. It is against this background of changed community attitudes that the Labor Party in 1985 brings in this antediluvian legislation. It is redolent of the worst excesses of union power. It is myopic and sectional. It will be opposed clause by clause by the Opposition because it is totally irrelevant and dangerous to Australia in 1985. This legislation is unconstitutional, it does not have a national purpose and it does not have anything ethical or honest about it. It is dangerous and irrelevant. It stems from a government that is beholden to the union movement, a union movement which is not elected. It puts up its officials, usually through rigged ballots within its own body, but it is answerable in no sense at all to the people of Australia. The Australian Council of Trade Unions saw this Bill a week before it was presented to the House of Representatives. The ACTU was the arbiter of what sort of legislation came into this place. It looked at the legislation a week before the elected representatives of this country. The ACTU approved it clause by clause. The legislation was what it wanted, so that is what the people of Australia will get. There is nothing unusual about a Labor government being beholden to the union movement. Of course the ACTU sees the Budget Papers. Of course it is included in the preparatory work for the Budget. It is included in the summit conferences. The biggest group represented in the summit conference on tax reform will be the ACTU. This Bill sets out to reinforce the monopoly power of unions to control the work force. This legislation is unconstitutional because it deals only with Queensland. Section 51 of the Constitution states that the Commonwealth has power to legislate on conciliation and arbitration matters that go beyond the boundaries of the State. But this matter does not go beyond the bounds of Queensland. It started in Queensland, it was fought in Queensland, it was resolved in Queensland and it is now a dead issue in Queensland. It does not involve any other part of Australia, except in the sense that the Labor Government was prepared to support the blockade and the hit list by the unions which belong to the ACTU. It is unconstitutional for the Government now to legislate on matters over which it does not have power. I said that it was an unethical Bill. It is an unethical Bill, it is a face-saving Bill and it is a dishonest Bill. It is face-saving because, as I have told this chamber on repeated occasions, it was Mr Kelty, acting on orders from Mr Dolan, from the ACTU and from the Federal Cabinet, who stabbed the strikers in Queensland in the back. He pulled the plug on them and pulled off the strike in February this year. Now the Government is trying to cover up that and save face by bringing in some sort of protective legislation. This legislation is dishonest because this Government has created the impression for those Electrical Trades Union of Australia members in Queensland and for unionists generally in Australia that they will get their jobs back. The Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission does not have any powers of reinstatement. These people will not get their jobs back regardless of how much the Australian Democrats get into bed with the Labor Party in order to pass this iniquitous legislation. There is no sympathy for those people who do not have jobs in Queensland because they were given the opportunity to go back and work for the electrical authority. They chose not to do so. That was their decision: We are quite happy to let them live with it. This matter points up the hypocrisy of the ACTU. It is carrying on about a couple of hundred people who refused to go back to work, but it is not one bit concerned about the tens or hundreds of thousands of unemployed people in the whole of Australia. It is not interested in that at all. Let me now deal with some of the mythology about the strike. One of the very few correct statements that have been made by people on the other side of politics can be found in the second reading speech of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) in the other place when he introduced this legislation. I will quote two sentences from the speech in which he said: The unions involved in the initial dispute have not been beyond blame. Indeed, by rejecting an order from the Queensland State Industrial Commission directed at resolving the dispute, the unions involved helped lay the groundwork for subsequent moves by the Queensland Government. Quite simply, the unions failed to obey the law. That is the situation in a nutshell. All the mythology we have heard from many people in an attempt to cover up for the union disobedience will not wash at all with the public at large. The Queensland Government took the appropriate action at the time and it exercised powers which are properly constituted in it as a State government. The Queensland Government legislated to protect the community and it did that very well. It started with the basic tenet that it is the right of an elected government to govern on behalf of all the people. There is nothing in the legislation that was put down in Queensland that any law abiding unionist or union leader has to fear. The legislation simply protects the public against an arrogant misuse of union power. It protects the rights of taxpayers who contribute to the electricity generation services which employ these workers and provides a reliable and continuous electricity supply. Other pieces of legislation relate to the guaranteeing of that supply. It is quite wrong for people to talk about the rights set down by the Human Rights Commission or the International Labor Organisation being infringed by this legislation. When the Government was on a money saving spree a couple of weeks ago it should have disbanded the Human Rights Commission. It comprises an opportunistic group of people who support the extreme left of Australian politics. The fact that the Human Rights Commission could react within a matter of days to the request by the Labor Party that it look at the legislation in Queensland, given the work load it has, demonstrates its political bias and who its lords and masters are. It serves no purpose at all for the Australian community and ought to be disbanded. Its opinions need not be considered in this place. A few specific clauses need to be referred to. Clause 4 and clause 6 relate specifically to Queensland. They propose that the State authorities and departments come under the power of this legislation and the Federal Parliament. That is wrong and unconstitutional. Clause 8 removes the discretionary power from the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in respect of determining that a dispute would be better handled at a State level or that it should not be handled at all because of the public interest. Clause 9 compels reference of a dispute to the Full Bench and denies the right of a hearing before a single commissioner or an appeal from an award. Both clauses 8 and 9 again act specifically against State powers and State legislative processes and are therefore wrong. Finally, what is the view of the people we represent? What does the Australian public think of all of this? It is old history now. It is over five months since the trouble started with irresponsible union activity in Queensland. That is long enough for the people of Australia to have taken a sober, considered view on what has happened. The overwhelming feeling of the people of Australia is support for the actions of the Queensland Government. The new mood in Australia to which I referred previously has no truck at all with irresponsible unionists. The Australian people believe that irresponsible union leaders have gone too far, not only on this issue but also on a whole variety of other issues. The Federal Government, the Labor Party, cannot recognise this fact. The Queensland Government can and did. We are witnessing today an historical turning point in industrial relations in Australia. We have been on a one-way street. The Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has been used and abused, intimidated and suborned by reckless union leaders screwing the Australian community more and more over the years, causing suffering, a loss of money and a loss of jobs, buying peace by always upping the ante until the community gave in to the selfish, sectional demands of the union leaders. Today we see a change. We saw one State government, out of the seven governments in Australia, stand up to this gross abuse of power, recognising that Australia needs a reasonable and fair approach to its industrial relations. We want to live in a just and humane society and not be governed by a bunch of selfish bullies. For those reasons, the Opposition will fight this Bill clause by clause. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(4.05) —I have listened very carefully to this debate. This matter would not have come before this Parliament were it not for a series of historic mistakes. Although not historic, the comments of Senator MacGibbon, who spoke previously, are mistaken in almost every respect. In his attack on the principles of preference for unionists, on the conditional principles of the right to strike and on the principle of the right to work with freedom, Senator MacGibbon has been in error. I point out with some 20 years of experience in the trade union movement that there are certain principles which are important to orderly industrial progress. Firstly, orderly industrial progress and good industrial relations are best served by encouraging-not smashing-effective, responsible trade unions to work in the best interests of their members and by encouraging members to participate fully in union affairs. If the Electrical Trades Union of Australia members have learnt nothing else from this dispute in Queensland, they know that in the future it is in their best interests to become actively involved in the affairs of their union and not to leave things to their leaders. Industrial relations are best served by that type of approach to unionism, including preference for unionists under those circumstances. Secondly, the power of trade unions to contribute effectively and responsibly to orderly industrial progress depends on the co-ordinated and self-disciplined action of union members. Thirdly, the rules of individual trade unions registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act contain self-disciplinary provisions. I do not want to go into the aspect of whether we are dealing with a State registered industrial union or a federally registered industrial union. The Conciliation and Arbitration (Electricity Industry) Bill 1985 deals with a federally registered industrial union. Likewise, a central trade union organisation, such as the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the State labour councils, has rules for the conduct and control of industrial disputes, with its own internal disciplinary procedures. These procedures although disregarded and ignored initially in this case, are designed and are necessary to achieve the objects of the unions in a united and co-ordinated manner with the least possible disruption. In the initial stages the problem was that those rules for the conduct and control of industrial disputes were not observed. The Government was moved in this official document, in this second reading speech, to castigate the ETU for its failure to observe the proper procedures in the early part of the dispute. Much of the blame for the mess that the members of the union have got into rests with the leaders of the ETU and their ignorance and failure to observe the proper procedures at the beginning of the dispute. That is well known among the whole of the trade union movement. As I said, the Government has seen fit to include a comment about that in the second reading speech of the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes). Let us come to the wide-ranging attack Senator MacGibbon launched against the right to strike. I believe everyone would concede that there is not an uninhibited right to strike. Indeed, if we consider the question of rights we have to acknowledge that there are not many fundamental, absolute rights in the world. In fact, rights really are claims which are generally made when the interests of the people concerned are in question or under attack by other people or other interests. Rights are really a manifestation of a more basic principle. Is Senator MacGibbon saying that that manifestation or claim is not proper when the key interests of employees-that is, people who are trying to make a living for themselves and their families-are under attack? That is the situation we have reached in this dispute. As I read the laws passed through the Queensland Parliament, they embody very cohesively and coherently the common law and the old master and servant relationship that preceded the introduction of conciliation and arbitration systems in the States and in the Commonwealth. Is it fair to say, as Senator MacGibbon said, that nothing in those laws should give any concern to a law-abiding citizen. On my analysis of what is being said in these laws, it is not fair to say that. As I said, the laws incorporate the old master and servant approach, which predates the system of conciliation and arbitration. They override rights under existing awards. They were consent awards. They were not awards arbitrated by the President of the Queensland Industrial Commission, but awards relating to wages and working conditions, which in fact were agreed to by the South East Queensland Electricity Board and approved of by the Queensland Government. The Queensland Government said, when it introduced its legislation: 'Irrespective of those rights which you have under those awards, you will return to work now under conditions passed by this Parliament, under legislation introduced by this Government'. The legislation required those persons to go back to work; imposed increased hours of work; required them to sign away their right to strike-I will come to that question when I deal with essential services shortly-inserted a no strike contract; abolished union preference and required the declaration of the names of work mates who supposedly instigated industrial action. I ask the Senate whether that truly gave to the men concerned a freedom of choice, as was suggested by Senator MacGibbon. When the old master and servant legislation was tested in the United Kingdom the courts then overrode the legislation and indicated that it was biased towards the master. The classic statement of the court was that necessitous men are not free. It is unfair to say to the workers concerned that they have a choice of servile impotence or of not eating. I believe that this legislation is important. It is in the interests of not only the employees and the sacked workers of the SEQEB but also society as a whole to ensure that we do not go back to the dark ages in which there was an enormous imbalance in favour of the master. It would have been much better had the union at that stage agreed to the recommendation of the President of the Queensland State Industrial Commission. The Government has said that it is certainly not to blame, but we cannot bury our heads in the sand. An application was made by the ETU. From memory, a log of claims was served by the ETU on 19 February, at the request of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. One of the less well known ironies of all of this was that it was not received by the SEQEB for another three weeks because of the postal union bans in support of the claims. The log of claims was ultimately received by the SEQEB and a hearing was scheduled by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The other party to be served was an electricity authority in the Northern Territory. The hearing was held before Commissioner Brown. After quite a lengthy hearing and substantial documentation-the transcript runs into many pages-Commissioner Brown found that a dispute existed. Senator MacGibbon volunteered that, in his opinion, the finding of the dispute was unconstitutional. I assume that will be tested before the High Court of Australia. I understand there is a challenge to the High Court by the Queensland Government. The finding was challenged by the Queensland parties before the Full Bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. One basis of the challenge was the question of whether the claim-motivated, as it was alleged to have been, to extract employees from the State jurisdiction and place them under Federal jurisdiction-was sufficient to create an industrial dispute. If one goes back to the Cohen case that argument on its own would not be sufficient. Clearly there was a purpose, it was expressed by the ETU's Federal decision. The workers desired to pursue their log of claims and achieve aspects of it in the form of an award by the Commission. Included in that updated log of claims were such matters as questions relating to the termination of employment, technological change and the like. The Full Bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission upheld Mr Commissioner Brown's findings of a dispute. This legislation attempts to speed up the process of conciliation and arbitration or, more directly, to speed up the process of arbitration. To be quite frank, I do not like this measure but at this stage I cannot see any other way of handling a situation which goes to the very heart of industrial relationships in Australia. I recognise that it is a matter which has been dealt with by the State tribunals and the Federal tribunal; it is a matter with which this Parliament has previously dealt and with which it is entitled to deal. I am quite confident that the presidential members and other members of the Commission do not particularly like the legislature putting them on a fast rail track, as this legislation does. However, I am sure that that will not interfere with their judgment. I believe that the Full Bench that hears the dispute after this legislation goes through the Parliament will not be influenced in its integrity by expressions in this chamber. What is the other way of dealing with the matter? The other way of dealing with it was suggested by the Human Rights Commission. I am glad to say that even the Government rejected that approach because it would have encouraged this industrial matter being launched well and truly into the political arena and it would have necessitated the Government invoking its foreign affairs power to deal with what was essentially an industrial dispute. I am pleased to note that the Government has rejected that approach because it could backfire on not only the States and the Commonwealth but, more particularly, ordinary rank and file unionists throughout the length and breadth of this country, depending upon what conservative governments of the future may do when coming to agreements with foreign powers. It would have established an enormous precedent which would have backfired against the ordinary workers of this country. I do not blame the Human Rights Commission for its major recommendation. That recommendation was really to enhance its powers and presumably to give it more staff to get going and to deal with these matters. The Commission is entitled to do that, but I am happy to see that the Government has not gone along that path. The Government had a very difficult decision to make and it has made that decision. I believe that there is no certainty that what is proposed in this legislation and what emerges from it-an early hearing by a Full Bench of the issues involved, depending on what happens in the High Court-will overcome the individual problem. I believe that people in Queensland, from the Premier down, should look at other ways of solving this problem. Any system of conciliation and arbitration depends on the desire of those who are parties to the system to see that it works. Unless that desire is there it will not work. A number of suggestions have been made over a period as to ways and means of overcoming the problem. I do not know much about it, but there was one suggestion made by someone called Russell, I think, to have a co-operative of various electrical tradesmen formed to do some work for the South East Queensland Electricity Board. Senator Georges —Non-union and sub-contract labour. Senator HARRADINE —It would not necessarily be non-union labour. There are many co-operatives in the world, some of them very effective, which have 100 per cent union labour. I raise this as a simple suggestion. One must think of other ways in conjunction with this way, because there is no guarantee that this way will work, or that it will provide the workers concerned with the true freedom of choice which is their right and which has been taken away by the measures adopted in Queensland. I have deliberately gone out of my way not to castigate anyone in Queensland. One can understand the feelings of people who have had their power cut off. That is another question. People do have the right to manifest a claim in respect of power supplies because of their particular circumstances-whether it be old ladies going up in lifts, hospitals or workers in the other industries which have been closed down. A lot of ordinary workers found themselves out of work because of the power cuts. That was because the fundamental union principle was not observed, the principle that if a person goes out on strike and puts me out of work, he has the responsibility first to consult me through the general trade union movement. The ACTU came into the dispute, and it has extracted a number of guarantees from the individual union. One of those guarantees relates to this important aspect of the continuity of supply of electricity to Queensland consumers. I remember giving a speech on this subject way back in 1961. I tried to find the speech in my files, but my files being what they are I could not find it. One thing that concerns me is that many people, particularly in the electricity industry, are no better off-in fact they are worse off-when they go under Federal awards. The conditions under State awards in electricity authorities are better by and large than under Federal awards. That is one problem that is now emerging. But the real essence of the problem is to restore this whole issue to where it belongs-in the hands of independent arbitral authorities, out of politics, where the issues can be addressed and where justice can be ensured, always, as the Full Bench is required to do, having regard to the common good. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(4.32) —The Senate is debating the Conciliation and Arbitration (Electricity Industry) Bill and the defeat that looms for this Bill, given the expressed voting intentions of those who have spoken, represents a clear blow to the hopes of those Australians who wish to see industrial relations change. I do not think there is very much doubt that the great bulk of the Australian people are sick to the back teeth of the industrial relations system in Australia. I have no doubt at all that they do not support the intervention of trade unions to disrupt essential services. I think there is no doubt that they would see the move by the Queensland Government to prevent that disruption as being in the public interest. The essential division between those who will vote for this legislation and those who will vote against it is that those who will vote for it, in particular the Labor members in this place, believe that the present system is a good one and should be preserved notwithstanding its faults. That is to be taken against the view of the Liberal and National parties that there are many features in the present system that are not in the national interest. In between us of course are the Australian Democrats, whose votes on this occasion unfortunately will decide this issue. I can only say that they appear to be expressing in-principle agreement with the Opposition, but to be casting their votes in the opposite direction. This is an important debate with considerable implications for the industrial relations system. For that reason there has been a great deal of pressure for people to have the opportunity to speak on this subject. I acknowledge the fact that in particular Opposition Queensland senators who are not speaking in this second reading debate are taking that course because of the pressure of time and in deference to the need to deal with this and other legislation before the Parliament rises. Senator Sheil, Senator Parer, Senator Bjelke-Petersen and Senator Boswell all expressed a desire to speak in this debate. There has not been the opportunity for them all to speak, and I acknowledge the fact that they made room for me to make some contribution to the debate. What this Bill is about is essentially to take from the hands of the Queensland Government its ability to control some quite important events in that State. The Bill's aim will be to reduce the power of the Queensland Government to control its own authorities which are supplying electricity. The Bill will do that by removing what influence and control the Queensland Government might have over the industrial relations system to which that industry is subject. The Bill will accelerate the transmission of the relevant trade unions and relevant awards into the Federal area to make them solely the subject of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, and will make quite clear in the legislation itself that the State arbitral authorities are to have no jurisdiction. That essential feature of the Bill-its buttressing of the present moves by the trade union movement to reduce the influence of the Queensland Government in these matters-does not have the support of the Opposition. We do not believe that it is in the national interest. This legislation is part of a determined effort by the Australian Council of Trade Unions and its servant, the Hawke Government, to retain the old ways of doing things in the industrial relations area. I think it ought to be acknowledged by every honourable senator in this place that that is not the will of the Australian people. In many important respects people do not wish to retain the old ways of doing things. Most people are sick of it and want change. They want an end to the abuse of trade union power which has bedevilled us far too often. To relate that quite general statement to the issues which face us in Queensland and the issues which are touched on by this legislation, I would say that it is without dispute that the people want an end to trade union control over whether sub-contractors are employed by an authority or any other employer. They want an end to the disruption of essential services. This has been particularly marked in Queensland but other consumers around Australia have felt the burden too from time to time. I do not think there is any doubt that the Australian people want an end not just to the illegal blockading of businesses and individual industrial operations but to the blockading of a State, which is what we saw quite recently. I have absolutely no doubt that the people of Australia want an end to the concept of a hit list whereby the ACTU can draw up a list of 50 or more companies which are lawfully going about their business in Australia and say that those companies will be subject to trade union sanctions-sanctions which are illegal, but that illegality stands for nothing. The companies cannot bring action because they would be subject to further abuse and the Government will not act on their behalf. So we have a tolerance of illegal activity. I do not believe that the Australian people support that for a moment. Perhaps most importantly the Australian people generally would support an end to an arbitration system which too often provides for one-sided obligations. It permits the employers to be bound by awards and makes those awards enforceable against employers but leaves individuals and trade unions free to flout awards when it suits their convenience. I mention those as just some of the aspects of the present system which I believe need change and which the Australian people would want to see changed. This legislation represents a barrier in the way of some changes being effected. It is quite clear that the Hawke Government wants to retain the old way of doing things in the industrial relations area. I have enormous respect for many people who are engaged in the field of industrial relations. I listened to what Senator Harradine had to say as he has been active in that field. The Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button), who has returned to the chamber, carried on a legal practice which largely touched on that field. I can understand that many people would see many features of the system that they want preserved. I would like to see some acknowledgment on the part of the Government, the Australian Democrats and Senator Harradine that some very major features of the old way of doing things need to be changed. The Queensland Government wants change and it has set about seeking it. I believe that there is absolutely no doubt that public opinion and time are on the side of change in this area. Senator Jack Evans —We want to go forward, not backwards. Senator CHANEY —I do not wish to be distracted by the bleating of Senator Jack Evans who, throughout this session, his final session in the Senate, has said that his principles say one thing but his vote will say another. We have had it again in this debate. I really do not appreciate any intervention by Senator Evans in a debate which is of some national importance. It is not peculiarly the view of the Liberal Party of Australia or the National Party of Australia that the time has come for change. I was somewhat surprised when the Canberra Times printed a lengthy leading article on 16 April in favour of change in these areas. I would like to quote from the Canberra Times because we have had talk of civil liberties in this area and we have had to listen on two occasions to one honourable senator from Queensland talking about civil liberties in this area. I do not refer to Senator Georges, to whom I listened with more respect. Let me quote from the Canberra Times, because I think the quote is apposite and I do not think it comes from a newspaper which has a reputation for being right wing or reactionary. The article states: Prominent churchmen who have spoken out in favour of the right to strike and the threat to civil liberties posed by Queensland's five new Acts would do well to contemplate the extent to which existing industrial law and practice have eroded civil liberties in Australia. Both the Queensland Government and the trade-union movement are authoritarian: that, however, should not be allowed to conceal the fact that in this instance the Government is curtailing some liberties of a minority of its populace to protect some liberties of the majority-including the right to work. The positive, protective aspects of the new laws have not been acknowledged. A little later the leading article said: In practice, the unions have exploited their privileges, and the Queensland Government is now withdrawing them. On the day before, the Australian Financial Review made similar comments in a leading article. I quote a few words of that leading article: At present, however, the unlimited right to strike or other industrial action while unions are given special legal privilege and while no sanctions can be enforced for the breach of an award gives disproportionate power in the community to unions. A little later, it said: The status and privilege of unions as at present exists, is not a fundamental aspect of democracy, nor need limitations upon strike action to protect the community be treated as tantamount to an attack on political liberty and free speech. Non-unionists have their rights, too. We have a situation where what is fundamentally at issue is that the Government is insisting that industrial relations in Queensland be cast back along the old ways; that we go back to a system where we will get all sorts of fancy undertakings, all sorts of fancy conferences and all sorts of fancy decisions, but we will not get a binding commitment from the trade unions concerned to perform their part of the bargain. I will come later to Senator Jack Evans's extraordinary reliance on a telex from the ACTU. I am very glad that Senator Evans is not a lawyer, because I would not rely upon him as a lawyer if his interpretation of that telex is that he has binding commitments. Senator Reynolds, the Queensland senator to whom I referred earlier, sent a quite one-sided reference to the Human Rights Commission. Senator Reynolds did not ask the Human Rights Commission to advise on whether the rights of the people of Queensland, her constituents, have been breached by the Electrical Trades Union. Senator Reynolds seems to have been strangely silent about the human rights of Queenslanders, until the Bjelke-Petersen Government acted to require the trade unions to act in a different way. Senator Reynolds sent a completely one-sided reference to the Human Rights Commission. The Human Rights Commission seems to have acted on her reference, and I can only say that it is a great pity for the reputation of that body that it was not able to encompass the wider issues of this debate in its reports which have been referred to in this place. Senator Reynolds did us one service in her speech; she referred to a debate between Mr Vince Lester, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Affairs in Queensland, and the putative leader of the trade union movement in this country, Simon Crean. I wish that everyone in Australia had seen that debate. If someone had told me that the new Minister for Employment and Industrial Affairs in Queensland, Mr Lester, would do Simon Crean like a dinner on a television debate, I think I would have disputed him, but Mr Lester asked Mr Crean the unanswerable question. Mr Lester said: 'How can you deliver? Mr Crean, I cannot take any notice of you because you have said these things in the past and you cannot deliver'. The reality is that, just as Senator Reynolds said, Simon Crean was left on his knees begging for talks. That was the position which Simon Crean had to adopt in that debate. It was a pathetic performance from the person whom we are told will be the next leader of the trade union movement in Australia. The reality is that Vince Lester had Simon Crean against the wall because Simon Crean knew that he could not deliver. That is the sad fact of the matter. What we are asked for is lots of talk; there is no suggestion of binding commitments on the ACTU or, indeed, on the trade union movement. Mr Lester, I believe, made a signal contribution to the debate on that subject on that particular television segment, because he brought out the impotence of the ACTU to deliver on promises which in fact have been repeated today by its agent for the day, Senator Jack Evans, Democrat, Western