Wednesday, 21 August 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: Plant Variety Rights To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government: 1. Uphold the principle that the seeds and cuttings of plants are a public resource and a common heritage to all and that accordingly seeds should be freely available to all, freely multipliable, able to be sold, exchanged, exported and imported by anyone who wishes. This is seen as a matter of national food security. 2. Recognise that plant breeding is a highly co-operative venture often involving private enterprise at the very last stages after basic seed collection, storage, and research has been publicly funded. 3. In view of the aforementioned paragraphs, recognise that any system giving `property' or ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises is inappropriate and unjust. 4. Recognise that legislation establishing plant patenting schemes overseas has had serious adverse effects, namely: (i) a slowing down of scientific information exchange and exchanges in basic plant breeding materials, that is, germ plasm. (ii) subordination and/or curtailment of public breeding programmes. (iii) farmer unrest at seed prices. (iv) monopoly control of seed production and sales has passed into the hands of giant petrochemical and drug corporations also marketing crop chemicals. (v) increased uniformity of crop varieties leading to a vulnerability to pest and disease attack. 5. Reject any proposal to legislate for any system such as the drafted Plant Variety Rights Act, which gives exclusive ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from 22 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Queensland, Australia, respectfully showeth that we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to change the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, by Senator Boswell (from 22 citizens). 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 fertilization. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senators Archer (from 314 citizens), Boswell (from 15 citizens), Elstob (from 101 citizens), Foreman (from 96 citizens), Haines (from 133 citizens), Hill (from 30 citizens), Reid (from 45 citizens), Robertson (from 845 citizens), Sibraa (from 576 citizens), Siddons (from 276 citizens), Tate (from 255 citizens), Walters (from 218 citizens) and Watson (from 273 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Victoria respectfully showeth that: The freeze on nursing home benefit levels for Victoria will disadvantage the indigent patients already living in participating nursing homes. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should lift the freeze on nursing home benefit levels. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senators Chipp (from 456 citizens), Gareth Evans (from 451 citizens), Hamer (from 611 citizens), Missen (from 453 citizens) and Zakharov (from 426 citizens). The Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament. The Petition of the undersigned shows that because it will cause serious harm to the community, the Parliament will not legalise the possession, sale, hire, or supply of any publication or video tape, video disc, slide or any other recording from which a visual image can be produced, which displays degradation of any person, particularly women and children, or animals; scenes of explicit sexual relations showing genitalia detail; acts of violence and sex; sexual perversion such as sodomy, mutilation, child pornography, urolagnia, coprophilia, necrophilia, bestiality; or the use and effect of illicit drug taking; explicit fellatio and cunnilingus; explicit nudity including touching genitalia, erect penis. Your petitioners pray the Senate, in Parliament assembled that you will give this matter earnest consideration. by Senator Robertson (from 286 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of certain citizens of South Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and its future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of Australians should they so wish to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 675 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens, teachers and parents working in and for the interests of government schools and TAFE Colleges showeth that: 1. We oppose the proposed cuts of 75 teaching and 40 ancillary positions in A.C.T. Government schools and 28 teaching positions in A.C.T. TAFE Colleges. 2. We deplore the cuts to public education and the harm caused to the opportunities of thousands of Canberra's youth. 3. We call on the Commonwealth Government to honour its primary obligation to public education and its commitments to increase participation and equity in education by not implementing staffing cuts in A.C.T. Government schools and TAFE Colleges. by Senators Robertson (from 248 citizens) and Ryan (from 10 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament House assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we believe that our protected wildlife are not suitable subjects for laboratory experimentation and that repetitive and needless experiments should be prohibited. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 101 citizens). To the Honourable the president and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That your Petitioners are concerned at the cuts made by the Government to Veterans' entitlements, amounting to $123.6 million. Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should- Urge the Government to accept its moral obligations to veterans and delay any implementation of these cuts until the Budget Session. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Sibraa (from 53 citizens). To the Honourable the president and members of the Senate in Parliament. The undersigned are convinced that an alliance, including full military co-operation, between Australia and the United States is indispensible 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 indispensible to the effective conduct of ANZUS and any similar agreement, to wit; the reception of U.S. naval shipping (nuclear or non-nuclear) in Australian ports; the maintenance of the present U.S. installations in Australia; reasonable co-operation by Australia in U.S. 