Australia. I refer to what Senator Georges said. I say to Senator Georges that undoubtedly he put his body where his mouth is. He has been prepared to undergo very considerable personal inconvenience and travail in support of the views which he put. I pay respect to the sincerity of Senator Georges in this matter, even though I believe him to be grievously wrong in his approach to it. He talked about what has occurred being a gross overreaction with serious consequences for industrial relations. I can only say to him that what has happened in Queensland is the inevitable reaction to far too long a period of trade union lawlessness, blackmail and behaviour of a type which most Australian people find repugnant. I listened very carefully to Senator Georges when he expressed concern about the possible emergence of fascism in Australia. I, like him, have looked at the history of the emergence of fascism and he, I think, is at one with every other senator in his repugnance for that doctrine. I say to Senator Georges that, on my reading of history in Germany in the 1930s, there is far more in the behaviour of the Builders Labourers Federation from time to time and in the behaviour of some of the less savoury elements of the trade union movement which is akin to the behaviour of the brown shirts than one will find in the behaviour of the Queensland police or other Queensland authorities. I think that there are very serious problems for Australia in those ratbag elements of the trade union movement which inflame the populace against the genuine rights of trade unions and which I think have been a very nasty feature of Australian society for the whole of my political life. One can talk endlessly to builders, to small businessmen running transport businesses and to many people who are the subject of intimidation, victimisation and unsavoury behaviour and find that they have no legal remedy of which they can avail themselves. It is in that sort of behaviour, which I think has been a very unhappy feature of so much trade union activity, that we see the real threat to Australia. It may be true that this legislation will, as Senator Georges said, lead to the conference table and provide an environment for reinstatement. My own view is that that is unlikely to happen. It seems to me to be something which is almost impossible at this stage. Unfortunately, the whole of Senator Georges's speech was really predicated on the idea that doing it the old way is good enough. With the greatest of respect to Senator Georges, doing it the old way is no longer good enough and is no longer acceptable to the Australian people. Senator Jack Evans made a speech which told us what will happen to this legislation. This legislation will be passed and so we will, in time, know whether what Senator Evans has told us is true or false. Senator Evans will not be here to extract a reckoning, but no doubt he will watch the future of this matter with very great interest, as we will. Senator Evans said that the Democrats would not allow the passage of the Bill unless there was no resumption of the blockade and a no strike clause in the award. He tabled a telex which he said gave a watertight guarantee of the situation. I must say that if Senator Evans thinks he has a watertight guarantee from the ACTU he accepts words as having a very strange meaning indeed. The telex from the ACTU which he tabled simply sets out: The immediate issues of priority for the ACTU in settling the current Queensland disputes are as follows: The telex then sets out the priorities, the first of which reads: The re-instatement of the sacked SEQEB workers who are the real victims of this dispute. It is common ground that that will not be settled; that will not be achieved by this legislation. So that priority issue is obviously not dealt with by this legislation. It then states that the restoration of a workable industrial relations environment is one of its priority issues. Then there are other matters which are dealt with. It states: The ACTU decision to suspend industrial action arises from the initiative of the Federal Government. The ACTU will have to review its position if this initiative is thwarted. I am not quite sure what initiative might be regarded as being thwarted in the future by the ACTU. Obviously, we will not have the reinstatement of the sacked workers, so that would appear to be one point at which the initiative will be thwarted. It seems that what we have here are more of those words from the ACTU on which the ACTU has never been able to deliver in the past. What we have here is a very leaky raft. What the Australian Democrats have decided to do is to shove the Australian people out on this leaky raft. They had better hope that it floats. The second telex which was tabled came from the combined mining unions and that contains a nice unequivocal assurance again to the Australian Democrats. It says that the combined mining unions will cancel their conference. It continues: However, if actions are precipitated against coal mining workers by either the Government or industry employers, the C.M.U. would be left with no alternative but to defend ourselves. I do not know just what sort of action might be precipitated against coal mining workers by the Government or industry employers in the future. All I can say is that, if that is an assurance on which the Australian Democrats are prepared to rely, that is not an assurance on which the Opposition is prepared to rely. The best thing that can be said about the Australian Democrats is that their stance on this Bill represents the triumph of hope over experience. I just hope that the Democrats will be more ready next time we are faced with legislation of this sort, as I am sure we will be, to act on the realities which are demonstrated by the past than they have been on this occasion. Senator Boswell has just drawn to my attention a report of 29 May in which the Electrical Trades Union warned that it would call for major industrial action next week if Federal legislation failed to secure the re-employment of 800 sacked SEQEB workers. Of course, that is a more recent update on the threat which was reported in the Australian Financial Review just a few days ago in exactly the same terms. What we have is a situation in which the Democrats have chosen to support this legislation, not on the basis of anything that can be described as a watertight guarantee, but rather on some broad expressions of intention by the trade union movement which are not of a binding nature, which are not enforceable and which will leave the Australian people and the people of Queensland with no remedies when those undertakings are broken, as inevitably they will be. It is important to go back to the origins of this dispute. Various honourable senators have drawn attention to the fact that the Government has conceded that there was wilful industrial action on the part of trade unions in Queensland which could not be condoned or supported. The reality is that the trade unions in Queensland set out to prevent the SEQEB from employing sub-contract labour. They had no right to do that. They were not entitled to do that, yet they sought to do it. They imposed industrial action on the Board, trying to pursue that end-an end which they had no right to pursue in the first place. The fact is that the Queensland Government has moved to guarantee the supply of essential services in Queensland. The fact is that the strike which was undertaken is at an end. It has been brought to an end by resolute government action; the dispute is at an end. It is the trade union movement which is prolonging this dispute. This legislation represents a step in removing the power of the Queensland Government to deal with its own affairs. It is a retrograde step and a step which is thoroughly opposed by the Opposition. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(4.55) —I do not wish to speak at great length on the Conciliation and Arbitration (Electricity Industry) Bill because the issues have been very widely canvassed. All sorts of mock morality and so on have intruded into the debate. Senator Chaney —By Senator Reynolds, do you mean? Senator BUTTON —I did not say who intruded it, Senator, and I am being even-handed about it, if you like. Senator Georges —Spread it across the whole chamber. Senator BUTTON —That is right. Senator Georges —He included me, of course. Senator BUTTON —Yes, Senator, I included you. The fact is that the national Government was faced with an enormously difficult situation in Queensland which was damaging not only to the Queensland economy but also to the national economy. The national Government made numerous endeavours to consult with the Premier of Queensland about this dispute but all those attempts were rejected. The Government sought to facilitate negotiations between the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Queensland Government but those attempts were also rejected. I think it is worth while pointing out, for us to understand the history of the dispute, that there was one quite dramatic point where this dispute could have been settled by the Queensland State Industrial Commission. A proposal put forward by the Commission was accepted by the unions but rejected outright by the Premier of Queensland. As a result the President of the Queensland Commission felt it incumbent upon him to call a special session of the Commission to point out that a number of things which had been said by the Premier about that Commission were totally erroneous. One of the things he did point out was that a lot of the terms and conditions which the Premier complained about had actually been negotiated between his Government and the unions and agreed to between his Government and the unions. The President of the Commission had to take those steps to point those matters out. They are relevant factors in the history of the dispute. Senator Chaney, in his speech, followed down that meandering road of philosophising aloud, which the Liberal Party of Australia does at the moment in respect of various matters, particularly on industrial relations issues. If I may characterise Senator Chaney's speech, it was half emotional ire about trade unions, a bit of old-fashioned union bashing and things like that, and half suggesting how all these problems might be solved. He floated a few ideas; for example, the arbitration system was in many respects outmoded, it ought to be got rid of and a whole range of other possibilities could be considered. I do not agree with the substance of all of those but I think they are perfectly legitimate subjects for debate in the Senate. I do not for the life of me see what they have to do with what happened in Queensland. Senator Chaney, in his speech, connected a whole lot of examples of bad past industrial relations practices with some vague views about how these things might be tackled in the future, and suggested that the Queensland dispute was somehow in the middle of all that. I do not see the connection between all those things. I think ultimately one of the tests we have to apply to an industrial relations system is the result. These philosophical concerns in the Liberal Party date back some years now. They first surfaced in 1976 when the new Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, gave what was sometimes said to be a major speech on Liberal Party philosophy in respect of industrial relations. There were two elements in that speech. One element was that there were always two sides to the case in industrial relations, and I agree with him on that. He went on to say that these things were best handled by consultation, negotiation and discussion. That was the prime view which the former Prime Minister articulated. He then went on to say that if negotiations, discussion and such things did not produce results there would be consequences, as he put it. It is those two streams of thought-the one which is involved with consequences and the one which is involved with conciliation, discussion and so on-which lie at the heart of the industrial relations debate and which, with respect, the Liberal Party in this country has never really straddled. It is not quite sure where it stands on those two issues. One of the tests or criteria of any industrial relations system must be the results it produces. I do not regard our industrial relations system as perfect. It has served this country pretty badly in years gone by, but the figures for industrial disputes in Australia in the last couple of years, since this Government was elected, have been the best in 17 years. The wage fixation system in place under this Government has produced unit labour costs which are back to the level of 1969 and 1970. A whole range of benefits have flowed from the use, as it were, of the first Malcolm Fraser principle, if I might call it that; that is, deriving benefits and consulting on and discussing particular issues in industrial relations as a means of providing solutions to problems. We have all sorts of historical difficulties in our industrial relations systems which have grown up as a result of bad practices in industry and by unions, just as we have an historical legacy of bad practices in industry and in management in this country-luxuries which we cannot afford any more. Consideration in debate about all those sorts of things is very important but we have before us a piece of legislation to deal with a particular situation which was becoming immensely damaging to this country. A few weeks ago there was really no light at the end of the tunnel in respect of this dispute and this blockade of Queensland-no light at all. The gung ho senators on the other side of the chamber started to yell 'Give them more stick', 'All the way with the Premier of Queensland' and 'All the way with Margaret Thatcher'. Those solutions do not commend themselves to this Government. It is not an approach which we are prepared to adopt. So much for the general parameters of the debate which has taken place. I wish to refer briefly to a number of specific things said by Opposition senators. Generally, there was support for the Queensland Government position-whatever it might be. I remind honourable senators opposite of contributions to this debate which clearly prove that the position of the Queensland Government in respect of an issue which was damaging to the Queensland economy and to the Australian economy was not dictated by social, industrial or economic considerations. The position of the Queensland Government was dictated by blatant political considerations. That is as clear as anything, as would be revealed by a study of the transcripts and so on of what has taken place. The second position which emerges from the Opposition-I am pleased to hear this-is that there is a general belief on that side of the chamber that somehow a heavy-handed punitive approach will resolve industrial relations problems. I have referred to that in the context of my general remarks. It was also suggested that somehow the Commonwealth Government was in the pocket of the Australian Council of Trade Unions in respect of this issue. I reiterate that the Government's predominant concern is to protect the public interest, both nationally and in Queensland. Let there be no doubt about this. The Government, through the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) and other spokesmen-through myself in this chamber-when we have been asked about it have roundly condemned the blockade of Queensland. Senator Chaney —That is a gross exaggeration. Senator BUTTON —It is not a gross exaggeration. Senator Chaney —You went nowhere near roundly condemning anything. Senator BUTTON —On these issues I do not engage in the sort of emotive public school language which Senator Chaney went on with when he talked about tolerance of illegal activity, lawlessness and standovers. Senator Chaney —That's right. Do you deny those things? Senator BUTTON —No, but what I deny is the honourable senator's capacity, with any integrity, to put all those things into the context of the Queensland dispute. Where he got them from was the Builders Labourers Federation, and he lumped them all into his discussion of the Queensland dispute. That is what I deny-his integrity to say those things and his integrity in relation to these things if he lumps them all together in relation to the Queensland dispute. Senator Chaney —You didn't do your duty as a Minister, either. You failed to do your duty to control the Australian public servants. Senator BUTTON —That is what I am talking about when I refer to the honourable senator's emotive language. He asks me to do my duty to control, as he puts it, the Australian Public Service. What I put to him a minute ago-he probably was not listening-is that we have done our duty in the last two years a bit better than his Government did in seven years of government in terms of industrial disputation. Look at the record that that Government had. It is the most shocking record of any government. Senator Harradine —Look at the way they handled the Telecom dispute. Senator BUTTON —Senator Harradine interjects about the way the Government handled the Telecom strike. That was great. The Liberals did great things with that, did they not? In 1981 and 1982, look what they did in relation to the wages system in this country, and look to what it produced. What Opposition senators cannot stomach is the success of this Government in handling these matters, which reminds them, in turn-and the people of Australia-of abysmal failure when they were in government. They know what the record is. They can look it up for themselves. The record was abysmal in terms of industrial relations. Senator Chaney is fixing me with all those words which naturally come to him. When he addresses the subject of the Australian trade union movement, he talks about lawlessness, tolerance of illegal activity, and standover tactics. When he addressed me, he talked about me doing my duty. They come from the same lexicon of moral righteousness which Senator Chaney thrives upon in relation to other groups and people in this community. The test of whether people are doing their duty-to adopt his terminology-is to look at the results. The results in respect of this Government have been so much better than anything that Senator Chaney and his colleague did when, for example, the Fraser Government stopped the telephone system in this country because of the silly attitudes of Ministers such as Mr Sinclair. Senator Chaney —You give in to your bosses in the ACTU, that's why. They don't need to strike; you give it all to them. Senator BUTTON —The latest interjection was a gem. I should like it recorded. Perhaps I may repeat it. Senator Chaney says: 'They don't need to strike, the ACTU; you give it all to them'. That is Senator Chaney's view of the world. Senator Chaney —That's right; you gave the public servants 2 per cent. Senator BUTTON —Whatever we have given them in the last two years, we certainly did not give them a 22 per cent increase in wages-which is what Senator Chaney's Government gave them in 1982. Perhaps that was just out of generosity on the part of a Liberal government. We certainly did not give them a 22 per cent increase in wages. That is the sort of thing that sticks in the craw, I suppose, because it is the sort of thing that Senator Chaney must confront when he comes in here and plays verbal tootsies with me. There were one or two other points raised by Liberal senators which I think I should refer to in passing. One honourable senator asserted that the Bill was unconstitutional. If that is so, I guess that the Premier of Queensland, who has spent so much money on this matter and cost the Queensland community so much to date, will spend a few more bob in showing that the Bill is unconstitutional. That is a matter for the High Court to decide and not honourable senators in this place. One honourable senator referred to the Government having no head of power under which to deal with this legislation. That is bunkum. Another claim made by an honourable senator from the other side of the chamber, which was a little extraordinary, was that the Government had misled the workers who were dismissed because it had been presented to them that the passing of this Bill would result in their getting their jobs back. That is not true. I invite honourable senators to read the second reading speech. That representation has not been made to the workers concerned. What has been said right from the beginning is that, if the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission follows this course, logically an award will be made. It will have a disputes settlement procedure and a preference clause. That is likely to happen, but it is a matter for the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission ultimately to determine. The fact is that no member of the Government has made any such claim in respect of this Bill. It was said that the Bill represents an attack on States rights. As has been pointed out in another context in this chamber, there are all sorts of rights which have to be balanced-the rights of people who had their electricity cut off, the rights of people who were sacked, the rights of Queenslanders, the rights of people trying to do business in this country, the rights of people who want to travel to Queensland. A whole range of rights has to be considered in these matters. Let me make it clear that three or four weeks ago when the blockade was in place, the rights of all sorts of people were being affected and no solution was forthcoming to that problem. It was not just the rights of the trade unionists concerned or the rights of the Queensland Premier which were being affected; the rights of a whole range of people were being adversely affected. I refer to the right to travel, the right to make money-the right to do all sorts of things. I do not approve, as I am sure no honourable senator approves, of those rights being interfered with across the community. There was a log jam. There was only one way to break that log jam, and the Federal Government sought and sought again to provide a constructive solution to this problem in conjunction with the Premier and the parties involved in this dispute in Queensland. The exercise of that right was refused. It was in that context that the Government decided to break the log jam. When Senator Chaney was interjecting earlier, I said that the ultimate test of a system in respect of the sorts of matters we are talking about was whether it produced results for a community. There were all sorts of rights, but the ultimate test was whether a system produced the results for a community. Senator Chaney, in the early part of his speech, raised many issues which go to the question of whether the system we have in Australia will go on producing good results for the community. I concede that that is a matter of legitimate debate. There are fair points to be made on both sides. If one looks at the Queensland dispute, this question has to be asked: What results can we best produce for the Australian community? No solutions were coming forward from anywhere else until the Government took this course. Those people who were innocent victims of the action of the Queensland Government and the intransigence of the Queensland Government and sections of the trade union movement are entitled to be considered when dealing with this matter. This is an important question of public interest. Senator Messner —This is no solution. Senator BUTTON —Senator Messner has the gift of foresight. For God's sake- Senator Robert Ray —Ask him what horse is going to win the race tomorrow. Senator BUTTON —I will ask him later. Senator Messner has many gifts. I never thought that foresight was one of them. Senator Messner says that this is no solution. If this is no solution those opposite will be back here in the Budget session yelling their heads off that the Federal Government intervened in this matter and it did not provide a solution. Those opposite will have a field day in the Budget session. I will cop it. I recognise that now. I will cop it, in the sense that I will take it. For goodness sake, just because those opposite have an approach, which they have not really sorted out, different from that adopted by the Government, they should not condemn this legislation to failure. We will do what we, as a national government, can to see that this matter is resolved in a manner which will produce results for all members of the public who are inconvenienced by these disputes, the employees in Queensland and the customers of the South East Queensland Electricity Board because, as the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) has said on a number of occasions, this society cannot allow major public instrumentalities to hold the public to ransom. We agree with that. That is why this legislation has been introduced. I commend this legislation not only to the Australian Democrats and Senator Harradine, who has spoken on the matter, but even to thinking Liberals on the other side of the chamber. Senator Robert Ray —That has narrowed the field. Senator BUTTON —I am sure it has. I commend it to them, too, because in the absence of an alternative approach we believe that it is the best and most viable solution to a very difficult problem for Queensland and this country. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon.Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 8 —— Aulich, T. Hearn, J. M.Black, J. N. Jones, G. N.Button, J. N. McIntosh, G. D.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. Richardson, G. F.Elstob, R. C. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Evans, Gareth Ryan, S. M.Evans, Jack Sibraa, K. W.Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C.Georges, G. Vigor, D.Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A.Haines, J. Zakharov, A. O.Harradine, B. Archer, B. R. MacGibbon, D. J.Baume, Peter Messner, A. J.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Missen, A. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Parer, W. R.Brownhill, D. Rae, PeterChaney, F. M. Reid, M. E.Collard, S. J. Scott, D. B.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Sheil, G.Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C.Hamer, D. J. Townley, M.Hill, R. Vanstone, A. E.Jessop, D. S. Walters, M. S.Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Watson, J. O. W.Knowles, S. C. Withers, R. G.Lewis, A. W. R. Coleman, R. N. Puplick, C. J. G.Gietzelt, A. T. Carrick, Sir JohnGrimes, D. J. Short, J. R.McClelland, Douglas Guilfoyle, Dame MargaretBolkus, N. Lajovic, M. E. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 to 3-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 4 (Interpretation). Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(5.23) —I move: (1) Page 2, clause 4, paragraph (1) (d), leave out sub-paragraph (ii). This amendment seeks to omit sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (1) (d). Sub-paragraph (ii) speaks about the situation with regard to contractors employed in the industry in Queensland. The point about this matter is that it touches on a very important issue which has recently been raised in the context of the report of the Hancock Committee of Review into Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems, and that is that the proposed law we are discussing today will, indeed, require contractors and their employees to become subject to awards and to union membership. This is in spite of the fact that over a great period-this is really the core of the discussion about the whole dispute in Queensland-the South East Queensland Electricity Board has been making substantial efforts to make its system more efficient, effective and productive. It has made good use of contractors to ensure that the consumers of electricity in Queensland get a better service. The Board employs at present some 60 contractors who in turn employ their own employees, some 250 people. We have seen that the right of employers to hire contractors and the right of contractors to work are central to the cause of the original dispute. We spoke about this earlier. No single job of a member of the Electrical Trades Union is at risk in the present dispute in Queensland. The issue is within the union: It is whether contractors will be employed in the place of employees. It is as simple as that. It is the determination of the Electrical Trades Union to force the Electricity Board to employ non-contract labour that is the cause of this dispute. Whether people are employed as contractors or as employees is irrelevant; they are still employed by the Board and would be so under the arrangements that currently apply. No single job of an employee of the Board, whether employed by contract or otherwise, is at risk at the moment. That is apparently not good enough for those within the trade union movement who seek the monopoly of labour to restrict people's freedom of choice. That is the difference the Liberal and National parties have with the Government on this most important issue. Under the legislation, contractors and their employees may be brought under any Federal award determined by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. That is at the direct bidding of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. We believe that that is certainly against the interests of the people of Queensland, but particularly against the interests of individual people who choose to work in whatever way they wish. If honourable senators need any other proof, this clause alone is enough for us to decide that the activity on the part of the union movement within Queensland is designed to destroy the rights of independent businessmen, contractors and others to work in the way in which they choose. If people are employed as contractors, as has been found out, in conjunction with the operation of the Board in such a way as to create a most efficient electricity generation industry-as has been created in Queensland-for the benefit of consumers, that accords with the fundamental objective of the Board. It is outrageous that the union has seen fit to strike against this system which has produced such economic benefits for the people of Queensland. It strikes against the freedom of choice. Certainly, it will affect the choice many people make about the way in which they conduct their business. The contract system, which obviously the Government does not believe in, is one in which certainly the Liberal and National parties believe. We believe that it provides people with freedom of choice to do their own thing. For that reason we believe that the direction the Government is moving in is wrong. We have plenty of examples we could throw into the debate to support our belief in the contract system. We could look at the housing industry or at the road transport industry, which are conducted most efficiently, in many cases by contractors. There is much evidence to demonstrate that contractors have kept down the cost of housing because of their efficient method of operation. All the principles I have mentioned are at stake with this legislation. We strongly oppose the intention of the Government and seek the support of the Senate for our amendment. Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(5.30) —I said earlier today that it would be better if Senator Messner did not enter into this debate because he knows very little about industrial matters. If Senator Messner strongly supported subcontractors and subcontracting arrangements he would support this legislation, because what it does is protect the subcontractors. Senator Messner has no understanding at all. If subcontractors are not protected by awards and conditions under which they are paid a subcontractor who wants to get a particular contract by tender will tender low. In other words, he will use short-cuts. That has happened here in Canberra. On one of the Estimates committees we found that the Government had to contribute another million dollars to support subcontractors to carry out their responsibilities under cleaning contracts because they had tendered far too low. Senator Robert Ray —The law of the jungle. Senator GEORGES —It is law of the jungle. What happened was that the cleaners had to bring in members of their families. Several people were engaged to do the work that one person had contracted to do. Instead of opposing this measure, Senator Messner should be supporting it. One subcontractor cannot be played against another. I have said before today that the electricity industry is a very sensitive industry and that we cannot allow it to fall into the hands of subcontractors who tender and who are not under some sort of, shall we term it, award control. That is what this Bill does: It makes certain that those subcontractors who are employed and who employ others will employ them under certain conditions which apply across the whole of the industry. Senator Archer —They are licensed. Senator GEORGES —Does Senator Archer know what is happening in Queensland at present? The Queensland Government has restructured the work force in the South East Queensland Electricity Board. It has given the work out to subcontract. It is offering subcontractors an amount of $40 to put on a house service. At a later stage it will put those contracts out to tender. The subcontractors will compete with each other to get the contracts and they will start to tender $20. If they tender $20 for the service, it means they have to take short cuts in a very important industry. Senator Messner —What about efficiency? Senator GEORGES —It is fairly obvious that Senator Messner has never engaged in-- Senator Collard —Come on, George. Senator GEORGES —Possibly Senator Messner has had something to do with local government; I do not know. Local government in Queensland and other places, especially National Party of Australia controlled local councils, are prepared to make the roads in their areas not by contract but by day labour. The reason for that is that when they give it out to subcontract it all looks very well for the first year, but the second year it crumbles, the third year it is not worth a damn and councils have to use day labour. There is no integrity, efficiency or quality in subcontracting work which comes under pressure of tendering without protections under awards for those who work within the system. Senator Messner should be supporting this proposition, not-- Senator Messner —I support those who want to have a go. Senator GEORGES —Senator Messner supports deregulation. He is great. Senator Messner has got his touch of socialism. He is well placed. We are all well placed. But honourable senators opposite are the sorts of people who want to deregulate everything so that they can get something on the cheap. If they run out of milk at one in the morning and they have a party somewhere, they can race down the road and buy a carton of milk. Some poor devil has to stay up all night to serve their purposes. That is why we have regulation. That is why we have awards. That is why we have conditions. If we left it to the Opposition, it would destroy all conditions. That is what the Queensland Government has done with the electricity industry. Senator Messner —Do you reckon Bob Hawke agrees with you? Senator GEORGES —Do not remind me of that. That is what the Queensland Government has done by the processes it has employed. By the processes it has employed it has put the whole of the electricity distribution system at the mercy of subcontractors. I return to the subcontracting arrangements. The subcontracting agreement represented one per cent of the budget. However, Wayne Gilbert, the General Manager of the South East Queensland Electricity Board, determined that he could do it on the cheap by subcontract. He knew that eventually he would be able to play contractor against contractor and get the job done on the cheap. One cannot run an electricity system-especially a 240-volt system-in this way. If we were looking at a 110-volt system which the United States has, we might be able to say that it is safer to operate that sort of system and therefore safe to run wires wherever we like. We cannot run wires around just anywhere with a 240-volt system. If we do not have proper standards and conditions the whole system runs down. If we do not have proper standards and conditions and if we start to put inspections out to contract-this is what the Queensland Government is trying to do-in that sort of system we will find people starting to wire up their own homes, running a plug along the wall to another outlet; overloading their circuits thus rendering the whole distribution system dangerous. That is what I strongly object to in regard to what is happening in Queensland. In Queensland a skilled work force has been destroyed; skilled men have been put out to grass. These men are available. As Senator Harradine said, the choice of returning to work has been taken away from these men because the conditions of return were such that they could not accept them. The system has been opened up to cheapskate contracting. The only way we can prevent that contracting from falling below standard is to accept the proposition contained in the Bill that those who work for subcontractors should work to certain awards and conditions. Going back to my original point, such awards and conditions are to protect the subcontractor as much as anyone else. Senator COLLARD(Queensland)(5.37) —We have listened to a most amazing speech from Senator Georges's. There would not be one part of Senator Georges's life that is not touched by someone who has tendered, and won a tender by submitting the lowest price. Tenders have been submitted in regard to the car he drives, the aeroplane he flies in, this building and the new building we will be going to. Either the entire thing or its component parts will have been made by somebody who submitted the lowest price. That is the way this society operates. I think Senator Georges is doing a great injustice to the people he is seeking to represent. Senator Jack Evans —That is not true. The airlines are subject to control because they have to keep up safety standards. Senator COLLARD —I remind the honourable senator that the aircraft he flies in are made up of many parts. Many of the component parts are made in Australia. I think Senator Georges has done a great disservice to the people he seeks to represent, no matter whether they are working for contractors, the South East Queensland Electricity Board or somebody else. They are highly trained and highly skilled people. They have all gone through apprenticeships, tertiary and further education colleges and the rest of it. If a contractor submits a tender obviously he has done his homework properly. He will be able to do the job. Senator Georges is thinking of everybody except the consumer of electricity. Surely they are people who have a right to the lowest possible priced electricity, particularly when the electricity generating authorities are monopolistic. Tendering is a scheme by which this society generally operates. People are allowed to tender. This society operates because people are prepared to get up and have a go. If we close the whole darn thing off where do we end up? We end up with a monopolistic society, in which we pay exorbitant prices, with no efficiencies, no nothing. The people Senator Georges seeks to represent are quite capable of competing and quite capable of doing a good job. They are highly skilled tradesmen in their particular fields. I think Senator Georges is doing them a great disservice by making the speech he made. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.40) —I wonder whether we have gone a bit astray on this particular question. Is it the Government's intention with clause 4 (d) (ii) to ensure that those people with whom the original dispute was partly concerned are enabled to be heard in whatever dispute is now considered by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission as a result of this legislation? Am I to understand that this legislation, as it applies specifically to the decision by Commissioner Brown of 18 April, C. No. 5364, applies to a dispute between the Electrical Trades Union of Australia and various electricity authorities in Queensland? Am I to understand that clause 4 (d) (ii) will enable a subsequent dispute to be found between other parties, including the contractors? Would that not enable the contractors to have some say in a matter in which otherwise they would not necessarily have a say? I cannot see the logic of the Opposition seeking to have clause 4 (d) (ii) taken out if it enables the contractors to have a say in a dispute in which they were originally quite a central feature. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(5.42) —The Government will not accept the amendment. I gather from those who are supporting it that they see this as imposing some impediment to the employment of contract labour or the letting of work to contractors and they see that as a bad thing. Whatever the merits of that may or may not be, the more important point is that the amendment will not close off the possibility of contract employees being brought under the jurisdiction of a Federal award; it will just ensure that it will be done more slowly. If this amendment were to be carried, we would have co-existing a situation in which direct employees of the South East Queensland Electricity Board could be covered by a Commonwealth award and a situation in which the employees of contractors engaged by the electricity authorities would be in the process of being covered by a Federal award-obviously, a pretty untidy situation. I am advised that the provision has effect only where a log of claims has been served on a relevant employer. There has been no service of the Electrical Trades Union log on contractors. If a new dispute involving contractors is created, it can be declared to come within the Conciliation and Arbitration (Electricity Industry) Bill. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.44) —What the Minister says confirms what I have just been saying. The effect of the Opposition's amendment will be to exclude contractors from having their say in this very vital dispute. I do not see that that fits in with what the Opposition was saying at the second reading stage. Question put: That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Messner's amendment) be left out. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 37 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 8 —— Archer, B. R. MacGibbon, D. J.Baume, Peter Messner, A. J.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Missen, A. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Parer, W. R.Brownhill, D. Rae, PeterCollard, S. J. Reid, M. E.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Scott, D. B.Durack, P. D. Sheil, G.Hamer, D. J. Teague, B. C.Hill, R. Townley, M.Jessop, D. S. Vanstone, A. E.Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Walters, M. S.Knowles, S. C. Watson, J. O. W.Lajovic, M. E. Withers, R. G.Lewis, A. W. R. Aulich, T. Hearn, J. M.Black, J. R. Jones, G. N.Button, J. 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. Richardson, G. F.Elstob, R. C. Robertson, E. A.Evans, Gareth Ryan, S. M.Evans, Jack. Sibraa, K. W.Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C.Georges, G. Vigor, D.Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A.Haines, J. Zakharov, A. O.Harradine, B. Coleman, R. N. Puplick, C. J. G.Gietzelt, A. T. Carrick, Sir JohnGrimes, D. J. Short, J. R.McClelland, Douglas Guilfoyle, Dame MargaretBolkus, N. Chaney, F. M. Question so resolved in the negative. Clause agreed to. Clause 5 (Modification of Conciliation and Arbitration Act). Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(5.52) —The Opposition will oppose this clause. Question put: That the clause stand as printed. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 8 —— Aulich, T. Hearn, J. M.Black, J. R. Jones, G. N.Button, J. 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. Richardson, G. F.Elstob, R. C. Robertson, E. A.Evans, Gareth Ryan, S. M.Evans, Jack Sibraa, K. W.Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C.Georges, G. Vigor, D.Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A.Haines, J. Zakharov, A. O.Harradine, B. Archer, B. R. MacGibbon, D. J.Baume, Peter Messner, A. J.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Missen, A. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Parer, W. R.Brownhill, D. Rae, PeterCollard, S. J. Reid, M. E.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Scott, D. B.Durack, P. D. Sheil, G.Hamer, D. J. Teague, B. C.Hill, R. Townley, M.Jessop, D. S. Vanstone, A. E.Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Walters, M. S.Knowles, S. C. Watson, J. O. W.Lajovic, M. E. Withers, R. G.Lewis, A. W. R. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Clause 6 (Industrial disputes to which Act applies). Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(5.57) —I move: Pages 2 and 3, clause 6, lines 35 and 41-42, leave out 'of Queensland'. In the interests of time, I will yield to my colleagues. Senator SHEIL(Queensland)(5.58) —Clause 6 deals with industrial disputes to which the Conciliation and Arbitration Act applies. This provision represents a travesty of inter-governmental relations. It certainly represents interference in the sovereign rights of the State of Queensland. I would point out to Government senators that it is the States in Australia that are sovereign, not the Federal Government. But the Federal Government has been quietly clawing powers to itself using various means. We have been through colonial government and co-operative federalism and are now going through coercive federalism. This is what the present Government is doing. It can use its financial powers to do it, it can use High Court decisions, it can use referenda, it can use overriding legislation, and it can use its treaty powers. This legislation represents more in the same process of the Federal Government's clawing powers to itself. Clause 6 allows the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to take over the functions of the Queensland State Industrial Commission. The Federal Commission can hear disputes, determine them, and make decisions. There is no appeal from the Federal court. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) in his second reading speech said that the Queensland dispute has serious implications not only for Queensland but also for the rest of Australia. He is quite right, I agree with that, but I do not have in mind the same implications that he nominated. One issue that has not been stressed sufficiently is that the whole dispute was over when all this activity was taking place. The electricity workers who lost their own jobs brought this on themselves. They had been asked by the courts to go back to work, told by the courts, ordered to go back to work, and they did not. They let the time elapse, they sacked themselves and they fouled up all their own terms and conditions. Every moderate voice in Queensland advised them to go back to work and they did not do that. I think it was the militant Electrical Trades Union that realised that it had got on the wrong tram and it started to back-pedal and tried to do something about it. It realised that its cause was not just; it had nothing to fight with. Once it realised that it was losing it had to expand its activities, involve other trade unions and get more blackmail and more intimidation going. The blackouts and blockades and the hit lists that it invented were all part of its expanded activity. It is a very sorry catalogue. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Government should have acted a lot earlier than they did. The Government and the Prime Minister shilly-shallied like they always do. They ignored their responsibility-a higher responsibility with Queensland under blockade by militant trade unions. The Prime Minister should have stepped in to defend his trade. I think the matter of peace, order and good government of Australia was mentioned today by the shadow Opposition spokesman on employment and industrial relations. That is the one area that this Government has ignored altogether. Throughout this whole dispute the Queensland Government and the Queensland Premier retained massive public support which they still have today. It was mentioned this afternoon that the level of support for the Premier is up right now. I think the other States would do well to emulate the actions of the Queensland Premier and the Queensland Government to take control and to get back some sanity in trade union relations. This legislation and, in particular, this clause, represent the initial stages of the undermining of State industrial legislation by the Federal Government. For years now the people of Australia have clearly shown that they are fed up with union anarchy and union lawlessness. They are sick and tired of having their essential services disrupted. This disruption always happens at the most inconvenient times, such as holidays. The Conciliation and Arbitration (Electricity Industry) Bill is designed to undermine the authority that will get rid of the disruptive behaviour, and that is what we are on about here. Disruptive behaviour has increased our costs immeasurably over the years and has caused much unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, with the high fixed minimum wages that have put young people out of work. Senator Elstob —What about the doctors? What about the prices they charge? Senator SHEIL —The doctors have not been involved in this dispute. In any case, I wish to say that I whole-heartedly support the amendment that has been moved to this clause. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(6.04) —Clause 6 of the Conciliation and Arbitration (Electricity Industry) Bill discriminates against Queensland. This legislation is a pumped-up, artificial paper that allows the Electrical Trades Union to go to every other State and log claims. This clause allows the Government to launch this Bill which is a clear attack on the Queensland Government. In other words, the ETU has gone to the Government and said: 'We want another umpire. We want another ground to play on. We have lost on that ground in Queensland'. Of course, this Government, which receives its instructions from the Australian Council of Trade Unions, has just knuckled under completely and given way to its demands. We see that happening so often. Here, of course, the ACTU could not have done this without the help of the Australian Democrats. The Democrats-the conscience of the Parliament!-called on the unions for certain assurances and they were given these assurances by the ACTU. We have already seen those assurances and clause 6 of the Bill being absolutely disregarded before the Bill has even passed through the Senate. Just today the Telegraph stated: The Electrical Trades Union today warned it would call for a major industrial action next week if the federal legislation failed to secure the re-employment of 800 sacked workers. That is the ETU's latest statement as of 12 o'clock today. I do not know where the Democrats stand now. They have sought and been given assurances. The ink is not even dry-it is not even on the paper-yet the ETU has torn up the agreements-- Senator Messner —Duress. Senator BOSWELL —It is duress. The 800 people will not get back their jobs because there are no jobs for them there; those jobs have been taken up by other people. One cannot create another 800 jobs for the 800 people who have sacked themselves. The ETU is not only threatening industrial blackmail in Queensland; yesterday I made a speech on the adjournment appealing to the Democrats to take action on the happenings of the ETU in the coal fields of the Latrobe Valley in Victoria. The ETU there is demanding that its members pay $5 a week to a fighting fund for their comrades in Queensland. John McNamara, one of the members of the ETU in the Latrobe Valley, has said that he does not mind paying $5 to a needy strike affected family, but he will not be associated with a political dispute. He does not mind paying for an industrial dispute, but he will not be made a pawn of the ETU. The Democrats have stated quite clearly on a number of occasions that they do not believe in political blackmail, blockades or unionists having to pay compulsory levies. Yet in Victoria levies have been imposed and people have been sacked and black banned. Eleven industrial electricians have lost their jobs and been black banned. Again the Democrats have sought assurances from the ACTU and those assurances are not even worth the paper on which they are written. Senator Messner —They are the watertight ones! Senator BOSWELL —Yes. Clause 6 and the rest of the clauses in this Bill are stirring up the dispute, which was settled, in Queensland. There are only 200 people in Queensland at the moment who have not gone back to work. Senator Georges —That's not right. Senator BOSWELL —Senator Georges says that is not right. I ask Senator Georges to say how many there are, because I have something here that says there are 250 people who do not have a job. This clause is a reaction to a pumped up, mushroomed dispute. It calls for the ground rules to be changed and it calls for a new umpire. Let it be remembered that the Premier of Queensland called together the unions in the Industrial Commission and said: 'We will have a sitting of the Full Bench and we will accept the decision of the Full Bench'. That was not agreed to by the ETU and the other unions. Senator Georges —No, you're wrong. Senator BOSWELL —That is correct. After three recommendations, the ETU was called back nine times and it refused to accept the Commissioner's recommendations. The Democrats must stand condemned. They have asked for assurances. Before the Bill even came before the Senate there were three disputes running. There is one in Victoria. There is the threat of the Electrical Trades Union in Brisbane that if it does not get its members back in the job there will be industrial disputes. Mr Ian Court said that the assurance of no further industrial action was conditional upon the legislation becoming law quickly and would not hold if there were any drawn out challenges in the High Court of Australia. That is another threat by the ETU, yet the Democrats sit here and say: 'We have the assurances of the unions'. That is a complete laugh. The unions are laughing in the face of the Democrats and making a fool of the Democrats and their policies on peace at any price. It wrecked Chamberlain and it will wreck the Democrats. When they go to the people in Queensland they will be completely wiped out at the polls for accepting assurances from the unions that are not worth the paper on which they are written. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(6.10) —I support the amendment that is before the Committee this evening. Clause 6 of the Bill talks about industrial disputes to which the Conciliation and Arbitration Act applies. We have heard from many honourable senators about the series of disputes that have taken place in Queensland. In fact, I spoke about them in this chamber not so long ago when we discussed a matter of public importance. We all know that the industrial dispute about which we are talking and to which the amendment refers is the dispute in Queensland between the Electrical Trades Union and the South East Queensland Electricity Board. The Bill has been brought into this Parliament because the Federal Labor Government is completely dominated by the unions. The Australian Council of Trade Unions cocked its little finger and the Labor Government rushed to do its bidding. I consider that that is a scandalous misuse of government power. I am sure that eventually the legislation will be seen to be constitutionally incorrect. Of course, the Australian Labor Party is not worried about that, so the Queensland Government will have to go to the High Court of Australia to test the legislation constitutionally. I think that is reasonable enough. I find it very hard to believe that the Australian Democrats support the Bill. They indicated at the second reading stage that they would support it. Senator Boswell explained the way in which the Democrats have been tricked. Already the unions are saying that if the Queensland Government does not immediately re-employ all the ETU workers they will go on strike again. What I want to know is: Where will they find the jobs? All the jobs have been filled. Everybody in Queensland is able to get power and a fewer number of workers are employed by SEQEB. Therefore, it stands to reason that the people of Queensland ought to be getting cheaper electricity. That is how it is and it is very important. I point out to honourable senators that one of the basic democratic rights under the Westminster system provided the foundation for the Queensland Government's action to resolve this electricity dispute. My belief is that elected governments are elected to govern. That is what the Australian Labor Party does down here. It brings in Bills and, with the support of the Democrats of course, gets them through. I think that if a government is elected it ought to be allowed to govern. If the people of Queensland do not like what has been done they will be able to tell the Queensland Government so at the polls. A poll taken at the time of the dispute found that the ALP percentage of popularity in Queensland had gone down by 5 per cent while the Queensland Government's popularity percentage had gone up. People want a government to be able to govern, not a government which is governed by the ACTU. I feel that that is very important. Government senators interjecting- Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —I say to honourable senators opposite that I did not scream and shout at them when they made their speeches. I sat quietly and listened to what they said. I think that I am entitled to be heard in silence also. The Australian Financial Review, in one of its editorials on the power dispute, stated: Similarly, and this is something unions ought to remember, no one wants to see a stark confrontation between the authority of an elected government and the unions, in which the elected government loses. If unions can defeat duly constituted democratic authority then they have gone too far and become a threat to democracy. An editorial in the Australian on 10 April headed '. . . . the penalties of not being tough' stated: . . . there is no doubt that the public is heartily sick and tired of the disruption to their way of life which industrial disputes bring, especially in essential services. I point out to honourable senators opposite that most countries have legislation with a no-strike provision in relation to essential services. That is all that Queensland has been trying to do. In this dispute the unions in Queensland did not care one iota about all the people who were hurt. They did not worry about the 6,000 jobs that were lost. They did not worry that the dispute cost $600m and that it cost the Queensland Government $25m. The dispute was just about settled, and then what happened? The ETU fellows rushed off madly to the ACTU and said: 'We are not winning up in Queensland. We want to get the dispute enlarged'. Of course, the ACTU came to the party and that is why we have this problem. All I can say is that no self-respecting government would allow itself to be browbeaten by any procedure contemplated by this Government which would enable the transfer of the balance of power from a State government to the unions; that is what this is all about. This legislation is very important. I think it is very unfortunate that this Government has been so wishy-washy and just gone along with what the unions have said. As I said at the beginning, they cocked their little finger and away went the Federal Government. I just want to put my point of view here this evening. This Bill is very important. Unfortunately, it has passed its second reading, thanks to the Democrats voting with the Government. Senator Knowles —The Democrats always vote with the Government. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —Yes, unfortunately in most cases they do. The elected Government in Queensland- Senator Reynolds —Minority government. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —The elected Government in Queensland is trying to give guaranteed supply of power. As far as the reference to a minority government is concerned, if the Australian Labor Party had the majority in Queensland, it would govern. That is a simple little fact. Honourable senators on the other side just cannot add up. They do not realise that they do not have 50 per cent and have not had it since 1957; so they cannot win. It is the duty of an elected government to be able to provide electricity on a no-strike arrangement. I feel very sorry indeed that this Government has been misled by the unions and has brought in a Bill like this to try, as it sees it, to bring a settlement to the dispute. I venture to say that the dispute is a long way from being settled because it will go to the High Court of Australia and I feel quite sure that the High Court will say that this is a matter for the State Government and not a matter for the unions. It is not really a matter in which the Federal Government should interfere. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(6.19) —I noted that Senator Bjelke-Petersen said that duly constituted democratic authority should be sacrosanct and never subject to challenge by any group. I noted that Senator Boswell referred to the evils of blockades, and Senator Sheil expressed similar views. I must say that I am surprised, to say the least, that three members of the National Party of Australia from Queensland could have expressed those views. I remember, I believe it was in 1979, when a bunch of militant truck drivers blockaded Razorback Mountain, which blockade was a direct threat to duly constituted democratic authority, a defiance of the law and an attempt to use a blockade as blackmail to have the law changed. Who supported them? They had no stronger public supporter than the Premier of Queensland, who not only gave them public support but also promised immediately to repeal the road maintenance tax in the State of Queensland. I also remember that in 1980 militant unionists in central Queensland were trying to use not only industrial tactics but also physical intimidation to change or defy the law of the land regarding imputed income on company occupied houses. I remember seeing photographs and television footage of the then Treasurer, Mr Howard, being physically abused by militant unionists in central Queensland. And who was supporting them? The Premier. Senator Georges —And Mr Lester. Senator WALSH —And Mr Lester. So I suppose circumstances alter cases. Those very views and actions are being denounced tonight by all the Queensland National Party senators. The people who are now indulging in those practices and using those tactics are following the precedents set and approved of by Sir Johannes Bjelke-Petersen within the last five or six years. That is an important fact that should be noted. The logic is no sounder than the moral consistency. Indeed, I find quite extraordinary the stand of Senator Sheil, who gave us a typical States rights speech-the type one might expect to hear at any gathering of the League of Rights. The effect of the amendment that has been moved would be to extend throughout Australia the provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration (Electricity Industry) Bill which are stipulated to apply in Queensland. The anti-centralist principle which the Queensland Opposition senators claim to uphold they simultaneously seek to extend right across the country. Perhaps it does not matter a great deal whether it does, but this Government, given that this was a unique Queensland dispute, felt that there was need only for legislation covering Queensland. The amendment, contrary to Senator Bjelke-Petersen's views, does not affect the dispute with the Queensland branch of the Electrical Trades Union, which is covered by clause 6. It affects other disputes involving the Queensland electricity industry. I find quite extraordinary the humbuggery of the Queensland senators who denounce the very tactics that their own revered Premier endorsed and established a precedent for some years ago. Likewise, I am completely mystified by the purpose of amendment No. 3, which seeks the omission of 'Queensland' from clause 6. The effect of that would be to apply throughout Australia what the Opposition claims to be undesirable, even evil, principles embodied in this Bill. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(6.24) —When I looked at the shocked expressions on the faces of the members of the Opposition, as Senator Walsh made the statement that the effect of the amendment will be to spread the impact of the Conciliation and Arbitration (Electricity Industry) Bill to all the States of Australia, I wondered whether the Opposition understands what this amendment represents. I further wonder whether the representatives from Queensland recognise that they are Australian parliamentarians. Senator Boswell —We are here to represent the rights of our States. That is what it is all about. This is the States House. Senator JACK EVANS —I am very interested to hear the comments from Senator Boswell because I am sure that he will endorse what I am about to say. Senator Bjelke-Petersen gave a 10-minute speech in which she said-I agree completely-that parliamentarians are elected to protect the interests of their electors. Parliamentarians in Queensland are elected to provide the Government and to protect the interests of the people of Queensland. She said that the Government and the Parliament of Queensland have the responsibility for legislating on things that are of specific concern to the people of Queensland. Senator Bjelke-Petersen went on to suggest that this matter should not be within the province of the Industrial Commission but within the province of the political system. That is not what we are talking about. This whole thing has come about because the matter got out of the Industrial Commission into the political system and the politicians made an absolute mess of it. This Bill does its best, as well as Australian parliamentarians are able to bring this about, to get the matter back into the industrial system. I know that many parliamentarians would like to have it remain a political issue, very high on the political agenda. Senator Boswell —What is it going to achieve? It's not going to achieve a thing. Senator JACK EVANS —It will achieve a speeding up of the processes by which this matter once again can be resolved by the Industrial Commission instead of by politicians. I return to the point being made by Senator Bjelke-Petersen. She said that parliamentarians have the responsibility to carry out those deeds which will protect the interests of the people they represent and she gave as support for that argument the fact that the Queensland Parliament had taken a number of steps on this matter. Now, the matter has gone beyond being a local, parochial industrial matter. It has become a matter of concern to all the people of Australia. I remind Senator Bjelke-Petersen and Senator Boswell that they are in the Australian Parliament and that this piece of legislation is being considered by the Australian Parliament. We are considering an Australian Parliament's Bill. We are about to vote on a Bill which will become an Act of the Australian Parliament or it will not, depending on how the vote goes. It is not a Queensland Parliament that is meeting in this chamber tonight. We are all here to look after the interests of all Australians. I can understand that we need to have the point of view of the people from all States in this debate, but when the time comes to vote we will be voting as Australian parliamentarians with all the rights and responsibilities given to this Parliament and its senators. Senator Bjelke-Petersen is not going to take that responsibility and that right away from me by saying that this is only a Queensland matter. It is not only a Queensland matter; it is a matter that affects all Australians because the blockade was an all-States matter. It is quite obvious that it has expanded into an all-States matter. I want to make the Australian Democrats position quite clear. We will not allow this amendment to be passed tonight. Fortunately, we have the balance of power and the responsibility for a responsible decision on this matter and we will not allow the Opposition to blow this dispute out from a Queensland dispute to an all-States dispute. We are going to behave responsibly, as I believe we have throughout not only this debate but also all the processes that have led up to and caused this debate. I repeat that we did not get involved until this Bill came before this Parliament. It is because it is before this Parliament that we are now involved. I wish to correct Senator Chaney's statement earlier today that I had spoken of high principles but would vote the other way. Senator Chaney subsequently-halfway through his speech-recovered himself and said that he had just realised that I did not speak in support of the Opposition's case when espousing his principles. He got it right the second time. My principles and my vote are right on line. I want to minimise the industrial disputation in Queensland and to hasten the processes by which the dispute will be channelled back into the arbitration system and away from politicians. My Party members and I will therefore be supporting this Bill and rejecting the amendment. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Question put: That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Messner's amendment) be left out. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 33 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 10 —— Archer, B. R. MacGibbon, D. J.Baume, Peter Messner, A. J.