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 Senators Reid (from 10 citizens) and Robertson (from 48 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 supress all forms of traffic in women and exploiting 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 operations 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 Robertson (from 24 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled. We the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully believing that: 1. the Ethiopian government has refused to distribute any of the aid it receives from overseas among the great majority of those who live in the northern Ethiopian provinces of Tigre and Eritrea; 2. five million of the seven million starving in Ethiopia live in the above two provinces; 3. aids can, and has been, successfully sent directly to the peoples of Tigre and Eritrea, using Australian non-government organizations and thus avoiding the corrupt hands of the Ethiopian government; Humbly petition that the Senate call upon the Government to redirect it foreign aid away from the Ethiopian government towards the peoples of Tigre and Eritrea. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Missen (from 111 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of Citizens of Australia shows- That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the World in their efforts to achieve a Nuclear Free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a General Election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the United States Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on Nuclear Vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of Zones of Peace and Nuclear Free Zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Senator McKiernan (from 22 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 estabished in Canberra. And your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled will reject this recom- mendation. by Senator Reid (from 48 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that . . . 1. The Watsonia Army Barracks contains electronic communication facilities, operated by Australian and American personnel, that gives the United States the ability to pin-point Soviet nuclear submarines, hidden in the Oceans. 2. This would make it possible for U.S. killer-submarines to destroy all Soviet nuclear submarines, while the U.S. nuclear submarines launch their missiles in a `first strike' attack. This makes Watsonia a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Watsonia would have a disastrous effect on Melbourne. 3. The `joint U.S.-Australia' bases in Australia endanger rather than protect us. They also add a new menace to nuclear arms race, that must be stopped. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should close the `joint Australian-U.S.' electronic communication facilities in the Watsonia Army Barracks. by Senators Chipp (from 90 citizens) and Zakharov (from 90 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth. 1. That the present Federal tax system is not equitable, readily understandable or manageable. It is making a material contribution to the decline in ethical standards in Australia, and in the opinion of many eminent Australians it is a tax system that basically makes us into a nation of cheats. 2. Some classes of taxpayers are more heavily taxed than others and two groups, wage and salary earners and small businesses, through the impact of inflation on the progressive rate structure, have suffered disproportionately in recent years. 3. A great many people see cheating the tax system as a necessary response to what they regard as cheating by Governments. 4. Through excessive marginal income tax rates, the spirit of free enterprise and hard work is being stifled. The groups in the community who generate savings are being discouraged from investing those savings in capital for business. 5. Any reform of the taxation system needs to be comprehensive and not piecemeal. Further, it requires an unimpeachable commitment from all political parties and parliamentarians to adopt a totally bi-partisan approach in debating tax reform proposals and legislation. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Federal Government will use the forthcoming Taxation Summit meeting as the occasion to announce the formation of one or more working parties committed to the development of a taxation system that will ensure that the necessary Government revenue is raised in the most equitable and efficient manner possible and that such working party (parties) be provided with adequate resources so as to permit the tabling of their recommendations in the Parliament not later than 30 June 1986. Further, your petitioners believe that one of the most significant ways this country could celebrate its Bi-Centenary is through the introduction, by 1988, of legislation that will give the people a fair and equitable taxing system. 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 petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth. Introduction of any additional capital gains taxes, wealth taxes or death duties is opposed on the grounds that: they adversely affect the small and medium size businesses in Australia, destroying incentive and discouraging investment in this important area of the economy; the Australian economy, and employment in particular, is heavily reliant on growth in small businesses; any capital gains that might result when owners of small businesses finally sell the business are not `windfall gains' but the result of many hard years of work and sacrifice, with very little being taken out of the business by way of salaries so that the maximum amount of money can be ploughed back into the business to create growth and jobs; the owners of small businesses often depend on a capital gain-which are simply deferred salaries-when they eventually sell their business to sustain them in retirement; Your Petitioners request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, will protect the rights of private enterprise and reject any inequitable additional taxes. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 96 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we the undersigned, having great concern because of the spread of moral pollution in our nation call upon the Government to introduce immediate legislation: 1. To provide strict controls over importation, production, sale, hire or mailing of video-cassettes with the open sale of only G, PG, and M rated video-cassettes; and the total prohibition of the sale of R rated video-cassettes so that R rated films can only be viewed in an adult theatre by persons over 18 years. We totally reject the concept of `X' rated video-cassettes which would allow the legal sale of hard-core pornographic films for screening in the homes of our nation, which endanger our children. 2. To dramatically improve the Federal Attorney-General's Guidelines for Classification of Video tapes/discs which restrict the importation, production, sale or hire, screening in private homes and mailing by Australia Post so as to include the total prohibition of any pornographic, obscene or blasphemous video cassette, or film containing child pornography, bestiality, sodomy, group sex, violent sex acts with women, such as rape and pack rape, sadism and torture, etc. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will protect our society, especially women and children from moral pollution and its harmful effects. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 22 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That the Government did not honour its promise to consult with veterans before introducing the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill. Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should oppose any sections of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill which would have the effect of reducing veterans' benefits and particularly that section which seeks to change the onus of proof. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senators Boswell (from 817 citizens) and Siddons (from 142 citizens). To the Honourable President of the Senate and the Senators in the Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of Queensland, do respectfully pray that the present concessional import duty as exists under By-Law BL8255510 be maintained and not lapse on June 30, 1985 as presently planned by the Australian Customs Service. This by-law has permitted goods under Item 19 to be imported at a 2% rate of duty and has greatly benefited the Veteran, Vintage and Old Car Movement in the restoration of vehicles of 30 years age or more. While many automobile parts are produced in Australia, it is impractical to suggest they could be used during restoration of most old cars. It is reprehensible that this action should occur without debate, consultation or fair warning. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the concessional rate of duty on old cars and parts be maintained. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray by Senator Boswell (from five citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned Australian citizens of the city of Mackay and shires of Pioneer, Mirani, Sarina and Broadsound and surrounding districts respectfully showeth that: The Senate, the Prime Minister and the Government of Australia take immediate action to ensure the survival and continued viability of our town/city/shire and surrounding districts by- immediately recognising the severe economic hardship of an increasing number of people in our community caused by the deepening crisis in the canegrowing and sugar milling industries providing immediate and meaningful across-the-board financial assistance to canegrowers in our region to ensure the industry's survival and the survival of jobs, small businesses and industries dependent on cane growing and sugar milling taking urgent steps in the international area to ensure that exports by Australia's vital sugar industry are able to remain competitive on world markets. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senators Boswell (from 2,300 citizens), Collard (from 667 citizens) and Reynolds (from 1,917 citizens). To the Honourable the President, and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. Petition of the undersigned respectfully sheweth concern for pending proposals to effectively alter the import duties applicable to parts for vehicles 30 years old and older, as from 30th June, 1985. Such proposals will clearly render pursuance of the laudable pastime of restoration of such vehicles, in many families and circumstances, financially unviable. Persistence with the policy adopted by senior officers of your Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce is anticipated to have a devastating impact upon employment in associated industries, and will signigicantly interfere with the preservation of a major component of our national heritage. At the same time, little if any revenue will be attracted in excess of that required to meet the administrative costs necessarily accruing to the proposed complex procedures. Your petitioners therefore pray that you investigate their grievances as a matter of urgency, and we seek your support to undertake the necessary steps to ensure the continuance of the favourable import concessions for such parts, bearing in mind that complete vehicles of this age category are still to be deservedly the subject of concessional entry into Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senators Chaney (from 12,539 citizens) and Robertson (from 30 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of certain undersigned citizens of Australia shows that the proposed private member's Bill introduced by Senator Harradine-An Act to Prohibit Experiments Involving The Use of Human Embryos Created by In Vitro Fertilisation-disadvantages infertile members of the community seeking treatment through the current medical procedure known as in vitro fertilisation because the inadequate definition of terminology relating to the proposals in the said Bill will prevent any further development and improvement in the relevant medical research anywhere in Australia and, hence, lead to the cessation of the freeze/thaw technique currently associated with the preservation of excess embryos created and intended specifically for the purpose of later implantation into the uterus of an infertile woman seeking treatment. We strongly believe that research should be allowed to continue under the strict guidelines already laid down by the National Health and Medical Research Council and Victoria's ``Infertility (Medical Procedures) Act 1984''. Since the proposed Bill infringes on the personal rights and liberties of infertile couples to have children, your petitioners as in duty bound therefore humbly pray that the Senate will view with sympathy our opposition to the afore-mentioned Bill and not support its passage through the Senate. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senators Robertson (from 24 citizens) and Short (from 19,313 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: We wish to lodge a complaint about proposed cuts in Pre-school and Child Care funding. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Bolkus (from 75 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of we, the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the decision of the Federal Government to withdraw its financial commitment to Pre-School education and reduce its commitment to Child Care, will adversely affect the young children of Australia, by denying them opportunities for cognitive and social development during the most critical years. Increased fees will mean that most families will be denied access to pre-schools and child care. This will result in greater stress to mothers particularly, who have the main burden of caring for children. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Elstob (from 164 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: We deplore the proposed cut-back of funding for pre-school and child care in the mini budget as theproposal adversely affects young families, women's employment prospects and children's development in their most formative years. We urge you to reverse the proposed cuts in children's services. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senators Foreman (from 99 citizens), Haines (from 201 citizens) and Robertson (from 743 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the Senate. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the recent cuts announced in the Mini-Budget to Preschools and Day Care Services are a reversal of A.L.P. policy to make child care services available to all at an affordable cost. Further, that the fee rises arising from the cuts will cause great hardship to the majority of families using these services. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that all Federal funding to children's services in Australia is restored. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Sibraa (from 164 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the Committee and parents of children associated with the Bertrum Hawker Kindergarten deplore the proposed cut-back of funding for pre-schools. This action will adversely affect in particular, low income and young families. It will affect the development of all children in pre-schools during their most formative years. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Vanstone (from 137 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully shows: That as the Australian nation owes a debt of gratitude to its war veterans because of their sacrifices, no changes be contemplated to veterans' legislation which would alter in any way their entitlements to repatriation benefits. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in the Parliament assembled should reject any attack on veterans entitlements. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Boswell (from 96 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully believe that: there is demonstrated evidence of a need for child care facilities by staff, users, and potential users of the National Library of Australia and surrounding buildings in Parkes, ACT; there are at present no such existing facilities; provision has already been made for inclusion of the facilities in planned extensions to the Library, Humbly petition that your Honourable House reverse the decision by the Minister of Home Affairs and Environment disallowing provision for child care facilities in the extensions to the National Library of Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 485 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Hawke Government's failure to correct the anomalies arising from the application of the assets test on pensioners, with the failure of the Australian Democrats to support Senator Messner's Bill to repeal the assets test, is causing unnecessary hardship for Australia's aged, particularly those living in rural areas. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Hawke Government will itself take action to repeal its iniquitous and anomalous test. And your petitioners as in duty bound ever pray. by Senators Chaney (from 165 citizens) and Durack (from 12 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of South Australia respectfully showeth that: Without any warning and at the worst possible moment, the Federal Government has abandoned the pensioner patients in South Australia's Nursing Homes. These people are suffering undeserving hardship and trauma as a result of the Federal Government's decision to freeze the nursing home benefit levels in South Australia. The pensioner patients and those on fixed incomes now cannot expect any relief from recent significant fee increases approved by the Department of Community Services and which have coincided with the decision to freeze benefits. 