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Parer, W. R.Brownhill, D. Reid, M. E.Collard, S. J. Scott, D. B.Durack, P. D. Sheil, G.Hamer, D. J. Teague B. C.Hill, R. Vanstone, A. E.Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Walters, M. S.Knowles, S. C. Watson, J. O. W.Lajovic, M. E. Withers, R. G.Lewis, A. W. R. Aulich, T. Haines, J.Black, J. R. Harradine, B.Bolkus, N. Hearn, J. M.Childs, B. K. Jones, G. N.Chipp, D. L. McIntosh, G. D.Coates, J. McKiernan, J. P.Colston, M. A. Macklin, M. J.Cook, P. F. S. Maguire, G. R.Cooney, B. Primmer, C. G.Crowley, R. A. Ray, RobertDevlin, R. Reynolds, M.Elstob, R. C. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Evans, Gareth Sibraa, K. W.Evans, Jack Tate, M. C.Foreman, D. J. Vigor, D.Georges, G. Zakharov, A. O.Giles, P. J. Puplick, C. J. G. Coleman, R. N.Carrick, Sir John Gietzelt, A. T.Short, J. R. Grimes, D. J.Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Walsh, P. A.Missen, A. J. Button, J. N.Jessop, D. S. McClelland, DouglasTownley, M. Ryan, S. M.Chaney, F. M. Mason, C. V. J. Question so resolved in the negative. Clause agreed to. Clause 7 agreed to. Clause 8 (Limitation on power of Commission to dismiss or refrain from hearing or determining industrial dispute to which Act applies). Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(8.07) —Clause 8 will be opposed by the Opposition; we will be dividing on it. It is a key clause in this legislation. It shows quite clearly what is the intention of this Government in attempting to override the rights of the State of Queensland. It is probably no better example of the many such measures sprinkled throughout this Bill which demonstrate the jack-boot approach of the Hawke Labor Government to the problems of the State of Queensland, and its attempt to override the industrial processes within that State. What is being proposed here is a total overturning of the provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act as enshrined in section 41 of that Act, in such a way as to provide that the legislation which will now apply will ensure that there will be no redress in terms of industrial disputes occurring within the State of Queensland or even any right of appeal by State governments in the situations that are being envisaged and which are exemplified by the dispute in the power industry in Queensland. I might add that this is directly contrary to the recommendations of the report of the Hancock Committee of Review into Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems which was recently released. It said that these kinds of amendments or any changes by any government to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act should not be contemplated. Yet the Hawke Government, being greater than all of us, has decided that it will so amend the legislation. As I have said, this is no better example of the jack-boot approach of the Hawke socialist Government to the rights of Queenslanders and, I might say, to the rights of other Australians who will be affected by this legislation in due course. For that reason, the Liberal and National parties will be opposing this clause. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(8.10) —As Senator Messner has said, clause 8 is the clause about which there could well be some concern in regard to States rights. Clause 6, about which there was considerable debate in the Committee stage earlier this evening, is not concerned with that aspect. In fact, I had intended to observe that clause 6 concerned the need to open the way for contractors to become involved in the consideration of matters designed to settle the dispute in Queensland. I acknowledge the points made by Senator Bjelke-Petersen, Senator Boswell and Senator Sheil. I too have been in this chamber and objected very strongly when the rights of individual States have been under attack. I acknowledge that they-indeed, this includes the Queensland Government-have been subjected to situations, in which the people of the State concerned have been crying for some action. I acknowledge that. However, I wish to state that the action ultimately taken did not in fact resolve the dispute in the sense that it did not deal with all of those issues relevant to the proper resolution of the dispute. As I said in my speech in the second reading debate, this legislation fulfils a need but does not finalise the situation. In addition to this legislation there is a need to ensure that commonsense is brought to bear in regard to the individual dispute. I believe that actions have been taken which go too far. Incidentally, I must dissociate myself from the one or two comments trying to link the very courageous action of the Queensland Government in upholding the law to protect innocent unborn children to the action it took in relation to this industrial matter. I agree with the former action but I do not regard it as having any relevance at all to the actions of the Queensland Government in respect of this matter. Having said that, I now turn my attention directly to clause 8 of the Bill, which purports to remove the operation of section 41 (1) (d) of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Under that section the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has a discretion not to continue to deal with a dispute if the dispute is found to be trivial or, as is stated: . . . has been dealt with, is being dealt with or is proper to be dealt with by a State Industrial Authority; or (iii) that further proceedings are not necessary or desirable in the public interest; As far as the latter point is concerned, one must acknowledge that the disputes dealt with by the Commission, and that particular dispute which has already been found by Commissioner Brown and upheld by the Full Bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, and any subsequent disputes found as a result of the legislation will have to be dealt with by the Full Bench of the Commission. Of course, as I understand it, the Full Bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission will certainly take into account matters of public interest. That is generally done by the Full Bench of the Arbitration Commission. The issue then surrounds the removal of the discretion that is now available to the Commission to refuse to consider the dispute if it has been dealt with, is being dealt with, or is proper to be dealt with by a State industrial authority of Queensland. I am the first to stand here and admit that I have taken cases before the Commission utilising section 41 (1) (d) of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. I have upheld the rights and responsibilities of State industrial jurisdictions. But what tends to be overlooked in this debate is that the Queensland State Industrial Commission had this matter in its hands. It made at least two key recommendations on two separate occasions. The first recommendation was ignored by the leaders of the Electrical Trades Union of Australia. On the second occasion, when the Commission made a recommendation, it was ignored by the Queensland Government. Again, I acknowledge that the Queensland Government got so frustrated that it took certain steps. These steps were to remove the dispute from the purview of the Queensland Industrial Commission. If members of the Opposition were prepared to say here and now that they would be happy to give a guarantee that the matter would be able to be dealt with by the Queensland Industrial Commission, I am sure that that would settle the dispute. But it is no good complaining that this legislation removes the discretion from the Commission to refuse to deal with the dispute under section 41 (1) (d) when one knows that, in fact, it has already been removed from the purview of the Queensland Industrial Commission. This clause purports to remove the section 41 (1) (d) discretion. I am sure that there will be a lot of discussion before the Commission about that very issue when it hears this dispute. I am sure that we have not heard the last of the arguments about whether this clause has or has not fully removed that discretion. Question put: That the clause stand as printed. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 8 —— Aulich, T. Haines, J.Black, J. R. Harradine, B.Bolkus, N. Hearn, J. M.Button, J. N. Jones, G. N.Childs, B. K. McClelland, DouglasChipp, D. L. McIntosh, G. D.Coates, J. McKiernan, J. P.Colston, M. A. Macklin, M. J.Cook, P. F. S. Maguire, G. R.Cooney, B. Primmer, C. G.Crowley, R. A. Ray, RobertDevlin, R. Reynolds, M.Elstob, R. C. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Evans, Gareth Ryan, S. M.Evans, Jack Sibraa, K. W.Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C.Georges, G. Vigor, D.Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. Archer, B. R. Lewis, A. W. R.Baume, Peter MacGibbon, D. J.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Messner, A. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Parer, W. R.Brownhill, D. Rae, PeterCollard, S. J. Reid, M. E.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Scott, D. B.Durack, P. D. Sheil, G.Hamer, D. J. Teague, B. C.Hill, R. Townley, M.Jessop, D. S. Vanstone, A. E.Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Walters, M. S.Knowles, S. C. Watson, J. O. W.Lajovic, M. E. Withers, R. G. Coleman, R. N. Chaney, F. M.Gietzelt, A. T. Puplick, C. J. G.Grimes, D. J. Carrick, Sir JohnMason, C. V. J. Short, J. R.Walsh, P. A. Guilfoyle, Dame MargaretRichardson, G. F. Missen, A. J. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Clause 9 (Proceedings in relation to disputes to which Act applies). Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(8.24) —This clause again draws attention to the jackboot approach of the Hawke Labor Government in overriding the rights of the State of Queensland. There is no better example of the way in which the rights of the Queensland industrial system are being overridden by this jackboot legislation than the way in which this clause is being perpetrated as part of the legislation. The matters which should be considered in section 31 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act under normal conditions will be waived for the purpose of this legislation. These matters include such weighty matters as making provision for, or altering, the standard hours of work in an industry, making provision for, or altering, rates of wages and making provision for, or altering, a minimum wage and so on. Such weighty and important matters will be taken right out of the hands of the Industrial Commission of a State and overridden by any Full Bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The point is the one we have been making since starting the debate on this legislation: This Government is beholden to the ACTU and the trade union movement. It is merely an extension of that body. At the ACTU's bidding the Government does all that is required of it, regardless of the interests of the people of Queensland or any other State of the Commonwealth. It does the bidding of the trade union movement, and this Bill is merely an extension of the trade unions blockade of Queensland. I know that honourable senators are shocked to hear that. Obviously they cannot cope with that kind of argument. I ask the small-State senators, such as Senator Foreman, Senator McKiernan, Senator Colston and Senator Elstob: Why do they not stand up for their small States and ensure that their industrial rights are maintained? Senator McKiernan —On a point of order, Mr Chairman. Senator Messner has implied that I and many other senators in this place will not stand up for our States. The CHAIRMAN —Order! That may be a debating point, but it is not a point of order. Senator MESSNER —It is clear that they cannot stand up for the rights of their States, otherwise they would be entering the debate on our side. This Government is a jack-boot government, seeking to override not only the State of Queensland, but also the rights of all Australians. It is a shame that the Australian Democrats cannot see that and they are not standing with the Liberal and National parties in strong and firm opposition to this draconian legislation. It is obviously against the principles of all that we stand for in this country and it is clearly against the interests of every individual Australian. The Liberal and National parties seek the Senate's support for our amendment. The CHAIRMAN —Senator Messner, do you intend to move your amendment? Senator MESSNER —I move: Page 5, clause 9, leave out sub-clause (6). Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(8.28) —I wish to make a few observations about this clause and I would like the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, to take up my points and reply to them. I am at a loss to understand what this Conciliation and Arbitration (Electricity Industry) Bill will do. Will it provide jobs for the other 600 sacked people? If that is what the Government is saying, then I should point out that those persons, jobs are readily available. The jobs are there and all that the sacked Electrical Trades Union workers have to do is walk down to the gate, apply for the jobs and they will be hired. The Premier has made that statement and so has the Queensland Minister for Industry and Commerce, Mr Lester. The jobs are available to those people. The only people who will not get their jobs back are those ETU workers who have harassed their workmates, threatened them, or used physical violence on them. Those people will not get their jobs back, but the jobs are available to any other ETU workers as long as they go to the gate and apply. We are putting through this legislation on which we have spent the whole day, but it will not achieve one thing for the workers in Queensland. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(8.30) —Senator Boswell says that he does not know what this Bill will do. I think he has already made three speeches on it, and if he does not know now I do not think he will ever know. I think he should probably vote with the Government in the next division because if he has no idea what this Bill is about, there is no point in talking about it or voting upon it. Senator Messner gave the game away tonight when he failed to move his amendment. Not only that, but he also failed to speak to it. The important thing about this amendment is that it proposes to omit clause 9 (6), which would allow the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to restrict the application of the Bill to the Queensland electricity industry. I do not know what the Opposition wants in this place, apart from a bit of huff and puff. If Opposition members seriously suggest that the problems which this Bill is directed to solving would be helped by extending the capacity of this legislation to disputes in the electricity industry throughout Australia, I do not think they are offering a very constructive solution. I imagine that Senator Harradine, as a senator from Tasmania, would not want the Arbitration Commission to interfere in the Tasmanian electricity industry at this stage-at least I would not have thought so-but that is what Senator Messner's amendment invites. If the Opposition wants to huff and puff, it should not waste time cluttering its empty rhetoric with amendments that have no sensible purpose. It displays the Opposition's total lack of capacity to come to grips with this legislation. Senator Messner indulged in a bit of heavy rhetoric-after-dinner rhetoric, I suspect-in which he described the Bill as an extension of the Australian Council of Trade Unions blockade. We have been through all this. There was a blockade in Queensland three or four weeks ago which was causing great disruption to this country and to the State of Queensland. There was no apparent way suggested by all the rhetoricians on the Opposition benches or anywhere else of dealing with that problem until this legislation was brought up. That is what we are debating, and that is why this Government is concerned to have this legislation adopted. I urge the Committee to reject the amendment. Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(8.33) —I want to get something clear for Senator Boswell, because it is important. What Senator Boswell is now saying is that there are jobs available and that every person who wishes to be reinstated can turn up at the gates and seek reinstatement. Is that what the honourable senator is saying? Senator Boswell —Provided he has not harassed. Senator GEORGES —Senator Boswell is speaking on behalf of the Premier's Department, is he? Senator Boswell —No, I am not. Senator GEORGES —Then who is the honourable senator speaking on behalf of? Senator Boswell —The Premier and Mr Lester made that statement about two weeks ago. Senator GEORGES —Are they prepared to support Senator Boswell's statement tonight that if we turn up on Monday at every depot with the men who want to be reinstated, provided they have not been guilty of harassment, they will be re-employed? Senator Boswell —And sign the no-strike clause. Senator GEORGES —Oh! Question put: That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Messner's amendment) be left out. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 36 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 8 —— Archer, B. R. Lewis, A. W. R.Baume, Peter MacGibbon, D. J.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Messner, A. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Parer, W. R.Brownhill, D. Rae, PeterCollard, S. J. Reid, M. E.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Scott, D. B.Durack, P. D. Sheil, GHamer, D. J. Teague, B. C.Hill, R. Townley, M.Jessop, D. S. Vanstone, A. E.Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Walters, M. S.Knowles, S. C. Watson, J. O. W.Lajovic, M. E. Withers, R. G. Aulich, T. Haines, J.Black, J. R. Harradine, B.Bolkus, N. Hearn, J. M.Button, J. N. Jones, G. N.Childs, B. K. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Chipp, D. L. McKiernan, J. P.Coates, J. Macklin, M. J.Colston, M. A. Maguire, G. R.Cook, P. F. S. Primmer, C. G.Cooney, B. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Reynolds, M.Devlin, R. Richardson, G. F.Elstob, R. C. Robertson, E. A.Evans, Gareth Ryan, S. M.Evans, Jack Sibraa, K. W.Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C.Georges, G. Vigor, D.Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. Puplick, C. J. G. Coleman, R. N.Carrick, Sir John Gietzelt, A. T.Short, J. R. Grimes, D. J.Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Walsh, P. A.Missen, A. J. Mason, C. V. J.Chaney, F. M. McClelland, D. Question so resolved in the negative. Clause agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(8.40) —Clause 11 states: This Act, unless sooner repealed, shall cease to be in force at the expiration of- (a) the period of 3 years next following the day of commencement of this Act; or (b) if a day that is earlier than the last day of that period is fixed by Proclamation-that earlier day. I wonder why three years was selected. The purpose of the Conciliation and Arbitration (Electricity Industry) Bill, as I understand it, is to ensure that the processes of conciliation and arbitration are well oiled and that the dispute can come before the Full Bench of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission as quickly as possible, thus overcoming a good number of measures that were being developed to drag out questions of jurisdiction, including Moore v. Doyle arguments over State registered unions and Federal registered unions and the like. I would like to know why there is a three-year period in this Bill, bearing in mind that this Parliament will expire before that three years is up. I think it would be desirable to have a sunset clause which would expire prior to the expiration of this Parliament. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(8.42) —Senator Harradine's question reveals that somewhere in the Office of Parliamentary Counsel there is a profound pessimist. I think that there is a lot of validity in the point Senator Harradine made. It may be that, if there are industrial relations peripherals, as it were, which belong within the context of this dispute, it may take some time to resolve those; we hope it will not. A wide margin was chosen, I gather, in assessing the potential necessary life of the legislation. As Senator Harradine pointed out, the legislation can be disposed of by proclamation and it would be the Government's wish that that would happen and happen quite rapidly. I cannot really answer the question beyond that. I regard it as an interesting point. It is a difficult point to try to answer, but that is the best explanation I can give. Remainder of Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Motion (by Senator Button) proposed: That the Bill now be read a third time. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(8.45) —I make the final plea on behalf of the Liberal and National parties to the Australian Democrats to defeat at this stage this jack-boot piece of legislation which will destroy the rights of the State Industrial Commission of Queensland as well as the rights of other Australians. I think it is quite fitting that I read into the record a telegram which I have just received which sums up the position very well. The telegram, which is addressed to my colleague Senator Stan Collard, reads: The Master Plumbers Association of Queensland fully supports the Queensland Government in its recent industrial legislation. The Association urges all Queensland senators to put the welfare of their State above party politics and to thus resist any moves by the Federal Government to bring down legislation which is a deliberate attempt to override State industrial legislation. All thinking people must resist all union attempts at anarchy particularly when that anarchy is supported by a union dominated Federal Government. There rests the case of the Liberal and National parties. Question put: That the Bill be now read a third time. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon.Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 8 —— Aulich, T. Haines, J.Black, R. J. Harradine, B.Bolkus, N. Hearn, J. M.Button, J. N. Jones, G. N.Childs, B. K. McClelland, DouglasChipp, D. L. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Coates, J. McKiernan, J. P.Colston, M. A. Macklin, M. J.Cook, P. F. S. Maguire, G. R.Cooney, B. Primmer, C. G.Crowley, R. A. Ray, RobertDevlin, R. Reynolds, M.Elstob, R. C. Richardson, G. F.Evans, Gareth Ryan, S. M.Evans, Jack Sibraa, K. W.Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C.Georges, G. Vigor, D.Giles, P. J. Zakharov. A. O. Archer, B. R. Lewis, A. W. R.Baume, Peter MacGibbon, D. J.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Messner, A. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Parer, W. R.Brownhill, D. Rae, PeterCollard, S. J. Reid, M. E.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Scott, D. B.Durack, P. D. Sheil, G.Hamer, D. J. Teague, B. C.Hill, R. Townley, M.Jessop, D. S. Vanstone, A. E.Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Walters, M. S.Knowles, S. C. Watson, J. O. W.Lajovic, M. E. Withers, R. G. Coleman, R. N. Puplick, C. J. G.Gietzelt, A. T. Carrick, Sir JohnGrimes, D. J. Short, J. R.Walsh, P. A. Guilfoyle, Dame MargaretMason, C. V. J. Missen, A. J.Robertson, E. A. Chaney, F. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Button) read a first time. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(8.51) —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 extend the bounty assistance currently provided to the shipbuilding industry in Australia to vessels constructed or modified for export from Australia. The extended bounty assistance is part of a new shipbuilding industry package announced by the Government on 11 October 1984 following consideration of the report of a task force on the Australian shipbuilding industry released in January 1984. The task force was established by the then Minister for Industry and Commerce following representations from the Australian Shipbuilders' Association concerning the long-term viability of the local shipbuilding industry and its grim forward order situation. The task force made several recommendations aimed at increasing the throughput of Australian shipyards. Concern was also expressed at the substantial increase in the number of yards constructing bountiable vessels since the introduction of the current bounty scheme on 1 July 1980. It was recommended to Government that it explore the possibility of prescribing conditions for the registration of shipyards. I am happy to report that since the task force report a series of discussions have been held between the industry and the ACTU and both parties have agreed that they will try and achieve an industrial agreement covering a range of issues. This agreement represents a significant contribution by both the industry and trade unions. As part of its contribution the Government has decided to remove the 2 per cent revenue duty from imported goods used in the construction or modification of bountiable vessels, to introduce certain registration criteria for eligibility for bounty, and to extend to vessels constructed or modified for export the bounty assistance currently provided to the industry. It is proposed that the bounty be extended to vessels built for export for which construction was commenced on or after 10 December 1984. Bounty is currently payable at a rate of 25 per cent of construction costs for vessels commenced between 1 July 1984 and 1 July 1985; the bounty rate is to phase down to 22.5 per cent for vessels commenced between 1 July 1985 and 1 July 1986 then phasing to the long term rate of 20 per cent from 1 July 1986. There will be an annual limit on bounty payable on ships built for export; the limit being $6 million in 1984-85 and $10 million in 1985-86. The Government believes that the extension of the bounty to vessels built for export combined with the recent improvements to the operating arrangements of the Export Finance Insurance Corporation (EFIC) will be very beneficial to the Australian shipbuilding industry. Exports should develop those sections of the shipbuilding industry most deserving of encouragement and should improve efficiency. There are significant export prospects for the type and size of vessel built by the local industry. It has also become apparent that local yards may have lost potential export contracts to third markets because competing overseas yards appear to have received Government subsidies in addition to the usual export finance arrangements. I mentioned earlier that part of the Government's shipbuilding package is the introduction of registration criteria for the purposes of bounty eligibility. These criteria will ensure that bounty is only paid to those shipbuilders with a clear long-term commitment to the industry. The criteria will not, however, prohibit entry into the industry by a shipbuilder prepared to undertake the necessary commitment. It is proposed that the Regulations prescribe the criteria to be met by applicants for registration and to this end clause 13 of the Bill includes suitable provisions in the new registration sections to enable the Regulations to prescribe conditions to be met by applicants for registration. There has been a significant increase in the number of registered shipbuilders since the introduction of the Bounty (Ships) Act 1980 on 1 July 1980. While it is difficult to estimate future domestic demand for ships it is apparent that there will be insufficient work to maintain the number of yards currently registered. The criteria should have a significant impact on the structure of the industry and it is estimated that when it is fully operative the 80 shipyards currently registered will be reduced to less than 30. The result should be a smaller, but more viable industry structure. The proposed registration criteria were announced by the Government on 11 October 1984 in the context of the new shipbuilding industry package. To qualify for registration on or after 10 December 1984 a shipbuilder must: (a) be a registered Australian company or organisation; (b) demonstrate financial and commercial capability by way of an independent auditor's report to build a bountiable vessel; (c) employ directly, or through nominated sub-contractors, or have demonstrated clearly that an average of 20 persons will be dedicated to shipbuilding throughout the period of construction for the purpose of building the bountiable vessel; (d) have an ongoing apprenticeship scheme employing a ratio of at least 1 apprentice to 8 tradesmen directly employed by the shipyard, and encourage all sub-contractors to maintain a similar scheme; and (e) own or have access to shipbuilding facilities including a waterfront site which are assessed as adequate for building the vessel or vessels for which registration is sought. Registration may also be restricted to vessels of up to a specified size and if appropriate of a specified hull material. It is also proposed that the registration be valid only for a period of 12 months but may be renewed. I should point out, however, that any registration in force at the date of implementation of the proposed criteria will remain valid until completion of any bountiable vessels currently under construction or modification. This is one other aspect that I would like to make clear. If a shipbuilder was registered prior to the introduction of the new criteria and was not successful in gaining a new registration because of the inability to meet one of the above criteria the Minister will have the discretion to register. The Government places great importance on continuing progress in the discussions between the industry and the unions. Because of the importance of these discussions to the long-term viability of the industry a Shipbuilding Consultative Group (SCG) has been established to monitor progress. This body consists of an industrialist, a Unionist and a Government representative. The Group will report to the Minister at least every three months. If the reports from the SCG indicate that continual progress towards rationalisation is not being achieved, the Government will view the augmented assistance package. Whether the export bounty is paid beyond the 1985/86 financial year will depend on the degree of progress achieved. Subject to the combined industry/union response the Government will consider whether the general bounty assistance should also be reviewed. The SCG is also responsible for advising on applications for registration from shipbuilders under the new criteria but the Minister will decide whether to grant or refuse registration of premises after report from that Group. Finally, the Bill includes a number of provisions particularly in parts 3 and 4 which are designed to update the administrative provisions in the existing Act. These provisions are modelled along similar lines to provisions in recent bounty legislation. Financial Impact Statement The cost of the bounty assistance to vessels constructed or modified for export is limited by the provisions of clause 8 to $6 million in the period commencing on 10 December 1984 and ending on 30 June 1985 and to $10 million in relation to the financial year commencing on 1 July 1985. The assistance, if any beyond, the 1985/86 financial year will depend upon the degree of progress achieved by the industry. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Debate resumed from 16 May, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce) —Mr President, may I suggest that the Senate have a cognate debate covering this Bill, the Director of Public Prosecutions Amendment Bill 1985 and the National Crime Authority (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1985. The PRESIDENT —Is it the wish of the Senate to have a cognate debate covering these three measures? There being no objection, it is so ordered. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(8.54) —We are debating the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985, the Director of Public Prosecutions Amendment Bill 1985 and the National Crime Authority (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1985. I propose to address my remarks in the second reading debate to these three Bills in that order. The first Bill is the one that no doubt will excite the greatest interest, and maybe some controversy. It primarily arises out of events which occurred, to the great surprise of most people in this Parliament, at the end of March this year and which led to amendments to the Telecommunications (Interception) Bill, which are being further amended by this legislation. That serves to remind us of what occurred at the end of March this year when the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) and the Government did a major about-face in relation to the policies and attitudes they were expressing in regard to the Age tapes, or the New South Wales police tapes, as they are now known. It will be recalled that over 12 months ago the Age newspaper obtained some tapes, published some, and handed to the then Attorney-General a great volume of material which, it appears likely, had been prepared as a result of the illegal interception of telephones by a unit of the New South Wales police. Those tapes were alleged to contain a large amount of information about crime in New South Wales over quite a long period. Some of the material published in the Age newspaper was referred by the Attorney-General of the day to a police task force and then to the Director of Public Prosecutions to consider what should be done. Without going over the history of the matter, from the moment those revelations were made the Opposition called for a royal commission into the use of the tapes and how they were obtained, what use had been made of them, what use ought to have been made of them, and whether they would be made available to assist further in the prosecution of major criminals, operating particularly in New South Wales but no doubt throughout Australia and particularly, although not exclusively confined to, drug trafficking. Throughout last year and until the end of March this year the Government steadfastly opposed the idea of a royal commission into these matters. Steps of one sort or another were taken, in many cases forced on a reluctant Government by this Opposition, but nevertheless certain steps were taken. We maintained that the only proper step was to establish a royal commission into this whole matter. At the end of March the Attorney-General, on behalf of the Government, announced that although there would not be a new royal commission established to investigate these matters, the terms of reference of Mr Justice Stewart, who for some time has had a commission from the Governor-General to investigate other matters relating to drug trafficking, would be extended to cover an investigation into the New South Wales police tapes, including what further information could usefully be obtained from them for the purposes of prosecutions, whether or not prosecutions should be launched, whether full use had been made of the tapes, whether they were authentic and, if so, to what extent. There were a large number of questions, all of which raised very major issues which at long last this Government admitted deserved and required the attention of a royal commissioner. So Mr Justice Stewart has now been given those extended terms of reference to do just that. The Government also required that all of those tapes, some of which had already been referred to Mr Justice Stewart in one of his other capacities, be made available to him. They may have revealed crimes against Federal laws or New South Wales State laws, but the material, if it had been obtained by illegally intercepting telephone conversations, could not be referred to Mr Justice Stewart without an amendment to the Telecommunications (Interception) Act. This Parliament was invited to pass that amendment, and the Opposition gave the fullest co-operation to the Government to enable the legislation to be passed without delay. If my recollection is correct, the legislation was passed within a day or so at the most and Mr Justice Stewart's terms of reference were extended. So the Government, under this pressure from the Opposition for over 12 months, finally agreed to this proper course of action upon which Mr Justice Stewart has now embarked. But, as with so many things that this Government embarks upon, particularly in regard to its attention to the problem of organised crime in this country, it did not do the job properly. It failed in this legislation, although, as I said, it had every co-operation from the Opposition, to ensure that Mr Justice Stewart had full power to inspect these materials which were referred to him and which his terms of reference were extended to encompass. The Government did not enable him to receive material which may have revealed only offences against New South Wales criminal laws. The purpose of this amendment to the Telecommunications (Interception) Act is to correct that error or omission. An explanation of how it came about has never really been made by the Attorney-General, either in the other place or through the Minister who represents him here, but this legislation is the result. It is needed and, of course, the Opposition supports it. In order, I suppose, to give some respectability to the Government in this matter, the Government is now proposing two further amendments to the Telecommunications (Interception) Act, but I think they have been introduced at this stage simply to put this omission into the context of a fuller amendment of the Act for the sake of appearances. I do not propose to go into those matters in any detail. One is simply to give power to the police in cases of emergencies to seek to intercept telephones in order to trace calls which may have been threatening or distress calls. There is at present some doubt as to whether that can be done. This legislation provides for that to be done, and the Opposition will support it. The other matter to which I refer would perhaps cause some debate and it has certainly caused some concern. The Law Council of Australia has expressed some concern about it. It enables the Managing Director of Telecom Australia to issue a certificate which sets out the facts relating to actions by officers of the Commission to carry out a warrant for the interception of a telephone lawfully issued under the authority of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act. That authority is given, as I said, by judicial warrant to the Australian Federal Police for the purpose of intercepting the telephones of people who are suspected of engaging in drug trafficking. If that interception results in evidence which could be useful in a trial, proof has to be given as to the actual mechanics by which the telephone was intercepted. Purely routine type of evidence as to how that was actually done would have to be produced by Telecom officials. This legislation enables that evidence to be given in the form of a certificate signed by the Managing Director. It is a conclusive certificate-in other words, it cannot be challenged-but it can relate only, as I said, to the mechanical processes carried out by officers of Telecom. Apparently the reason for that is that such officers have expressed concern about being identified in giving this sort of evidence, and the Government believes that this is an appropriate course to take. The Opposition has given consideration to this matter with earnestness and concern, but on the whole we believe that it is justified because we really cannot see how such a certificate could in any way prejudice the rights of an accused person because of the very narrow way in which this conclusive certificate is constructed in the legislation. However, it is clearly something which will have to be very closely watched. Returning to the Government's change of policy in relation to this legislation and the whole matter of the New South Wales police tapes, I notice that my colleague in the other place, when speaking in the debate on this Bill, raised a number of questions with the Attorney-General, none of which the Attorney answered-which is not surprising in the light of the way in which that Minister is performing his role. But the Opposition is particularly interested in what has actually happened since Mr Justice Stewart had his powers extended and since the amendments we made to the legislation to enable him to effectively investigate the police tapes. One of the major matters of concern is whether the police, who it was hoped would co-operate and to whom indemnities were to be offered, have in fact come forward and accepted indemnities in one of the two forms that were mentioned by the Attorney-General in the House of Representatives and by his representative in this chamber, Senator Gareth Evans. There was some confusion as to how these indemnities would be offered and how they would work. The Opposition is interested to know just what is the position in relation to those matters. Perhaps Senator Gareth Evans will answer those questions. I turn to the other legislation in this package; firstly to the amendments to the Director of Public Prosecutions Act. Again, this is legislation to give effect to a matter which the Opposition has been supporting for some time, and which the Government has been delaying in implementing. The office of Director of Public Prosecutions was established by this Government, with the support of the Opposition. He is primarily a prosecutor, certainly, but he has not been given power to bring civil proceedings unless a prosecution has been launched by him. That limitation on his powers has been criticised by a succession of people who would, I think, have expert knowledge of the work that he would be doing-particularly, one of the special prosecutors who had both these powers, Mr Redlich, who recommended that the Director of Public Prosecutions should have the power to bring civil proceedings regardless of whether he has in fact commenced criminal proceedings. The Director of Public Prosecutions himself last year drew the attention of the Government and of this Parliament to that deficiency in the Act, and Mr Costigan, in his final report last year, drew attention to that requirement. Of course, all these people have had very close experience of conducting investigations and prosecutions of major crime, particularly those dealing with the revenue, and they had found the importance of being able to bring civil remedies quickly in order to freeze money before it disappears, often out of the country. However, the Government did not act at all promptly in relation to this matter, despite the advice that it had. During the election campaign the Opposition said that it would amend this Act to give these powers to the Director of Public Prosecutions. That was reiterated early this year by my colleague the shadow Attorney-General. Fortunately, at long last, we have a Bill before us, promoted by the Government, to do just that and the Opposition will be supporting it. When I was speaking earlier on the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill (No. 2), I omitted to say that the Opposition proposed to move an amendment to the motion for the second reading of that Bill, I move: At end of motion, add: '', but the Senate is of the opinion that- (a) telephone interception powers can be a valuable aid in the investigation of drug trafficking; (b) the Commonwealth should extend such powers in relation to drug trafficking to the States, subject to stringent controls being exercised over their use; and (c) those controls should include a requirement for judicial warrants.''. The reason this amendment has been moved by the Opposition is that we have felt for some time that the power to intercept telephones for the investigation of drug trafficking crimes which is held by the Australian Federal Police should be extended to the State police. Certainly, the State police forces have been complaining for some time that they do not have that power. It has proved to be a very useful power for the Federal Police. As investigations are often conducted by joint police task forces and both Federal and State drug trafficking offences are often involved, it does not make any sense that that power should be held only by the Federal Police and not State police. We propose that such power be confined in the same strict way as the existing legislation provides. We have set out our views in the amendment I have moved. When this matter was proposed by the Opposition in the House of Representatives, the Attorney-General said he would accept it. It does accord with the views that were expressed by the Government after the drug summit early in April, when the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) made a great show of the initiatives that the Commonwealth Government would take in regard to drug trafficking in Australia. He said that that power would be offered to the States. However, we have not heard anything more about that. It would be a matter of some surprise if the States did not take up that offer. Several weeks ago in the other place the Attorney-General said that the Government had not responded to this proposal but that he would accept the Opposition's proposed amendment. However, no doubt something went wrong procedurally in the way in which the sausage machine was operating over there. The amendment seemed to have got mixed up and misunderstood and it was not actually passed. We hope that the Senate, with the Government's support, will pass the amendment that I have moved. I would also like to hear from the Minister representing the Attorney-General, Senator Evans, just what is happening in regard to the implementation of that major feature of the Government's response at the drug summit about which we had heard nothing. We have had a flood of legislation in this Parliament in the last two or three weeks. One would have thought, in the light of that offer by the Prime Minister, that something would have been done about this matter. The fact that nothing has been done is of some concern. Unfortunately, as we have seen, most responses of this Government in regard to initiatives for dealing with organised crime in this country are slow and seem to be undertaken only after pressure from the Opposition, as a result of public opinion or other pressures. The final Bill, the National Crime Authority (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, concerns amendments to the National Crime Authority Act. The Opposition will support those amendments. The amendments concern access to tax records by the Authority, again with a judicial warrant. That power is extended from the Income Tax Assessment Act to all taxation assessment Acts. Clearly it is the sort of information which has been of great use to the National Crime Authority, and will continue to be so, and will be of great use to any royal commission inquiring into crime. Therefore, we support the legislation. However, we propose to move an amendment to extend the powers of the National Crime Authority even further. I will deal with that matter in the Committee stage. The Opposition supports the measures. I have moved an amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill (No. 2). I trust the Senate will support that. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(9.17) —The thrust of the three Bills presently before the Senate is to provide mechanisms for the interdiction of crime. The first Bill, the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill (No. 2), as already mentioned by Senator Durack, allows evidence of the technical tapping of telephones to be provided by averment. There is some concern with that. I understand that later speakers will address that concern. Perhaps I should say that the Bill is directed to the protection of Telecom Australia technicians. Their union is particularly concerned that they be protected against criminal activity, particularly the activity of drug pushers-the barons of the drug trade whose mark includes that of a willingness to resort to murder and maiming to enforce their will. Senator Haines —You sound like a B-grade movie. Senator COONEY —Yes. Well, one can understand in those circumstances the concerns that the union has. The second thing that the Bill does is to include crime against State laws in the category of crimes in respect of which unlawfully obtained materials within the meaning of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1985 can be used. The third point is that it allows Telecom to trace a call for the purpose of meeting an emergency situation, for example, a threatened suicide. One can see the merit, indeed the necessity, for that power to enable the authorities to trace the origin of a call which is made by someone who is distressed. The thrust of the Director of Public Prosecutions Amendment Bill 1985 is to enable the Director of Public Prosecutions to take civil actions against people in respect of whom criminal proceedings have been instituted or contemplated. It should be understood that that is confined to a situation in which the Director of Public Prosecutions has criminal proceedings in mind or has instituted them. Of course, the court before whom the proceedings are brought has a discretion to restrict the publication of those proceedings. That provision is inserted to safeguard the civil rights of people who may be taken to court on a civil action and yet never have any criminal proceedings brought against them. The National Crime Authority (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1985 is directed to making information in the hands of government bodies available to the National Crime Authority at the same time as providing appropriate protection of civil rights. It strikes a balance between the interests of the state in detecting and punishing crime and the rights of individuals. These Bills as a whole steer the appropriate course between public interest and private rights. They deserve the support of the Senate. Indeed, in speeches following mine there may be calls for more draconian measures. I hope that is not the situation. It would be a pity to see an auction in crime prevention mechanisms and in criminal sanctions-each speaker outbidding the last in advocating the sorts of mechanisms he would employ to detect crime and in terms of the sanctions he would employ if he had the legislative capacity to introduce them. Senator Haines —That would definitely be a great movie. Senator COONEY —But an exciting one, I am sure the honourable senator would have to concede. In these circumstances I make several points. The first is that the balance between the interests of the state and individual rights must be of continuous concern. At the moment the public debate on crime seems to me to be putting the present balance at risk in favour of state interests and against those of the individual. That is why Parliament should earnestly debate the issues raised by Bills like those presently before the Senate. The detection and punishment of crime are not the only considerations in this context. There is also the issue of the means by which crime is detected and punished. If the means by which crime is detected is made too draconian and too oppressive and if little regard is had for civil rights, it is likely that more criminal activity will be detected and punished. However, do we want that? A learned judge made the following statement in 1846 in a civil case, and it is very apt to the present consideration: The discovery and vindication and establishment of truth are main purposes certainly of the existence of Courts of Justice; still, for the obtaining of these objects, which, however valuable and important, cannot be usefully pursued without moderation, cannot be either usefully or creditably pursued unfairly or gained by unfair means, not every channel is or ought to be open to them. The practical inefficacy of torture is not, I suppose, the most weighty objection to that mode of examination, nor probably would the purpose of the mere disclosure of truth have been otherwise than advanced by a refusal on the part of the Lord Chancellor in 1815 to act against the solicitor, who, in the cause between Lord Cholmondeley and Lord Clinton, had acted or proposed to act in the manner which Lord Eldon thought it right to prohibit. Truth, like all other good things, may be loved unwisely-may be pursued too keenly-may cost too much. And surely the meanness and the mischief of prying into a man's confidential consultations with his legal adviser, the general evil of infusing reserve and dissimulation, uneasiness, and suspicion and fear, into those communications which must take place, and which, unless in a condition of perfect security, must take place uselessly or worse, are too great a price to pay for truth itself. That sort of statement made by the learned Lord Chancellor must be kept in mind particularly when questions of phone tapping or invasions of privacy arise. The civil rights this community has inherited have been hard won and should not be squandered. As a community, we face a particular problem at a particular time in history. In that context it should be remembered that precedents can be established which may well become oppressive in the future and thus harass following generations. The processes by which crime is detected and investigated and by which alleged criminals are prosecuted, convicted and punished reflect the character and quality of the society within which those processes operate. The separation of functions is a dimension of them. In Australia it is usual for police to detect and investigate, for a prosecutor to present a case against an alleged criminal, and for a judicial body to assess that evidence and to convict and punish if considered appropriate. Civil proceedings have generally been kept distinct from those functions. In my view, changes in those conventions put at risk the character and quality of society. Conventions which affect civil rights, the functioning of a free society and the proper balance between individual liberties and the state interest should not be readily altered in favour of the state. These Bills have kept those values very much in mind. In my view, and hopefully in the Senate's view, they strike a happy medium between those two considerations and provide a proper approach to the situation we presently face. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(9.25) —As Senator Cooney has already pointed out, the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985, the Director of Public Prosecutions Amendment Bill 1985 and the National Crime Authority (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1985 form part of this Government's attack on organised crime in Australia and they have the support of all parties in this place. The DPP legislation and the National Crime Authority legislation are essentially non-controversial. In the main, the National Crime Authority legislation extends section 20 exemption provisions to certain other sensitive information and documents which have not up to this stage been included. These primarily relate to personal or commercial data and to information given to courts, tribunals and so on. The Australian Democrats certainly support this legislation, as do the Opposition parties. We will also be supporting the unusually sensible second reading attachment from the Liberal Party regarding the need for the National Crime Authority to act in a co-ordinated manner with the activities of authorities and persons in other countries who are performing similar functions to those of the National Crime Authority. The Director of Public Prosecutions Amendment Bill 1985 is somewhat more complex but not particularly controversial either. All it does is extend to the Director of Public Prosecutions some additional powers to pursue civil remedies on behalf of the Commonwealth for the recovery of unpaid taxes and duties. When the principal Act was first drafted there was some discussion about exactly what powers the Director of Public Prosecutions would be given as to civil remedies on the one hand and the recovery of pecuniary penalties on the other hand. The exercise of both these powers was limited to matters designated by the Attorney-General and tended to authorise him only to recover pecuniary penalties in relation to tax matters. This Bill extends his powers, and again we support that. The controversial legislation is the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985, over which both the report of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills and the Law Council of Australia have raised some concern. Essentially, there are two elements to this legislation. Firstly, it enables Telecom Australia, in specified emergency situations, to intercept a telephone call in order to establish the location of a caller so that appropriate assistance can be given. Some fairly appropriate examples have been given by speakers tonight. Secondly, it enables formal evidence of acts done by Telecom employees, in enabling members of the Australian Federal Police to execute an interception warrant, to be given by certificate in court proceedings. It is in that area that concerns have been raised. The Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee, in the report that was tabled today, under the heading 'Clause 6-Evidentiary certificates' states: Clause 6 inserts a new section 25A in the Principal Act providing that the Managing Director of Telecom may issue a certificate setting out facts with respect to acts or things done by or in relation to officers of the Commission in the execution of warrants permitting the interception of communications made to or from a telecommunications service. Such a certificate is to be conclusive evidence of the matters stated in the document in proceedings by way of prosecution for narcotics offences. The Committee is concerned that in proceedings relating to serious criminal offences evidence should be able to be given by way of conclusive certificate. The Committee acknowledges the weight of the reasons advanced by the Attorney-General in his Second Reading Speech in support of the amendment, in particular the need to protect Telecom employees involved in narcotic interception from public identification because of fears for their safety and the safety of their families. However, it still went on to point out that there was some infringement of civil liberties involved in the operation of this clause. The Law Council of Australia expressed its concern about this proposed new section much more strongly. The Privacy Law Committee of the Law Council of Australia was reconstituted, at the request of the LCA's Secretary-General, on an ad hoc basis specifically to consider the amendment to the Telecommunications (Interception) Act. I understand that that Committee comprised Malcolm McCusker, QC, Robert French and Malcolm Hall. They have come up with a very lengthy memorandum which sets out their concerns. In the interests of the speedy passage of this legislation tonight, I seek leave to incorporate that memorandum in Hansard. Leave granted. The memorandum read as follows- MEMORANDUM To: Law Council of Australia From: Ad Hoc Privacy Law Committee Re: Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985 The Privacy Law Committee of the Law Council of Australia was, at the request of the Secretary General, reconstituted on an ad hoc basis to consider an amendment to the Telecommunications (Interceptions) Act 1979. The committee so reconstituted comprised Malcolm McCusker Q.C., Robert French and Malcolm Hall. The Amending Bill, which was introduced into the House of Representatives on the 9th May 1985 will, if passed, be cited as the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Act (No. 2) 1985. The provision of the Bill which is of concern to the Law Council is clause 6 which proposes the insertion of a new section designated 25A in the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979. A general outline of the Bill contained in an explanatory memorandum explains the function of the proposed new provision as follows: ''The Bill also provides for evidence of formal matters in respect of acts done by Telecom employees for the purpose of enabling the execution of an interception warrant issued to the Australian Federal Police in the course of a narcotics investigation to be given in certain proceedings by a certificate signed by the Managing Director of Telecom. This provision is designed to protect the identity of Telecom employees engaged in such activities.'' Notes on the Bill's clauses are also set out in the explanatory memorandum and in relation to Section 25A state: ''This clause provides that a certificate signed by the Managing Director of Telecom, setting out such facts as he considers relevant with respect to acts or things done by or in relation to officers of the Commission for the purpose of enabling the execution of an interception warrant issued to the Australian Federal Police for the purposes of a narcotics investigation is conclusive evidence of matters stated in the certificate in specified proceedings.'' The full extent of the potential operation of the proposed amendment can best be appreciated by setting out precisely how it falls into the statutory framework. Statutory Framework Section 20 of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 empowers Judges of the Federal Court to issue warrants authorising the interception by officers of the Australian Federal Police of communications made to or from the telecommunication service. Interception consists of listening to or recording by any means a communication in its passage over the telecommunication system without the knowledge of the person making the communication. (See Section 6 of the Principal Act) The use in evidence of information obtained from intercepted communications is facilitated by Section 7 (6) of the Principal Act which provides: ''Without limiting the application of subsection (4), a person may give information obtained by intercepting a communication passing over a telecommunications system, or obtained by virtue of a warrant issued under Section 11 or 21, in evidence in a proceeding- (a) by way of a prosecution for a narcotics offence; (b) by way of a prosecution for an offence against the Telecommunications Act 1975 or a Regulation or Bylaw in force under that Act; (c) by way of a prosecution for any other offence against the law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory punishable by imprisonment for life or for a period or maximum period, of not less than 3 years; (d) by way of an application for an order under sub-section 243B (1) of the Customs Act 1901; or (e) for the condemnation or recovery of a ship or aircraft, or of goods, seized under Section 203 of the Customs Act 1901 in connection with the commission of a narcotics offence.'' Sub-section (4) of Section 7 which is referred to in the opening words of sub-section (6) prohibits the communication to any other person or the use or recording of information obtained by the interception of a communication passing over a telecommunication system or obtained by virtue of a warrant except in certain specified circumstances which are not material for present purposes. It is important to note that the power given to a Judge of the Federal Court to issue warrants under Section 20 is limited to the case where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the telecommunication service is being or is likely to be used by a person who has committed or is suspected on reasonable grounds of having committed, or of being likely to commit, a narcotics offence. Notwithstanding that limitation the provisions of Section 7 sub-section (6) allow the use of information obtained pursuant to such a warrant in proceedings relating to a wide range of Commonwealth and State offences not limited to narcotics offences. The Proposed New Section 25A As it appears in the Bill the proposed new Section 25A provides: ''25A (1) The Managing Director of the Commission may issue a certificate in writing signed by the Managing Director setting out such facts as the Managing Director considers relevant with respect to acts or things done by or in relation to officers of the Commission for the purpose of enabling a warrant issued under Section 20 to be executed. (2) A document purporting to be a certificate issued under subsection (1) and purporting to be signed by the Managing Director of the Commission shall be received in evidence in a proceeding of a kind referred to in subsection 7 (6) without further proof and is, in that proceeding, conclusive evidence of the matters stated in the document.'' It is immediately apparent that the conclusive evidentiary effect of the certificate in relation to facts stated in it is not limited to proceedings for narcotics offences but the whole range of proceedings defined by Section 7 (6) in which information obtained from intercepted communications may be used. Comment Upon Proposed Amendment Assuming the amendment on its proper construction to be as is contended in the explanatory memorandum, it is nevertheless fundamentally objectionable. The fundamental objection lies in the use of a ''conclusive evidence'' provision to preclude challenge to any of the matters certified by the Managing Director of the Commission. This is not a reversal of the burden of proof of the kind that occurs with provisions giving prima facie effect to prosecutorial averments. (See for example Crimes Act Section 30R). This provision effectively silences an accused person in respect of the matters the subject of the certificate and prevents any answer to the Managing Director's assertions of fact. For this reason alone the provision is in clear conflict with the recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs in its Report on the Burden of Proof in Criminal Proceedings (Parliamentary Paper 319/1982 published November 1982). The members of that Committee were: Senator Allan Missen Senator Gareth Evans Senator Noel Crichton-Browne Senator Robert Hill Senator Susan Ryan, and Senator Michael Tate In particular the Committee considered the use of provisions such as Crimes Act Section 30R giving prima facie effect to prosecutorial averments and said at paragraph 7.12 of the Report: ''The comparatively substantial increase in the number of averment provisions in recent years coupled with the potential for abuse by prosecutors has led us to the conclusion that there should be restrictions as to their use. While the Committee recognises that there is a legitimate need for such provisions, especially in circumstances where the prosecutor faces an insurmountable difficulty of proof, the inability of prosecutors in the past to use averments within reasonable limits is a matter of concern to us.'' At 7.13 the Committee referred to the need for objective criteria to limit the circumstances in which averments can be used. In particular it cited from and agreed with a joint submission from the New South Wales Bar Association, the Law Society of New South Wales and the Sydney University Law Graduates Association: ''It should be a fundamental requirement before any use of an averment provision that the Crown must prove that the facts averred, if in truth they exist, are within the knowledge of the Defendant or that the Defendant has peculiar means of knowledge of the facts averred and that it is not reasonably practicable for the prosecutor to lead evidence to establish such matter.'' The Committee also cited from the first report of the Regulations Advisory Committee to the Commonwealth Attorney-General on 15th July 1944 which recommended that averment should be resorted to in the following cases: (a) Where the matter which the prosecution is required to prove is formal only and does not in itself relate to any conduct on the part of the Defendant; (b) Where the matter in question relates to conduct of the defendant alleged to constitute an ingredient in the offence charged and- (i) such matter is peculiarly within the knowledge of the defendant; and (ii) it is not reasonably practicable for the prosecutor to lead evidence to establish such matter. The Senate Committee's own recommendations at paragraph 7.16 were in the following terms: ''(a) As a matter of legislative policy averment provisions should be kept to a minimum. (b) The Parliament should enact legislation to ensure that existing and future averment provisions are only resorted to by prosecutors in the following circumstances: (i) where the matter which the prosecution is required to prove is formal only and does not in itself relate to any conduct on the part of the defendant; or (ii) where the matter in question relates to conduct of the defendant alleged to constitute an ingredient in the offence charged and is peculiarly within the defendant's knowledge.'' It hardly needs to be said what the Committee recommended about averments of prima facie effect has significantly greater force in relation to conclusive evidence provisions, assuming that the Committee would have been prepared to entertain the possibility of such provisions at all. Nothing in the explanatory memorandum or the terms of the amendments suggests a justification for this provision which would fall within the Senate Committee's guidelines for prima facie averments. Quite apart from the inherent vice of the extreme privative operation of the provision proposed, it has a potential operation limited only by the Managing Director's ingenuity in discerning what is 'relevant with respect to matters or things done by or in relation to officers of the Commission for the purpose of enabling a warrant issued under Section 20 to be executed'. An obvious example illustrates the breadth of the provision. Were an officer of the Commission to transcribe a conversation intercepted pursuant to a warrant, then the Managing Director could under this provision conclusively certify that transcript to be a true record of the conversation. It is no answer to this objection to say that this is an extreme example and that officers of the Commissioner would never be involved in recording or transcription. That is a matter for which there is no statutory guarantee. It is an answer which can only rest upon the shifting sands of administrative arrangements. The subjective nature of ''such facts as the Managing Director considers relevant'' confers upon the provision an unacceptable width that compounds the fundamental objection to its privative operation. If the object of the provision is to protect the identity of Commission officers that is an object which could be achieved in other ways. One such way would be to authorise or require a Court to suppress disclosure of the name of such a person if called as a witness or otherwise referred to in evidence. It should also be noted that the proposed provision conflicts with the terms of Articles 14 (2) and 14 (3) (e) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which provide: ''Article 14 (2) Everyone charged with a crime shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. Article 14 (3) (e) 14 (3) In the determination of any criminal charge against him everyone shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees, in full equality: (e) To examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him.'' CONCLUSION In the view of the Committee the proposed Section 25A should not be passed into law for three reasons: (i) Because it gives conclusive effect to the Managing Director's certificate and this, unlike standard averment provisions, goes further than reversing the burden of proof to effectively silencing the accused person. (ii) The width of the Section is so great as to allow the certification of facts which may go well beyond the limits of what is considered ''formal'' matter. (iii) The provision conflicts with Australia's obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Dated the 24th May 1985. M. J. McCusker Q.C.R. S. FrenchM. Hall Senator HAINES —In short and in essence, the Privacy Law Committee's objection to proposed new section 25A runs along similar lines to that of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, namely that it is an invasion of privacy and that it precludes challenge to any of the matters certified by the Managing Director of the Commission. The proposed new section also appears to be in conflict with the recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs in its report on the burden of proof in criminal proceedings. While the Scrutiny of Bills Committee accepts the fact-and, I presume, so does the Law Council of Australia-that something must be done in order to protect Telecom employees, particularly those involved in narcotic interception, from the public identification, one is forced to ask whether the same protection could have been given to those employees without going down this particular route. I would be interested to hear from the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) or his advisers whether consideration was given to any other means of achieving the alleged purpose of this amendment. There is no question that it does infringe civil liberties fairly severely and while the need for protection is there, there is, as the Law Council points out, the problem that it precludes challenge to any of the matters certified by the Managing Director of the Commission. That, in itself, is a worry. However, because the three Bills before us are part of the Government's and indeed the Parliament's efforts to combat or contain organised crime in this country, we will support them. We will also support the Liberal amendments to the National Crime Authority (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill and the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill (No. 2). Senator TATE(Tasmania)(9.34) —I rise to speak on the Director of Public Prosecutions Amendment Bill 1985 and other Bills which are being debated cognately. I direct the bulk of my remarks to the Director of Public Prosecutions Amendment Bill because I do not think it has yet been sufficiently emphasised in this debate what a remarkable and novel piece of legislation the Senate is considering tonight. Senator Durack —What about the powers of the Special Prosecutors? Senator TATE —I may come to that. The Special Prosecutors were set up for a specific purpose for a limited time. Here the Director of Public Prosecutions is given a very secure tenure, although he is required to report to the Parliament and any directions given by the Attorney-General as to the exercise of his office must be put under some sort of scrutiny by the Parliament. Nevertheless, his office is a long-standing one and he may hope to occupy it for a considerable time. This distinguishes him from the Special Prosecutors. Unlike the English or State equivalents of the office of Director of Public Prosecutions, under this Bill the DPP will pursue, where appropriate, civil remedies on behalf of the Commonwealth and its authorities at a stage not merely where prosecutions have been instituted or undertaken, or where it is anticipated that they might be instituted or undertaken, but where he is merely considering a proposal that he undertake them or even take them over from some other person who is already proposing to launch a prosecution. It is a rather unusual situation and I think there can be sufficient justification for it, but it warrants some emphasis, particularly in view of the fact that under clause 3 of the Director of Public Prosecutions Amendment Bill the link between the taking of a civil remedy and a relevant prosecution or anticipated prosecution that is said to be required by the Bill is not able to be challenged. There is an ousting of the court's jurisdiction, so that the link which the Parliament says must be in place to justify the Director of Public Prosecutions to pursue a civil remedy cannot be tested in the courts. That also requires some comment in the Senate. I do not say that there is an alternative way of overcoming the problem. Of course one would not want the Director of Public Prosecutions to have to foreshadow in some court proceedings whether and on what basis-and whether it is a sufficiently sound basis-he is considering appropriate action under some portion of the criminal law. Nevertheless, it requires comment because it is an unusual situation for the person whose office was instituted to undertake prosecutions and that part of the Attorney-General's functions is vested in him-to be vested with the power to pursue civil remedies. It is particularly worthy of comment because the general rule is that if a person is about to face some sort of criminal proceeding-for example, a person who has a car accident and who may be charged with manslaughter-then it would be quite improper and the courts would not permit generally speaking, I understand, some civil proceedings to do with an insurance claim to be undertaken before the criminal proceedings, for fear that the person would, by way of cross-examination, be required to divulge information which would then be of use during the criminal prosecution. It is that particular danger that needs to be noted and commented upon. I know from my chairing of the Caucus legal committee that it was the subject of extensive discussion within the Government party and was in some small measure met by the provision that the court may suppress publication of the proceedings in the civil jurisdiction. But of course that is directed simply to not permitting a situation to develop where a potential juror's mind could be inflamed or prejudiced by having read that the DPP had pursued civil proceedings, perhaps successfully, against an accused person. It does not meet the point I am making, that it is extremely unusual for a prosecutor to be permitted to pursue a civil remedy and subject the person concerned to cross-examination which may then be used in a subsequent criminal proceeding to test credit or in some such way. Therefore, it is worth commenting upon. Senator Cooney, in a splendid and, as always, thoughtful address to the Senate, pointed out that attention and balance have to be considered, and I think the Bill, on the whole, has served a public purpose. What is that public purpose? Let me now refer to the National Crime Authority's report. I see that the Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Chipp, has joined us in the chamber. He played a distinguished role also on that extended Senate committee, as did my colleagues who considered the Bill and came up with a proposal acceptable to this chamber, to the Government and I believe, as history will tell, to the nation. In that report, we found it to be a fact-it has been commented upon subsequently by the reports published and tabled in this place by Special Prosecutors Redlich and Gyles-that there was an absence of will, and certainly of co-ordination, among Commonwealth authorities in pursuing civil remedies where their pursuit, particularly by the Australian Taxation Office in relation to those who were engaging in criminal activities, could itself have been a very potent weapon in combating criminal activities. This applies particularly to criminals engaged in crime of the type we are trying to suppress-the drug trade in particular-because of the enormous profits which they unscrupulously obtain from the vulnerable and weak in our society and then devote to their nefarious purposes and of course to their own self-indulgence. If we undertake some activity which deprives them of the benefits of that nefarious activity we would probably be hurting them in a way which is much more realistic and much more likely to deter them than the occasional prosecution which is launched, perhaps with some degree of success or another. In fact, we thought it very important in our discussions on the National Crime Authority reference that robust steps be taken to pursue civil remedies where they are appropriate. We believe that the Director of Public Prosecutions probably has a role in that regard because, quite frankly, Commonwealth authorities still seem to be protecting their own turf. They do not seem to be that keen to devote resources to the pursuit of offences against their various statutes and requirements. In that situation the Director of Public Prosecutions may well be vested with that power if the link occurs, though, as I have said, that cannot be tested in the courts with a prosecution. Because we are discussing such an unusual phenomenon tonight, it is proposed that a special report be prepared by the Director of Public Prosecutions at the end of two years experience of this legislation, as it will be enacted and in operation and that that should be presented to the Parliament for our consideration. To be quite frank, I think two years is a little too long. The Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs-probably in October this year in any case-will be having a public hearing with the Director of Public Prosecutions in order to consider not only his first report, which has been tabled before this Parliament, but also by then, we hope, his second report because we want to pursue many matters with him, including, out of interest, the factors which govern the exercise of prosecution discretions. He wrote a very interesting article in an Australian Law Journal- Senator Chipp —I'm sorry, I did not hear that. Senator TATE —We wish also to pursue the factors which govern the exercise of prosecution discretions; whether to pursue a matter to prosecution. The Director of Public Prosecutions may have to take into account the seriousness of the offence. According to Mr Temby, in an article in the ALJ, there is also some possibility that one should take into account the public office held by the accused. There may be a need to clear the air or muddy the waters, as the case may be, by a prosecution and I think all that has to be sorted out. In any case, we will have the Director of Public Prosecutions before us and we may get some early indication of how he sees himself exercising this power because it is something which must be put under parliamentary scrutiny since judicial scrutiny is ousted by that clause which, as I have said, prevents one from looking at the link between the pursuit of a civil remedy and an actual or anticipated prosecution. It is interesting to note, and I think it is worth while to comment, that this additional power vested in the Director of Public Prosecutions will cost the taxpayer some $3m, I think it is, this financial year and $13m in the full year. From the experience of Mr Redlich one can confidently anticipate that, if exercised robustly-and fairly, of course-this operation by the Director of Public Prosecutions will recoup much more than the costs of running the office. As I have said, not only will many millions of dollars in funds flow to the Federal Treasury as a result of his action-that may be anticipated-but also the fact that he is undertaking these pursuits of civil remedies in cases where the Australian Taxation Office or other government authorities or agencies refuse to devote the resources that are required, I believe will itself be very salutary. Senator Chipp —Without going into personalities, how can this Parliament be informed by the committee as to whether the Director of Public Prosecutions at any time is doing a good job or a bad job? Senator TATE —I believe that the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs may be a servant of the Senate as a whole in this regard and it will be undertaking a review in October by way of taking public evidence from Mr Temby as to the operation of his office. I think the Senate will find that that examination will be quite searching. It will be based, of course, on the tabled annual reports which he will have made available by then. Of course, any honourable senator is entitled to sit in on that Committee but not vote, should there be a requirement to do so. I am sure that Senator Chipp would be welcome at that table. Dealing with the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill (No. 2), I simply want to comment on the point, which is very well made, that the provision for evidentiary certificates is quite unusual, in that the Managing Director of the Australian Telecommunications Commission may issue a certificate in writing signed by him setting out the fact that certain employees of Telecom have undertaken the tapping of telephones when requested to do so by the Australian Federal Police under a judicial warrant. I have come to the conclusion that this evidentiary proceeding is justified. Telecom employees have made it known that they fear harassment and intimidation were they to be singled out and named for having taken part, in a purely technical way, in an operation authorised by judicial warrant. Of course, if it became widely known that Telecom employees were subject to such harassment, one could expect no co-operation from them in the tapping of telephones as required under the judicial warrant. But that would not be sufficient. The fact is that we are concerned with a purely formal matter. I believe that, whereas the Senate Standing Committee raised a cautionary note in relation to the use of such conclusive evidentiary certificates, it is also true that we said in that report that prosecutors may resort to them where the matter which the prosecution is required to prove is formal only-as would be, the placing of some sort of instrumentation on the line-and does not relate to any conduct on the part of the defendant. I think that is the case in this instance, and on that balance it may be justified. That is all I wish to say in relation to these Bills. There are matters of great moment and unusual character in these Bills, and I think it is essential that the Parliament and this Senate in particular, through its committees, keep an eye on the actual operation of this legislation. I can assure the Senate, and indeed the general public, that the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs will undertake that responsibility. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(9.44) —We are debating cognately the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985, the Director of Public Prosecutions Amendment Bill 1985 and the National Crime Authority (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1985. I intend to restrict my comments to the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985. One might draw the conclusion that the Bill, on the surface, is of no great moment. However, I take quite a different view. Some of the matters I propose to raise have been raised already by Senator Haines, and the anxieties she has quite properly expressed reflect some of the anxieties I have. In reading the explanatory memorandum attached to the Bill, or the second reading speech of the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes), one could draw the conclusion that clause 6, which amends section 25 of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act, is designed to allow the certificates signed by the Managing Director of Telecom to be conclusive evidence of certain facts as they relate only to narcotics investigations. The explanatory memorandum reference to clause 6, under the heading 'Evidentiary certificates' explains the amendment. I quote: This clause provides that a certificate signed by the Managing Director of Telecom, setting out such facts as he considers relevant with respect to acts or things done by or in relation to officers of the Commission for the purpose of enabling the execution of an interception warrant issued to the Australian Federal Police for the purposes of a narcotics investigation is conclusive evidence of matters stated in the certificate in specified proceedings. I emphasise the words referred to in the second reading speech and explanatory memorandum 'for the purposes of a narcotics investigation'. The Minister's second reading speech reads, in part: Initially, material obtained by interception was used for criminal intelligence purposes. However, as it is admissible as evidence in criminal proceedings, there are cases where it is appropriate and necessary to put the material into evidence. Strict proof of actions taken by Telecom employees would require those employees to give evidence in court. Telecom management has been advised that employees are unwilling to give such evidence because public identification of their involvement in narcotics interception would cause fear for their own safety, that of their families and that of their fellow workers. Telecommunications interception is of great assistance to the Australian Federal Police in the prevention and detection of drug offences. However, the use of information obtained from the intercepted communications under warrant for the purpose of evidence in proceedings relating to a prosecution are not, in my view, in any way restricted to proceedings relating to a case involving narcotics. Section 7 sub-section (6) of the principal Act provides: Without limiting the application of sub-section (4), a person may give information obtained by intercepting a communication passing over a telecommunications system, or obtained by virtue of a warrant issued under section 11 or 21, in evidence in a proceeding- (a) by way of a prosecution for a narcotics offence-- that is conceded- (b) by way of a prosecution for an offence against the Telecommunications Act 1975 or a regulation or by-law in force under that Act; (c) by way of a prosecution for any other offence against the law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory punishable by imprisonment for life or for a period, or maximum period, of not less than 3 years; (d) by way of an application for an order under sub-section 243B (1) of the Customs Act 1901; or (e) for the condemnation or recovery of a ship or aircraft, or of goods, seized under section 203 of the Customs Act 1901 in connection with the commission of a narcotics offence. I put it to the Senate, with respect, that while section 20 grants power to a judge of the Federal Court of Australia or the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, or judges who fall within the provisions of section 19, the power for the issue of a warrant on narcotics related offences in no way prevents the passing on of information as it relates to section 7 sub-section (6). It follows that all matters referred to in section 7 (6) may now be subject to a certificate issued by the Managing Director of Telecom and tendered in court as conclusive proof of the matter contained therein. Proposed new section 25A (2) states: A document purporting to be a certificate issued under sub-section (1) and purporting to be signed by the Managing Director of the Commission shall be received in evidence in a proceeding of a kind referred to in sub-section 7 (6) without further proof and is, in that proceeding, conclusive evidence of the matters stated in the document. References in the Minister's second reading speech and the attached explanatory memorandum relating exclusively to narcotics investigations are quite incorrect in my view or, to say the least, certainly misleading. This matter is not necessarily about narcotics. It covers the whole range of matters that are included under section 7 (6). A certificate will, as I say, relate to all offences falling within that section. Yet the Bill purports to apply only to narcotics. The amendments to section 25 are designed to protect the safety of Telecom employees when intercepting communications which may lead to a prosecution for offences relating to narcotics. I turn to the fundamental objection which I have to this legislation; that is, the provision which allows the admission of a certificate in a criminal proceeding to be conclusive evidence. The document signed by the Managing Director of Telecom setting out such facts as the Managing Director considers relevant with respect to acts or things done by or in relation to officers of the Commission for the purpose of enabling a warrant to be executed shall be, of course, irrefutable, unchallengable and absolutely conclusive evidence in criminal proceedings. As the Law Council of Australia points out, this provision effectively silences an accused in respect of the matters which are the subject of a certificate and prevents any answer to the Managing Director's assertions of the facts. We are told by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) that the matters which will be contained in the certificate are formal matters of evidence only and do not go to the issue before the court. On my-Senator Gareth Evans might think inadequate-reading of the legislation, that is not clear. Irrespective of that, I assert, to quote the Bill, that 'acts or things done by or in relation to officers of the Commission for the purpose of enabling a warrant' are matters which do go to the issues before the court. I would have thought that a certificate would, at the very least, have to specify the time and the date of interception, together with the telephone numbers, presumably, from which the intercepted conversation took place. The defendant may wish to deny that the conversation took place on a certain number or he may rest part of his defence on the timing of the alleged conversation. These presumably are two basic facts that would be in the certificate. Under the provisions of this legislation he is denied the opportunity, and the certificate will be conclusive evidence of these matters. Perhaps a defendant may claim that the conversations are not complete and that therefore the contents of the conversation are distorted. He will apparently be denied that opportunity. If the certificate says that they are complete, again that will be deemed to be conclusive evidence. As the Australian Law Council also points out, the provision has a potential operation limited only by the Managing Director's ingenuity in discerning what is 'relevant with respect to matters or things done by or in relation to officers of the Commission for the purpose of enabling a warrant issued under section 20 to be executed'. The example is given where an officer of the Commission transcribes a conversation intercepted pursuant to a warrant. The Managing Director could, under this provision, conclusively certify that transcript to be a true record of the conversation. I believe that the Law Council sums it up succinctly when it says: It is no answer to this objection to say that this is an extreme example and that officers of the Commission would never be involved in recording or transcription. That is a matter for which there is no satisfactory guarantee. That is an answer which can rest only upon the shifting sands of administrative arrangements. The subjective nature of 'such facts as the Managing Director considers relevant' confers upon the provision an unacceptable width that compounds the fundamental objection to its privative operation. While I may well be alone not only in the Senate but also in the House of Representatives in expressing my concern at the proposed amendment to section 25, to the point that I am prepared to vote against the Bill, I note that my concern is shared by the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills which, when reporting on this Bill, said: The Committee is concerned that in proceedings relating to serious criminal offences evidence should be able to be given by way of conclusive certificate. The Committee acknowledges the weight of the reasons advanced by the Attorney-General in his Second Reading Speech in support of the amendment, in particular the need to protect Telecom employees involved in narcotic interception from public identification because of fears for their safety and the safety of their families. However, the Committee draws the clause to the attention of the Senate under principle 1 (a) (i) in that by permitting the issuing of conclusive certificates in criminal proceedings it may be considered to trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties. I notice that the Committee seems, at least in my view, to be misled into the belief that the amendment will relate only to narcotics offences. That is the only conclusion I can draw from the fact that it states: Such a certificate is to be conclusive evidence of the matters stated in the document in proceedings by way of prosecution for narcotics offences. I suggest, as I did earlier in my speech, that that is a misunderstanding of the powers contained in the Bill. I refer the Senate also to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs report of 1982 on the burden of proof in criminal proceedings. Of course, that was the reason I asked Senator Gareth Evans last week, by way of a question without notice, when we may have a definitive response from the Government to the conclusions and recommendations of that Committee. I am sure he does not need to be reminded that he was one of the principal architects of that document. Of course, the report essentially dealt with the onus of proof and did not deal with certificates being conclusive evidence. Had it done so, I am sure it would certainly have declined to give them status, and I am certain that Senator Evans would have been party to that conclusion. Averments were considered in the light of being at best prima facie evidence. In fact, the Committee report described the essence of an averment provision in modern legislation as a clause expressed in the following manner: Every averment of the prosecutor or the plaintiff contained in the information shall be prima facie evidence of the matter averred. It noted that prima facie evidence is what it refers to and not conclusive evidence. In addressing itself to suggestions for a form of increasing the use of the averment provisions, particularly in Commonwealth legislation, the Committee recommended: The comparatively substantial increase in the number of averment provisions in recent years coupled with the potential for abuse by prosecutors has led us to the conclusion that there should be restrictions as to their use. While the Committee recognises that there is a legitimate need for such provisions, especially in circumstances where the prosecutor faces an insurmountable difficulty of proof, the inability of prosecutors in the past to use averments within reasonable limits is a matter of concern to us. A further paragraph in the Committee's report expressed the view: . . . that there is a pressing need for more objective criteria to limit the circumstances in which averments can be used. The Committee referred with approval to the joint submission of the New South Wales Bar Association, the Law Society of New South Wales and the Sydney University Law Graduates Association, which all suggested that certain criteria should provide for averments to be relied upon by the prosecutor. It stated: It should be a fundamental requirement before any use of an averment provision that the Crown must prove that the facts averred, if in truth they exist, are within the knowledge of the defendant or that the defendant has peculiar means of knowledge of the facts averred and that it is not reasonably practicable for the prosecutor to lead evidence to establish such matter. The Committee also cited the first report of the Regulations Advisory Committee to the then Commonwealth Attorney-General on 15 July 1944, which recommended that averments should be resorted to in certain cases. It might be painful for me to read them but I would prefer to have this said than have it go past. The first case is where the matter which the prosecution is required to prove is formal only and does not in itself relate to any conduct on the part of the defendant. Senator Tate —Is not that the case? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —With respect, I suggest it is not just a formal matter, as I said from the outset. The time may come, as a result of administrative arrangements, when the person who intercepts the telephone call could also be transcribing the conversation, and that could be part of the certificate. I see there is disagreement with me-- Senator Tate —That would be a problem. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Of course it would, but once it is admitted by way of a certificate, presumably it is irrefutable and unchallengeable in a court by way of a defence. The second case is where the matter in question relates to the conduct of the defendant alleged to constitute an ingredient in the offence charged. The third is where such matter is peculiarly within the knowledge of the defendant. The fourth is where it is not reasonably practicable for the prosecutor to lead evidence to establish such a matter. They are the criteria that have been set down by the Committee in its report to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. Finally, the Scrutiny of Bills Committee recommended, firstly, that, as a matter of legislative policy, averment provisions should be kept to a minimum, and, secondly, that the Parliament should enact legislation to ensure that existing and future averment provisions are resorted to by prosecutors only in circumstances where the matter which the prosecution is required to prove is formal only and does not in itself relate to any conduct on the part of the defendant, or where the matter in question relates to the conduct of a defendant alleged to constitute an ingredient in the offence charged and is peculiarly within the defendant's knowledge. Clearly that does not prevail on this occasion. I suggest that the provisions of proposed new section 25A fail on every count and, in fact, constitute a circumstance which the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs would find totally unjustified. If the Government is, as it says, intending by the proposed provision only to seek to protect the technicians of Telecom Australia who intercept such telephone calls in cases relating only to narcotics, I would have thought the provision would be restricted to such cases and, as has been pointed out by the Law Council of Australia, that the legislation which requires the court to suppress the names of the Telecom technicians could quite easily be put in place. There is nothing novel about that. There is nothing unique about such a course. It is a quite regular practice and, while protecting the witness, does not strike at a more fundamental right of law; that is, the right of a defendant to challenge evidence against him. I conclude by reminding this Government, which in the past has seemed to have a preoccupation with international agreements-this applies particularly to the former Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans-of the terms of Articles 14 (2) and (14) (3) (e) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which have also been referred to by the Law Council of Australia. Article 14 (2) provides: Everyone charged with a crime shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. Nobody would dispute that as the first tenet. Senator Tate —The golden thread. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Absolutely. Article 14 (3) reads, in part: In the determination of any criminal charge against him everyone shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees in full equity: . . . (e) to examine, or to have examined, the witness against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him. I would have thought that under those circumstances the proposed provision to which I have referred goes far beyond that which was intended by the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee. It may well go beyond that which was intended by those looking at this legislation in the first place. I believe that it is excessive in terms of protecting Telecom technicians who are required to tap telephones. There are adequate safeguards and provisions to accommodate them without having legislation which stretches far past narcotics and covers a whole range of offences, at the same time making a provision which in many respects may well disadvantage the defendant in terms of the rebuttal of evidence against him. For that reason, although I will perhaps be a lone voice, I will be voting against this Bill. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.08) —Although queries or objections have been raised to some clauses of these Bills, no difficulties have been expressed by anyone so far as the general policy innovations in them are concerned. Accordingly, I do not think it is necessary for me to track back over the general policy of the legislation. Those issues have been canvassed very well in the course of this debate. However, three specific matters have been raised by various honourable senators in the course of the second reading debate to which I believe it is necessary for me to respond. The first is the Opposition's second reading motion amendment, moved by Senator Durack, which would commit the Senate to the opinion that the extension of telephone tapping powers to States in certain circumstances relating to narcotic offences is desirable. The Government will not oppose this amendment. It is consistent with the position taken by the Commonwealth at the drug summit in April and subsequently made the subject of a public statement in the communique following that summit, in which it was stated that the Commonwealth would extend telephone interception powers in the context of drug trafficking to the States, subject to stringent controls being exercised over their use. These controls will include the requirement for judicial warrants. I note further in this respect that although the Law Reform Commission has recently expressed reservations about these matters in the context of its report on privacy, in its original report on criminal investigations in 1975 the Commission, of which I was then a member, gave some acknowledgment that it may be necessary in extreme circumstances to allow the States some powers in this area. The time has probably come to acknowledge that, although the Commonwealth Government is extremely concerned to ensure that very stringent controls are exercised over the use of any such powers. I was asked by Senator Durack about the current state of play in relation to the States' response to the Commonwealth's legislative offer in this respect. The situation is that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has written recently to the Premiers and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory indicating that the Commonwealth is prepared to extend telephone interception powers to State police in relation to drug trafficking. He sought confirmation as to whether or not the States in question wished to have access to those powers. He made it clear that any such access would be subject to acceptance by the States of strict controls. There have been some informal-- Senator Durack —Did he not offer it to them at the summit itself? Senator GARETH EVANS —He did, but it was the subject of specific communications, made subsequently, setting out with rather more precision the terms and conditions under which the legislation would proceed. No formal reply has yet been received to that correspondence, which was some weeks ago, although there have been informal indications, some of them reported in the media, of willingness on the part of at least some States to take that up. That is something on which we will be happy to report further to the Senate, no doubt early in the Budget session, when the overall situation should be clear. A second matter has caused some concern, particularly on the part of Senator Crichton-Browne-and it was an unusual treat to hear him tonight giving a speech in his civil libertarian mode. It was a speech which raised, very articulately, a concern which has been expressed in a number of quarters, not least of which is the Law Council of Australia in an extremely thorough submission that was tabled earlier this evening by Senator Haines. The Government has naturally given very careful consideration to the question of certification procedures of the kind set out in the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill, making it possible, in effect, for evidence to be led of the establishment of an intercept without the person who put the wires in place having to attend court to give oral evidence of that fact. Obviously, it does raise questions of the kind that Senator Crichton-Browne put in issue, and he and the Senate deserve a reply. The basic point that we make-and we make it quite firmly-is that proof that a warrant was executed strictly in compliance with its terms is an essentially formal matter. In earlier court cases, there has been no requirement to prove compliance, but defence counsels seem to be now, as a matter of course, perhaps for want of other available weaponry, questioning that matter. Proving compliance by certificate, we believe, would not conflict with the recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, which has taken the view, as Senator Crichton-Browne said, that Parliament should enact legislation to ensure that averment provisions are only resorted to by prosecutors where the matter which the prosecution is required to prove is formal only and does not relate in any direct way to any conduct on the part of the defendant. Senator Crichton-Browne —Is not that only one of the recommendations that the Committee made? Did it not go on to say: 'When it is only within the knowledge of the defendant'? Senator GARETH EVANS —No, I think that the honourable senator is talking there in terms of reversal of the onus of proof and the circumstances in which it is appropriate to lay, in particular, an evidential burden on the defendant rather than the prosecution. As I recall it, the classic justification for averment provisions, or for certification provisions of the kind in issue here, is where the matter in issue is essentially formal. I think that the kind of example that was worrying Senator Crichton-Browne has to be addressed specifically, and that is the situation in which, for example, the defence wanted to put in issue the time at which a particular conversation occurred, and wanted, accordingly, quite reasonably, to be able to cross-examine the interceptor as to that possibly quite essential fact in the defence. What I would say as to that is simply this: The person to be cross-examined in that respect is the police officer or group of officers who in fact were granted the warrant to intercept. The warrant to intercept is not granted to Telecom employees. They, essentially, are just facilitators of the interception process. They put the wires in place, as it were, to establish the intercept, but the actual listening, recording, transcription and giving of evidence about the content and timing of the intercept is done by other people, that is, police officers. They are the ones who are, quite properly, subject to cross-examination in circumstances of the kind that Senator Crichton-Browne has indicated. Certainly, I think there would be an unfairness were the defence to be denied access to that kind of opportunity to question the prosecution case. We are really talking here essentially about proof of very formal matters. It is a track that one would not willingly go down were there not overriding reasons to do so. The overriding reasons in this case which we believe justify this kind of provision are those that have been mentioned by a number of speakers. It really is the only practical way to guarantee anonymity of Telecom employees. Certainly, we could have suppression orders in relation to their names but if we have them physically present in the witness box and if the concern is held, as I can assure Senator Crichton-Browne it is in fact, by the Telecom employees that they will be exposed to physical retaliation and physical danger by certain classes of defendants, that concern is not alleviated simply by issuing a suppression order in relation to publication of names. It is not an artificial worry that we are here talking about. I can assure Senator Crichton-Browne that it is felt acutely by Telecom employees. We just simply would not be ever able to get these intercepts into place were it not for this guarantee. I was asked, I think, by Senator Haines, whether any alternative was ever considered to this averment certification procedure. The only real alternative, I suppose, has been the one that we have had to put very cumbrously and artificially into place in a number of prosecutions, certainly ones that I was mixed up in in the latter part of last year, in which it was necessary to have Attorney-General's affidavits and goodness knows what else testifying in effect to the court that it was a matter of public interest that particular evidence be suppressed and given in the form of affidavits without opportunity for cross-examination and without the physical presence of the Telecom employee. That is a most unsatisfactory course to follow on any regular basis. I simply assure the honourable senator that from my own personal experience I am quite sure that there is no practical alternative to the certification procedure that is here involved. Senator Haines —How often do you anticipate that it will occur? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am not in a position to give that information even if it were appropriate to do so. Senator Haines —To the nearest hundred a week will do. Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Haines had better talk to Senator Chipp about that. He is one of the keener law and order advocates when it comes to dealing with potential drug traffickers and so on. There will have to be criteria satisfied. There will have to be warrants sought and issued by superior court judges in accordance with strict criteria. It is simply not possible to judge how many such cases there will be, but there will be enough to make it important that we devise some practical procedure which is workable in the real world and does not take account of the very real fears which exist. I believe, explaining as I have the practical way this proposal operates, that answers to some of the objections Senator Crichton-Browne and, for that matter, the Law Council of Australia have expressed can be better understood in that context. Senator Haines —Is there going to be any way of finding out how often it occurs? Will there be some regular reporting on how often it occurs, such as annually, every parliamentary session or what? Senator GARETH EVANS —That is a matter for debate, I guess. It is one of the things that might usefully be dealt with by the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority and by related legislation. It is something which the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs might well want to take up in terms of whether the annual reports, for example, of the Australian Federal Police, which are submitted to this Parliament through the Special Minister of State, should make some specific reference to this in the way that Australian Security Intelligence Organisation parliamentary reports are now increasingly doing. I believe that it may be possible to devise methods of that kind to get some sort of accountability in this area, but beyond that I am afraid I cannot be any more specific. The final matter-I will deal with it very quickly because I wish to get this legislation through tonight if possible-is the matter raised by Senator Tate about the Director of Public Prosecutions Amendment Bill and, in particular, proposed new section 6 (7) of that Bill which, it has been suggested by the Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, might amount to some kind of unacceptable ouster of the jurisdiction of the courts. Just for the record, that is not the Government's construction of this clause. We do not believe that it does anything remotely so dramatic. The DPP Act does not purport to grant to the Director power to take any civil remedies not currently already within the competence of the Commonwealth. It does not give any new power; in effect it gathers together existing powers. The purpose of the proposed new section 6 (7) is to bring within the power of the Director all remedies available to the Commonwealth, as I have said, and to render nugatory attempts to challenge the power of the Director to bring proceedings simply because the DPP Act does not specifically confer upon him the requisite power. The Act does not purport to remove the right of any person to challenge proceedings on the ground that the Commonwealth itself does not have the requisite power. In simply terms what I am saying is that the provision guards against challenges on the basis that house keeping arrangements are not strictly in order. Substantive challenges-challenges with some merit-to the Commonwealth's powers are not removed by this section. I hope that assuages at least some of Senator Tate's concerns about the operation of that section. If it does not, it is too bad because time is getting on and it is time we got to the second reading vote. Amendment agreed to. Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative. Senator Crichton-Browne —Mr Deputy President, under standing order 168 I ask that my name be recorded as voting against the second reading motion. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —That request is in order. The name will be recorded. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(10.23) —I accept and understand that a warrant is granted to police officers or Customs officers rather than Telecom Australia technicians. However, I do not accept that the matter is strictly formal. Presumable the minimum information in a certificate will be the two connecting telephone numbers; otherwise by and large the evidence will be of little virtue. In the event that the telephone numbers are material in the defence of the defendant I ask how that information can be challenged? Presumably a police officer, not being a technician, can only take it for granted that the telephone numbers connected by the technician are the ones the technician tells him. He does not have any firsthand knowledge. I ask why the Bill states that what shall be in the certificate is what the Managing Director considers relevant? Does that not necessarily mean that the whole gamut of evidence which might go beyond formality can be included or that, in fact, some matters which are relevant can be excluded? Finally, can a certificate issued by the Managing Director be used in cases other than narcotics related cases, as I would have read the Bill to mean? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.25) —As to the latter question, to the extent that evidence derived from a permissible narcotics tap can, in very limited circumstances, be used as evidence in the prosecution of other offences, to the extent that that is already part of the law then it would certainly be the case that the certification which is applicable to establish the credentials of the original tap would equally be applicable to such other use to which the material could legitimately be put. Senator Crichton-Browne —So it does cover a whole range of offences? Senator GARETH EVANS —My recollection of the terms of the Telecommunications Act is that an intercept can be granted only for a quite specific purpose. The police cannot go on some fishing expedition claiming artificially to be engaged in narcotics search. Senator Crichton-Browne —I accept that, but in the event- Senator GARETH EVANS —In the event that evidence turns up which does satisfy the other statutory criteria and is derived from the course of a permissible tap, then it can be used, and to that extent the certification process is as applicable to that use as it is to the original narcotics situation. The honourable senator might make what he may of that, but that is an objection to the terms of the legislation enabling lawful evidence so derived to be used on other matters. It is not any kind of additional ground of objection, as I would see it, to the certification procedure. Senator Crichton-Browne —I am just suggesting that it goes way past narcotics and covers a whole range of matters as described in the Bill. Senator GARETH EVANS —That is the situation under the telecommunications interception legislation in the very limited circumstance that one has a permissible narcotics tap on and evidence turns up which is probative of something else in accordance with the criteria in the legislation. That is a debate for another day on which opinions may well differ. I might well have some sneaking sympathy for the honourable senator's view on that matter but, with the utmost respect, it has got nothing whatsoever to do with the merits, the pros and cons, of this particular certification procedure. As to the first point the honourable senator made about the identity of a particular telephone connection possibly being a matter in issue, all I can say is that the certification will go to proof of the identity of the telephone number to which the wires were connected, but it will not go beyond that as to the content of the communications travelling backwards and forwards. If we are going to mount any kind of prosecution it will have to depend, obviously, on the content of that material. One would have thought that questions as to the identity of the participants in the transcribed conversations would be very much matters in issue on which it would be quite proper to cross-examine the police officer. Asking the police officer how one could be satisfied as to the identity of the callers would be one very obvious line of cross-examination. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(10.27) —I do not want to hold up the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans). I realise his anxiety because of the availability of time. Does the Minister accept that, under the present Act, there could be an administrative arrangement whereby the conversation so intercepted could be transcribed by a Telecom employee or a technician and then handed to the police? Is there anything to prevent that? In the event that that is the case, could that not also be contained in the certificate, which would then make it irrefutable? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.28) —Firstly, it would in my mind not be within the terms of the warrant, which makes provision for the intercept to be done by a police officer rather than by someone else. One would really be exposing oneself to legal problems in the prosecution if it was done that way. Secondly, there would be an industrial explosion if Telecom employees were required to play that particular role rather than just bridging wires together, about which they are already not altogether happy and which is why we have got this legislation. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a third time. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under sessional order, I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Question resolved in the negative. Consideration resumed from 20 May, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(10.31) —I simply say in relation to the answer just given by Senator Gareth Evans in relation to the ouster of the court's jurisdiction in clause 3 (3) of the Director of Public Prosecutions Amendment Bill 1985 that I believe that this is more than a housekeeping matter. There is an ousting of the jurisdiction of the court in the sense that once a civil remedy is instituted by the Director of Public Prosecutions the defendant has to deal with the pursuit of the civil remedy and cannot question the base provided by the legislation for the DPP undertaking that unusual function. In that respect, I do not think it is a simple housekeeping matter; it is a quite important ouster. I think it is justified but it was not adequately described in the explanation offered by Senator Gareth Evans. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 16 May, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.34) —I move: Page 2, after clause 4, insert the following new clause: Functions of Authority''4A. Section 11 of the Principal Act is amended by adding at the end of sub-section (1) the following word and paragraph: '; and (e) as required, to co-ordinate its activities with the activities of authorities and persons in other countries performing functions similar to the functions of the Authority.'.''. I do not propose to speak on this matter again at the Committee stage. I think its value is self-evident. The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) indicated in another place that the Government was not opposed to it but he wanted some more time to think about it. Senator Haines —He has until 3 o'clock on Friday, hasn't he? Senator DURACK —He has had plenty of time to think about it. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.35) —I think we need a little more time to think about it. This is not something to which we are resolutely opposed, but the situation is this: The National Crime Authority has requested an amendment in similar terms; the matter has been under consideration by the Attorney-General's Department, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Australian Federal Police and everyone else's sisters, cousins and aunts. All their views have been sought on this matter. The Inter-Governmental Committee will consider the NCA's proposed amendment at its meeting tomorrow. This matter needs a degree of discussion as it has some international implications. The way in which it is cast has some potential implications, so I am advised by senior officers of the Attorney-General's Department, for the conduct of extradition arrangements, being an executive level arrangement embodied in legislation. These are only minor hiccups. It is anticipated that we will be able to introduce a clause in these or similar terms early in the Budget session as part of the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, but we would appreciate the Senate-being a States' House, as we are constantly told by senators on the other side-giving the States the courtesy of considering this matter in the Inter-Governmental Committee tomorrow and possibly producing some variations to the language of it in order to deal with technical problems that may be involved. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(10.37) —I indicated during the second reading debate that the Australian Democrats support the principle behind the Opposition's amendment. If Senator Durack is swayed by the Minister's argument, I will not be churlish about it. I will leave it up to my colleague. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.37) —I do not see any reason why we should not pass this amendment at this stage. The Government has until Friday. It will be back here on Friday and it can deal with it then. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(10.38) —Mr Chairman, may I ask Senator Durack, through you, whether the Joint Committee, which has the supervision of the National Crime Authority and which was instituted by the Parliament for this purpose, has been approached to give a view on whether this is a helpful extension of the terms of reference or the jurisdiction of the NCA? If not, perhaps we should also give it the courtesy of asking it. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.38) —This happens to be a provision which was in the National Crimes Commission Act which was passed by this Parliament in 1982. I understand that Senator Tate supported it. Question put: That the words proposed to be added (Senator Durack's amendment) be added. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 5 —— Archer, B. R. Lajovic, M. E.Baume, Peter Lewis, A. W. R.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. MacGibbon, D. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Macklin, M. J.Brownhill, D. Messner, A. J.Chaney, F. M. Parer, W. R.Chipp, D. L. Rae, PeterCollard, S. J. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Crichton-Browne, N. A. Scott, D. B.Durack, P. D. Sheil, G.Evans, Jack Teague, B. C.Haines, J. Townley, M.Hamer, D. J. Vanstone, A. E.Hill, R. Vigor, D.Jessop, D. S. Walters, M. S.Kilgariff, B. F. Watson, J. O. W.Knowles, S. C. Withers, R. G. Aulich, T. Giles, P. J.Black, J. R. Hearn, J. M.Bolkus, N. Jones, G. N.Button, J. N. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Childs, B. K. McKiernan, J. P.Coates, J. Maguire, G. R.Colston, M. A. Primmer, C. G.Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCooney, B. Reynolds, M.Crowley, R. A. Richardson, G. F.Devlin, R. Robertson, E. A.Elstob, R. C. Sibraa, K. W.Evans, Gareth Tate, M. C.Foreman, D. J. Zakharov, A. O.Georges, G. Puplick, C. J. G. Coleman, R. N.Carrick, Sir John Gietzelt, A. T.Short, J. R. Grimes, D. J.Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Walsh, P. A.Missen, A. J. Ryan, S. M.Mason, C. V. J. McClelland, Douglas Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a third time. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(10.45) —I wish to take advantage of this adjournment debate to address the question of what is happening in the Australian Capital Territory in the run-up to self-government. I am sure that honourable senators opposite would love to stay in the chamber and listen while I give their Government a serve about what it is doing in the run-up to self-government. On 26 February this year the Minister for Territories, Mr Scholes, was supposed to speak to the Canberra Association for Regional Development. Unfortunately, he was unable to be present but his speech was delivered by the honourable member for Canberra, Mrs Kelly. She said for him: It is interesting, and sad, to note that the three major issues given insufficient emphasis during Canberra's initial planning-namely the administration of the Territory, financing of ACT development and effective representation of ACT community interests in the development of the Territory-are still the ones at the forefront of our concerns in 1985. Later, Mrs Kelly said for the Minister: The Commonwealth was currently wholly responsible for the ACT, through 12 Ministers, which made effective co-ordination difficult . . . Later she said again, for the Minister: It also makes an accurate picture of what is happening in the Territory almost impossible to obtain. This was obviously quite a good speech as I have quoted so much of it. Mrs Kelly also said: I consider that ACT matters do not receive their due attention because they are attached to nationally oriented departments . . . Those are fine words. But what has happened? A picture is now emerging. We have had continued meddling by the 12 Federal Ministers in relation to the affairs of the Australian Capital Territory. There has yet to be consolidation of the Australian Capital Territory administration under one Minister or adequate representation of Australian Capital Territory community interests in the development of the Australian Capital Territory. About eight weeks ago, the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), in the middle of a strike, abolished the Australian Capital Territory Health Commission. On 24 May he announced the proposed restructuring of the Commission. In other words, it took him about eight weeks after abolishing the Commission to make up his mind what he was going to do with the new Commission. When he announced this new restructuring he said: The authority will remain responsible to the Minister for broad planning and administration of health service in the ACT. Having imposed his philosophy on the Australian Capital Territory, he had the hide to say: I believe this structure is sufficiently flexible that it could accommodate any changes that may result from a move to ACT self-government, without any major disruption. We also have the proposed restructuring of the Schools Authority and the proposals for a national institute for tertiary education that will remove tertiary education from the responsibility of any self-governing legislature and establish yet another education bureaucracy. This afternoon, the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) argued, in answer to a question of mine, that the members of the House of Assembly elected by the Australian Capital Territory community to represent that community have the same opportunity as any other citizen to make a submission. The absurdity of that answer may have been lost on the Minister at the time but I hope that it will not be lost on the local community. It is entirely inappropriate that a Federal Minister for Education, charged with considerable responsibility of policy-making and administration of an Australia-wide portfolio, should be dabbling in local arrangements. This Government is about to impose some form of self-government on the Australian Capital Territory without a referendum. That is the prerogative of the Government. But clearly, before it does so, a number of Ministers in this Government are determined to impose their political philosophies and their political appointees on the Australian Capital Territory before self-government. So the new Australian Capital Territory government, whatever may be its philosophies, will be locked in and obliged to suffer the burdens of these decisions from the grave, as it were. It reminds me of so many of my clients, when I was practising law, who wanted to control what their children and grandchildren were going to do for so many years after they had passed from the scene. That is what the Ministers of this Government are trying to do to the Australian Capital Territory. They talk about self-government and giving the people of the Australian Capital Territory some say in the administration of their affairs, but the Government wants to lock that administration into some long term arrangements which will continue long after it has abandoned responsibility for it. Senator Peter Rae —Typical of socialist governments. Senator LEWIS —Yes, I agree with my colleague Senator Rae; it is typical of socialist governments. The socialists always talk about these philosophies of freedom, access to government and freedom of information, and so on, when they are in opposition. As soon as they get into government they lock it all up behind the Caucus door, away from everyone, so that no one can even inspect what is happening, let alone find out anything at all about the responsibilities of government. Major changes and major appointments have already been made in relation to these authorities. These authorities are not insignificant; they are of vital importance to the administration of the Australian Capital Territory. The National Capital Development Commission is not only an authority which plans the Australian Capital Territory but also a major building commission. Other authorities involved are the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority and the Australian Capital Territory Health Authority. Still to come is social welfare planning, which is currently the subject of an interdepartmental committee studying the report of the Vinson Review of Australian Capital Territory Health and Welfare Services. That report offered a number of very expensive solutions. Legislation to restructure the National Capital Development Commission has already passed through the House of Representatives and is listed for debate in the Senate. The White Committee of Review of the Role and Functions of the National Capital Development Commission recommended that there should be some nominees from the House of Assembly on the Commission, but this recommendation has been totally rejected by the Government. Let me quote from a letter I have received from the Conservation Council of the South East Region and Canberra (Inc), dated 28 May, commenting on the National Capital Development Commission Amendment Bill: Our Council still supports most strongly the concept of a more open and accountable NCDC, but does not believe that this Bill answers the need at all. On the contrary, this Bill entrenches the very non-representativeness of the ACT for which it has been under frequent criticism over the years; it must thus be seen as regressive. I could not agree more. The Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) announced on the 23rd of this month that he would take over the administration of more than 90 per cent of the Community Development Fund by transferring about $2.5m to a special territorial programs account over which the House of Assembly has no say. The House of Assembly has criticised this decision and the attempt of the Government to use the Community Development Fund to provide the equivalent to matching State funds in Federal-State dollar for dollar arrangements. An Australian Labor Party member of the House of Assembly, Ms Maureen Horder, speaking this morning on Radio 2CN about the Community Development Fund, accused the Minister of allowing non-accountable and dishonest administration of the fund. The leader of the ALP in the House of Assembly accused Mr Gordon Scholes of dishonest administration of the fund. Senator Peter Rae —What? Senator LEWIS —That is right. As a member of the ALP she had some difficulty in blaming- Senator Peter Rae —The Minister? Senator LEWIS —That is quite right. Ms Maureen Horder, the leader of the ALP in the House of Assembly, this morning on 2CN accused Mr Scholes of dishonestly administering the fund. At the beginning she had some difficulty in blaming the ALP Minister for Territories for what had happened in relation to the Fund, so what she did initially was to blame his departmental officers. She said: I suspect it is a bit of the bureaucracy getting itself into a good position before self-government to make sure they still maintain control where they want to. But even Ms Horder ultimately recognised ministerial responsibility when she said, referring again to the so-called bureaucracy: They have obviously managed to get the Minister to agree-- one sees that she acknowledges that it is the Minister's responsibility- to hiving that amount of money off for them to administer. Now I don't think that is efficient, effective nor honest or accountable administration of the fund. Senator Peter Rae —Honest? Senator LEWIS —That is right. She used the words: 'It is not honest or accountable administration of the Fund'. I ask the Senate to think about what a terrible indictment that is of the Minister by Ms Horder. Then we have the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) apparently restricting overtime for Australian Capital Territory police to the quite obvious detriment of the local community. Does this mean that with self-government we will be told that the present contracted Australian Capital Territory establishment is adequate or that it will be the basis for Commonwealth Grants Commission consideration of the cost of policing the Australian Capital Territory? The catalogue is almost endless, but I believe I have provided sufficient detail to alert the people of Canberra to the fact that they are being pre-empted on the size and shape of the bureaucracy they will inherit, a bureaucracy that once in place will be very difficult to dislodge and will largely reflect the philosophy of a government that uses Canberra as a social laboratory. It might also be totally unaffordable by the people of the Australian Capital Territory. The House of Assembly is being largely ignored. One could almost say that it has been quarantined-by this Government. The Minister for Territories has told of the need for effective co-ordination and representation of community interests, the difficulties that 12 Ministers create, and the fact that it also makes an accurate picture of what is happening in the Territory almost impossible to obtain. These are the Minister's words: It also makes an accurate picture of what is happening in the Territory almost impossible to obtain. A good start would be to make one Minister responsible for all the Australian Capital Territory administrative functions during this transition period-- Senator Peter Rae —One honest Minister. Senator LEWIS —Yes, one honest Minister to ensure that the community's interests are properly served. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(10.58) —Tonight I want to raise the question of Melbourne radio station 3CR. The matter has been raised politically on other occasions and criticism has been levelled at that organisation. I must say that I have never joined in that criticism because I believe in having a diversity in the media and that all groups, no matter how iconoclastic or radical they may be, should be able to express their opinions wherever they like. I have always regarded 3CR with a sort of bemused tolerance. I turn it on once a week, hear myself get a big spray, and enjoy it enormously. However, I do believe that recently 3CR has been acting very much against any concept of a pluralist society in Australia. I raise the case of a Mr Terry Muscat, who is of Maltese origin. Mr Muscat runs a program called the 'Western Region Maltese Community Show' on radio 3CR. He has run that show for a long while and has given many people much enjoyment. Recently, he has come under investigation for being too right wing. There are moves to remove him from that radio station, not because of his specific views but simply because he happens to be a member of a trade union which is regarded as right wing. That is the reason why efforts are being made to exclude him from the radio show. I have a document before me in which the station reports back and states that a meeting will be held on 19 June. A whole series of statements are made, none interconnecting, all leading one to the conclusion that this document is about as McCarthyist as any document produced by anyone in the Right. I know Mr Muscat. I do not know whether he is a right winger or not. He has been a member of the Australian Labor Party for 15 years. Apparently that qualifies him as being too far off to the right for radio 3CR. I do not mind how radical radio 3CR is. I enjoy the concrete gang show when the Builders Labourers Federation boys get on and give everyone a bagging. It is great entertainment. I enjoy listening to some of the other ethnic radio programs and political views. I do not enjoy it when it becomes anti-Semitic as it occasionally has. Whenever this radio station has dipped into the public purse, as it has under different community employment program schemes, et cetera, I have thought that surely the radicals and the minorities in this community deserve to have their own voice. I think that is true. But they will have to come to understand that, if they want a radio licence, it is not good enough for them to say that they are going to kick off a radio show someone who is presenting an ordinary ethnic show because he happens to be a member of a union that they classify as right wing. The document states: There is no suggestion that the affiliate-- that is, this particular radio show- has, in regard to CRF, its objectives and guidelines, acted in any way unbecoming of a Member or prejudicial to the interests of CRF. There is no question of a breach of these requirements. Consequently, due to the past and present policies of the FIA not being consistent with the aims and aspirations of CRF and its affiliates, the 3CR Committee expresses its concern over Mr T. Muscat-an official of the FIA-representing the 'Western Region Maltese Community Council' at CRF meetings and requests that Mr T. Muscat stand down as affiliate representative. I might even accept this if someone has pointed to any particular program that he did not like or had isolated some of the views of this individual and said: 'This person is not acceptable because of the views he is putting over the program'. But, no, this person is convicted, and expelled from this radio station presumably, solely on his membership of a union and allegations that that union is right wing and may have connections with the National Civic Council or some other organisation. There is no specific allegations made against Mr Muscat. There is no recognition that he has been a member of the Australian Labor Party for 15 years. No doubt some of the galahs who are trying to put him off the air have been members for three or four years of the Labor Party or other leftist organisations. In summary, I just say that I have never before criticised radio 3CR. I am not going to jump on some right wing band wagon and say that we should take the licence from it. Let us be realistic. Silver Top Taxis' radio cabs have a larger radio audience than 3CR. If people want to use the station as their toy and want to be able to use government money to prop it up, I would encourage that; it is diversity and pluralism in our society. But to run this sort of witch hunt against Mr Muscat, simply because he happens to be a member or an official of a particular union, is absolutely disgraceful. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(11.03) —I am grateful for the opportunity of the adjournment debate to raise what I believe is a matter of considerable importance. The adjournment debate is an opportunity for us to talk about issues which are not immediate and urgent importance domestically but are of importance internationally. The matter that I wish to raise is the situation of ethnic Turks in Bulgaria. Bulgaria is a country which I believe has displayed an affiliation for hard line communism and for being a Russian stool-pigeon more than any other country of which I am aware. I find that what is being done to the Turkish population of Bulgaria is something which is not within the realms of reason, within the realms of tolerability, so far as international relations are concerned, let alone what human rights require. One of the things that upset me is that there is a tendency for us to be a little selective about what human rights issues we raise and what human rights issues we do not raise in this place. Within the past 12 months, I have joined in pursuing human rights issues in Iran, Chile and a number of other countries. I now wish to add Bulgaria to that list. I wish to quote from a letter which I have received from the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Gareth Evans) dated 20 May 1985 in which the Minister has given me an answer to a question on the position of ethnic Turks in Bulgaria and what is being done to them. After reading part of what is contained in that letter I will make some comments. The Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs said: The Government has been closely monitoring the situation through its embassies in the region. In addition, detailed information similar to that which you have received was in February provided to Departments in Canberra by a delegation from the Bulgarian-Turkish association. The Government does not accept the Claim made by the Bulgarian authorities-- I pause to emphasise that the Government does not accept the claim made by the Bulgarian Government, not the Bulgarian-Turkish Association of Australia- that such acts of Bulgarianisation as the changing of individuals' names are 'spontaneous and voluntary'. It entertains few doubts that the Turkish minority is being subjected to the denial of its cultural rights in the most crude form, and that the Bulgarian Government's aim is to strip it of its ethnic identity. The present repression is an intensification of a long-standing campaign which contravenes not only normally accepted standards of human rights, but provisions of a number of UN Human Rights instruments to which Bulgaria is a party. The Australian Ambassador to Bulgaria has expressed Australia's concern to the Bulgarian Government. We will continue to monitor the situation and will make further representations as appropriate. Moreover, should the government assess that to do so would assist the victims of such violations, it will consider raising the matter in appropriate United Nations' bodies in line with its policy of condemning human rights violations wherever they might occur. Having quoted that letter I go back to these words: 'The present repression is an intensification of a long-standing campaign which contravenes not only normally accepted standards of human rights, but provisions of a number of UN Human Rights instruments to which Bulgaria is a party'. I ask this Government not just simply to say that it is concerned but to take action a little more positively, as it has indicated it is prepared to do. I believe that the Senate should tonight, by accepting the comments which I make, acknowledge that the position of the Turks in Bulgaria is intolerable, that the Bulgarian authorities have engaged in a campaign of Bulgarianisation, which includes forcing people to change their names, which includes forcing people to change their whole cultural background, which includes penalising people and which includes the repression of individual rights and civil liberties in a way which is intolerable in any society which we would regard as being an acceptable member of the world community. I ask honourable senators to join with me in asking the Government to make the representations which the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs said would be made in the appropriate United Nations bodies, to condemn the human rights violations which are at this stage occurring in Bulgaria. If no one speaks to oppose what I have just said, I will take it that the Senate accepts the points I have made and which have also been made by the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Gareth Evans, and which I endorse and support. I believe we should take stronger action than we have already taken. I simply ask that the Senate adopt that attitude, that unless someone opposes it, we take it from this chamber that we would like Australia to voice its concern in the United Nations in relation to Bulgaria much more strongly than it has so far; in other words, that we take up the offer which the Government has made that we will condemn human rights violations wherever they may occur, including those at the moment occurring in Bulgaria. Senator BLACK(Queensland)(11.10) —During my short time in this place I have heard a number of references by my National Party colleagues opposite to the Australian Council of Trade Unions being the non-elected government of Australia. This evening I rise to talk about National Free Enterprise Ltd which is, of course, the non-elected government of Queensland. In 1983 the Parliamentary Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform investigated a number of matters pertaining to elections and election funding and provided a very comprehensive report, parts of which were later enacted into law. Section 305 of the Electoral Act provides that any person-that includes a company-which incurs expenditure for a political purpose is only required to reveal donations received in an election period; that is, from the issue of writs to the polling date. It is by using this section that the Queensland National Party hopes to dodge its responsibilities under the electoral legislation and escape the full force of the law. I wish just briefly to outline the circumstances leading up to this rort. Last August/September, following the presentation of the Federal Budget, there was a lot of speculation about an early Federal election. During that period, on 27th September 1984, a company called National Free Enterprise Ltd was incorporated, with its registered office given as Cleary and Hoare, a firm of Brisbane solicitors which also acts for the Kern Corporation Ltd. One of the partners in this firm, Mr J. Hoare, is reported to be a member of the management committee of the National Party. Senator Peter Rae —Mr President, I raise a point of order. Senator Black has placed on the Notice Paper a notice of motion which relates to the matter he is now addressing. I believe that it is in breach of the Standing Orders for him to be making the speech he is making. Senator Bolkus —What about human rights violations in Queensland? Senator Peter Rae —I condemn human rights violations in Queensland as much as I condemn them in Bulgaria. Senator Ray will remember that when Senator Georges had some problems I made a suggestion to him as to the authorities he could cite to assist him in his application for bail so that he could attend to his duties in the Senate. Let us be fair, please. I want us to be fair in another way. Senator Georges —I hope it works tomorrow. Senator Peter Rae —I make no comment. I did not notice that Senator Georges was here. I simply make the point that Senator Black is anticipating debate which is the subject of a notice on the Notice Paper and, what is more, he is doing so without having given notice to the people who may be affected. Mr President, it is not only contrary to the Standing Orders but it is also contrary to what ought to be regarded as reasonably civilised behaviour in this place for somebody to raise a matter without giving notice to the other side that he intends to attack the personal probity of individuals associated with the chamber. My point of order is that, on two grounds-the first ground being that it is contrary to the Standing Orders and the second ground being that it is contrary to the practice of the place-it is not in order for Senator Black to continue the comments which he has been making. Senator Robert Ray —Mr President, I wish to speak to the point of order. It is my understanding that Senator Black, probably knowing the Standing Orders as well as my namesake, took action some days ago to pull his notice of motion off the Notice Paper. I notice that Senator Peter Rae has not referred to today's Notice Paper. Does he want to nominate which page the notice of motion is on? It is not there. Therefore, Mr President, you should rule out the point of order. The PRESIDENT —Order! I do not uphold the point of order. The existence of notices of motion has never been taken, in my experience in the Senate, to restrict debates on the adjournment, or indeed on the first reading of Bills. Senator Rae has related his remarks to the subject of anticipated debates but, as I have said, it has been common practice not to so restrict first reading or adjournment debates. Otherwise, in my opinion, the rule would mean that notices of motion on the Notice Paper, put on by anyone, would blanket out general discussion by the Senate on those items. That, in my opinion, has never been the intention of the Senate. For that reason, I do not uphold the point of order. Senator BLACK —Thank you, Mr President. The matter has been withdrawn from the Notice Paper; I am in the process of drawing up a much more comprehensive proposal to put before the Senate at a later date. As I was saying earlier, one of the partners in this firm, Cleary and Hoare, is a member of the Management Committee of the National Party. The other partner, Don Cleary, is a member of the Queensland Harness Racing Board and the Racing Appeals Tribunal, and, as such, would be an acquaintance of the Racing Minister in Queensland, Mr Russ Hinze. The objects of National Free Enterprise include the promotion of democracy, liberty and free enterprise in Queensland and Australia. Also among its objects are the solicitation of donations from supporters and the making of donations for patriotic or charitable purposes. This latter clause is included, word for word, in the memorandum of association of another company which I will discuss later. National Free Enterprise is empowered to do big business-for example, to buy, sell, deal and lease in all kinds of apparatus and real estate, to enter into arrangements with governments and so on. Those who drew up the articles of association for National Free Enterprise have made sure that their creation will not turn into a political alternative to the National Party. The articles provide that the company will not promote the election to the Commonwealth Parliament of any candidate endorsed by itself. It can be easily seen from these and other company guidelines that the company was set up specifically to pass on money to the National Party and to individual candidates. On the board of this company is a very interesting group of people. It reads like a Who's Who of big business in Queensland. We have Leonard Knevitt, Chairman of Evans Deakin Industries Ltd, and a member of the board of the Bank of Queensland; David Tennent, an engineer and director of Evans Deakin; Sir Earnest Savage, a National Party member, a director of both Queensland Cement and Lime Co. Ltd and Permanent Finance Corporation Ltd- A quorum having been called and the bells being rung- Senator Bolkus —Mr President, I take a point of order. Is it in order for National Party senators to be standing outside while the quorum is being counted? The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. The bells having been rung- The PRESIDENT —Order! The bells having been run for three minutes and there being no quorum present, the Senate stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. The names of those present will be recorded by the Clerk. Senate adjourned at 11.21 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Air Force Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 Nos 72, 73, 77. Customs Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 76. Excise Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 75. Public Service Act-Determinations 1985-Nos 33, 34, 36, 37. Superannuation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 74. Telecommunications Act-By-laws- Telecommunications (Charging Zones and Charging Districts) Amendment No. 56. GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S MESSAGE-ASSENT TO LAWS: A Message from His Excellency the Governor-General was reported, informing the Senate that His Excellency had, in the name of Her Majesty, assented to the following Laws: 27 May 1985- Message No. 17- Housing Loans Insurance Amendment Act 1985 (Act No. 34 of 1985) National Occupational Health and Safety Commission Act 1985 (Act No. 35 of 1985) The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 52) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 28 February 1985: (1) Which New South Wales District Court judges have presided over Federal matters and offences since 1 July 1983. (2) How many cases has each such judge heard. (3) How many appeals have been lodged from judgments in respect of each judge. (4) How many of the appeals have been upheld in respect of each judge. Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: I have assumed that the information sought relates to civil actions in the District Court in which the Commonwealth was a party or to prosecutions for offences under Commonwealth law. The records of my Department are not in a form which would enable the requested information to be readily obtained. It would be necessary for individual files and other records to be checked and for inquiries to be made both within a number of different areas of my Department and outside it to obtain the information. In these circumstances I am not prepared to authorise the diversion of staff resources from the performance of its other functions to the obtaining of the requested information. (Question No. 116) Senator Childs asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: Will the Minister for Resources and Energy provide answers to Questions on Notice No. 1057 (Notice given 22 August 1984) and Nos 1123 to 1127 (Notice given 7 September 1984), relating to the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, Lucas Heights, New South Wales. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: Senator Childs asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 22 August 1984: (1) Is there any particular reason why the Australian Atomic Energy Commission took 3 weeks to establish the Committee to examine the accidental release of uranium hexafluoride at the AAEC Research Establishment. (2) Was the Committee established at the instigation or direction of the Minister for Resources and Energy. (3) Was there any reason why the 5 members of the Committee were all drawn from within the AAEC. (4) Is there any reason why representatives of the following bodies should not have been included on the Committee: (a) Energy Authority of New South Wales; (b) New South Wales Department of Health; (c) Australian Safeguards Office; (d) State Pollution Control Commission (New South Wales); (e) Office of the Minister for Resources and Energy; (f) Sutherland Shire Council. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) This question implies that nothing happened in the period between 6 July when the accidental release of uranium hexafluoride occurred and 25 July when the Committee was established to examine this matter. In fact several actions were set in train immediately, including a program to assess any possible health effects on staff an environmental monitoring program initiated to assess any possible off-site effects measurements of air-flow through the ducting to assess actual ventilation air-flows at the time of release decontamination of the laboratory reporting of an accidental loss of uranium hexafluoride to the Australian Safeguards Office in the context of Australia's obligations under the NPT notifying the relevant Commonwealth and State authorities However, once the wide nature of the enquiries became apparent, a Committee was set up on 25 July 1984 by the Acting Director of the AAEC Research Establishment to co-ordinate the investigation. (2) No. (3) and (4) Since the incident had negligible consequences for members of the public or the environment outside the boundary of the Lucas Heights Research Laboratories, it was appropriate that the Committee be drawn from AAEC officers. All the required expertise was available from AAEC resources. Senator Childs asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 7 September 1984: (1) Was it revealed in the 1981 Environment Survey Report of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission Research Establishment, Lucas Heights, that Plutonium 239 and Plutonium 241 were present in the Little Forest Low Level Waste Burial Ground. (2) Was the plutonium derived from reactor/fuel rods; if so, how; if not, what was the origin of this plutonium. (3) Was this plutonium from the Maralinga Weapons Testing Program. (4) What are the relative isotopic abundancies of Plutonium 239 and 240 in this material. (5) What attempt is being made to identify both the quantity and exact location of this plutonium. (6) What does the Commission plan to do to remove it from this site which is outside the exclusion zone and into the residential area. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) The minute amount of plutonium contaminated waste in the Little Forest Burial Ground originated from Plutonium which was imported by the AAEC from the United States in the period 1963-66 for research into the feasibility of a high temperature gas cooled reactor. (3) No. (4) Approximately 91 per cent Pu239, 8 per cent Pu240 and 1 per cent Pu241. (5) The quantity of plutonium in the Little Forest Burial Ground is estimated to be approximately 7 grams. Records of the location of the material are held by the AAEC. (6) The Little Forest Burial Ground is located on AAEC owned and managed land contiguous with the 1.6 km buffer zone around the reactor HIFAR. Because of the small quantity involved the plutonium does not represent a public health risk and there are no plans to remove it. Senator Childs asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 7 September 1984: (1) Did the 1981 Environment Survey Report of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission Research Establishment, Lucas Heights, reveal that Strontium 90 was present in the water and sand in the Woronora River, upstream of Lucas Heights and at the point of the Lucas Heights drainage entrance. (2) is this the first time Strontium 90 has been reported since 1970. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) No. Data on the presence of traces of strontium 90 in various environmental samples were reported in the AAEC Environmental Survey Reports for 1973, 1974 and 1980. Senator Childs asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 7 September 1984: (1) Did the tests conducted for the 1982 Environment Survey Report of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission Research Establishment (published 1984) reveal much higher readings than earlier reports. (2) Were there tests done by the Australian Radiation Laboratory, whereas previous analysis was done by the AAEC. (3) Are duplicates of the 1982 samples to be sent to New Zealand for further tests. (4) Will a copy of the results be made available. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) to (4) Analyses of the 1982 samples for the presence of strontium 90 in the Woronora River water and sand both upstream and downstream of the AAEC Research Establishment were initially carried out by the Australian Radiation Laboratory. The results appeared to show significantly higher concentrations than in previous years, particularly in sand samples. Subsequently the New Zealand National Radiation Laboratory was asked to test duplicates of the 1982 sand samples. The NZNRL results were closer to the AAEC results for 1981 samples, being in fact somewhat lower. In looking at these variations it should be noted that the amounts of strontium 90 detected were very low, and near to the lower limits of detection. ARL advised that the levels of strontium 90 measured in the sand samples were similar to those found throughout Australia in undisturbed soil. These levels can be attributed to global fallout from atmospheric nuclear weapons testing over the years. The results of the tests carried out by the NZNRL which will be published in the Environmental Survey Report due out later this year, are shown in the following table (the results are expressed as becquerels of strontium 90 per kilogram of dry soil-dried at 110 degrees C). Station Date 90 Sr (Bq/kg) Woronora River at Heathcote Road crossing (upstream of AAEC Research Establishment) 1.4.82 23.6.82 13.10.82 0.08 * 0.07 0.13 * 0.07 0.01 * 0.11 Woronora River at the point of entry of AAEC Research Establishment drainage 1.4.82 23.6.82 13.10.82 0.14 * 0.07 0.05 * 0.03 0.07 * 0.02 Senator Childs asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 7 September 1984: (1) Will the Minister for Resources and Energy advise, in view of the concern over the adequacy of the environmental sampling by the Australian Atomic Energy Commission following the publishing of the 1982 Establishment Survey Report of the AAEC Research Establishment, whether the published records are complete. (2) Are the environmental reports selective. (3) Could a complete list of all monitoring equipment be supplied. (4) Is the monitoring of discharges done 24 hours per day. (5) How sensitive is the equipment. (6) How adequate is monitoring to pick up, for example, Strontium 90 discharges. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The published records are complete. I am not aware of any concerns expressed by official bodies concerning the adequacy of the environmental monitoring program at the AAEC Research Establishment. (2) No. (3) A wide range of environmental monitoring equipment is used consistent with the different monitoring methods indicated in the AAEC Environmental Survey Reports. If further details of the monitoring equipment and methods are required, these may be obtained from the AAEC. (4) Yes. (5) In all cases, the sensitivity of the monitoring methods allows the detection of less than 5 per cent of the effective dose equivalent recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection and the National Health and Medical Research Council as being acceptable for continuous exposure by members of the general public. (6) The environmental monitoring program at the AAEC Research Establishment encompasses the potential releases of all radionuclides. Senator Childs asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 7 September 1984: (1) Do the environmental surveys, at the Australian Atomic Energy Commission Research Establishment, Lucas Heights, show differing levels of radioactive substances being released into the Woronora River. (2) Is there any formal agreement with the State Government to accept gaseous waste/discharges; if so, what date was this agreement made; if not, under what authority are such discharges made. (3) Is there any plan to fund adequate independent environmental monitoring of the AAEC Establishment at Lucas Heights and; if so, what form would this monitoring take. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. Airborne effluents discharged from the main stacks at the AAEC Research Establishment are subject to a quarterly authorisation made under Regulation 13 (2) of the NSW Radioactive Substances Regulations. The authorisation was approved by the NSW Department of Health through the NSW Radiological Advisory Council in 1969. (3) The NSW authorities currently conduct independent monitoring of the airborne and liquid effluent discharges from the AAEC Research Establishment to verify compliance by the AAEC with the State regulatory requirements. There are no plans to fund any additional monitoring activities. (Question No. 270) Senator Messner asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 8 May 1985: Will the Minister for Social Security provide details of the number (or percentage) of pensioners affected by the assets test by postcode across Australia. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Tables showing the number of pensioners affected by the introduction of the assets test by postcode area have been prepared but are too voluminous for incorporation in Hansard. Statistics for particular postcode districts or Social Security regions are available on request. (Question No. 293) Senator Macklin asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 14 May 1985: (1) What is the situation regarding staff employed by the National Aboriginal Conference now that funding of the NAC has been withdrawn? (2) Have some NAC staff members been notified that they were overpaid during the 1983-84 and 1984-85 financial years; if so, have they been advised that the overpayment will be recovered at a rate of not less than 20 per cent of their gross fortnightly salary. (3) If NAC staff are not currently receiving their salaries because of the funding cuts, are they still expected to make the payments referred to in (2) above. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's questions: (1) Funding for the NAC has not been withdrawn. Therefore the situation regarding staff employed by them remains unchanged and all staff are still receiving fortnightly pay in the normal manner. (2) Yes, some staff have been notified that they were overpaid in 1983-84 and 1984-85 financial years and have been advised that overpayments will be recovered. However, no staff so affected have been advised that overpayments will be recovered at a rate of not less than 20 per cent of their gross fortnightly salary. (3) As mentioned in (1) above NAC staff are currently receiving their salaries and recovery action is therefore proceeding. Senator Walsh —On 23 April 1985 (Hansard, page 1356), Senator Hearn asked me a question without notice, in my capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry in the Senate, concerning the Government's attitude to a national forest policy in the light of 1985 being declared the International Year of the Forest and opportunities for training/employment. The Minister for Primary Industry has supplied me with the following additional information: The FAO Council, in declaring 1985 the 'International Year of the Forest', urged member nations to consider conservation of their respective forest resources as a matter of national and global concern, and to heighten public awareness of the threats posed by acid rain, air pollution and extensive clearance of tropical forests. The Australian Forestry Council, which is the national forestry policy instrumentality, chaired by the Minister for Primary Industry, has released a draft National Forest Strategy for public comment. The Strategy aims to set out the basic principles and objectives for management of Australia's forest resources. Nationally, such objectives include reforestation and land rehabilitation through forestry. Wide public acceptance of the Strategy, which emphasises the need for consultation and co-ordination between Federal and State authorities on land use issues, should assist in achieving those objectives. As far as capitalising on opportunities for training-employment is concerned the State Forestry Services have taken advantage of the Commonwealth Employment Program and Wage Pause funds to implement forestry planting and maintenance activities which would not have been possible otherwise. The Minister for Primary Industry will continue to seek ways of directing such funds to forestry projects and of implementing a reforestation program when economic circumstances permit. Senator Gareth Evans —On 21 March 1985 (Hansard, page 566) Senator Chipp asked me, as Minister representing the Attorney-General, the following question without notice: What is the Attorney-General's response to today's very serious allegations on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation program AM by journalist Bob Bottom that a senior politician in New South Wales has had access to the so-called Age tapes for several years and had actually used some of the material on them to prevent an embarrassing court action involving himself? Why is the Attorney-General so reluctant to facilitate the passing of the vital information on these tapes to the National Crime Authority by granting indemnities to the 31 policemen involved, just as the Stewart Royal Commission Inquiry into Drug Trafficking recommended . . . ? The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question. (a) I replied to the allegations made by Mr Bottom on the AM program of 21 March 1985. As I said at that time no assessment could be made of the allegations without further details being provided by Mr Bottom to Mr Justice Stewart. Mr Bottom gave no evidence or particular information of involvement of a senior politician. (b) The decision to facilitate the granting of indemnities to New South Wales policemen involved in illegal interception of telephone calls required the balancing of concerns to pursue the prosecution of criminals with the need to ensure that police do not break the law and the real requirement that individual privacy be protected. By amending the terms of reference of the Stewart Royal Commission and the provision of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 the Government has now opened the way for Mr Justice Stewart to recommend the grant of indemnities in appropriate circumstances as set out in the Letters Patent issued on 29 March 1985. Both Mr Justice Stewart and Mr Temby have indicated that, even if 'the Age' materials are authenticated, they are unlikely to lead to criminal prosecutions.