80-85 per cent of nursing home patients are pensioners and the majority are now required to pay in excess of their pension for their nursing care for the very first time. Some are paying over $5 per day on top of their pension. Many are looking for cheaper nursing care that doesn't exist. We request that the Federal Government: 1. alleviate the distress of South Australia's nursing home patients and their families by effective restoration of the principle that pensioner patients should not have to pay more than their pension for nursing home care 2. restore the review of the benefit rates in November 1985 3. resolve its concerns over health care costs with the South Australian Government rather than inflicting unnecessary suffering on nursing home patients. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senators Bolkus (from 222 citizens), Elstob (from 260 citizens), Foreman (from 262 citizens), Haines (from 312 citizens), Hill (from 316 citizens), Maguire (from 266 citizens), Teague (from 247 citizens), Vanstone (from 264 citizens) and Vigor (from 115 citizens). Petitions received. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate expresses its concern at the failure of the Hawke Labor Government to announce a detailed plan of action to deal with the recommendations of the Handicapped Programs review. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate expresses concern that, three months after the announcement of cuts in the child care budget, the Hawke Government is causing prolonged concern and anxiety to families using child care services in Australia and calls upon it to immediately announce the exact details of the cuts and their impact upon individual child care centres and child care users. Senator HAINES(South Australia) —On behalf of Senator Chipp, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, he will move: That the Senate condemns the Government for allowing Qantas to award its order for the design of a new Qantas uniform, not only to a foreign company, but a French company, while France is at present defying the expressed wishes of the Australian Government by continuing to test nuclear bombs in the Pacific. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) calls upon the Government to seriously and openly, with public consultation, address the questions raised by the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty Review Conference to be held in Geneva beginning at the end of August, with a view to (i) submitting to the Review Conference a practical multilateral disarmament program; (ii) supporting all moves to impose a timetable for superpower disarmament; and (iii) to either propose or support other nations' proposals that the Review Conference resolve to urge immediate conclusion by the superpowers of a comprehensive test ban treaty; and (b) calls upon the Government to- (i) recognise the concern and interest of the Australian community in the NPT Review Conference by publicising the positions taken by the Government at the Review; (ii) sponsor a non-government organisation representative to attend the conference; and (iii) finance meetings of non-government organisations involved in peace and disarmament, to brief them on the Review and discuss the future of the NPT. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate notes with concern the neglect by the Hawke Government of the Australian Capital Territory's frail aged and the inadequate recognition in the Budget of the need for nursing home beds in the Australian Capital Territory. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate condemns the Government- (a) for not acting on the 1984 Green Paper which recommended that the Trade Practices Act be altered so that the Trade Practices Commission could reject any mergers which substantially lessen competition; (b) for permitting the Coles/Myer merger to threaten the livelihood of small business, which will find it difficult to compete with the new retailing giant; and (c) for not acting to prevent a merger which will increase the prices paid by consumers of all retail goods imported by or manufactured exclusively for the Myer/Coles group, and urges the Government to quickly implement the recommendations of the 1984 Green Paper so as to protect Australian small business and consumers against future mergers. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to declare the powers, privileges and immunities of each House of the Parliament, its members and committees. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate notes with concern- (a) that the discredited Tax Summit failed to address the issue of integration of the tax and social security systems; (b) that the same matter was ignored in the Budget; (c) that the lack of integration forces many social security recipients to suffer the highest effective personal tax rates in Australia (d) that this situation penalises moves towards independence by social security recipients and promotes prolonged dependence upon Commonwealth income support and it condemns the Hawke Labor Government for its lack of action in this area. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) recognising that this country is already one of the most indebted in the world, with liabilities per head far in excess of Argentina, Mexico, Chile, Poland or Brazil; (b) conscious of the fact that we will this financial year be spending more on public debt interest than we do on either education, health or defence and almost five times as much as we do on housing; (c) being aware of the manner in which our public debt interest has grown from $887m or 4.9 per cent of budget outlays in 1974-75 to a staggering $6,724m or almost 10 per cent of budget outlays in 1985-86; and (d) taking into account the fact that if our major exports collapse the Australian economy will be liable to a most serious economic collapse, calls on the Hawke socialist Government to recognise the extreme danger of the situation into which it is leading Australia and take immediate action to reduce Government borrowings. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes that the Australian Labor Party has promised in previous election campaigns not to sell the Belconnen Mall, and to provide adequate community facilities in North Canberra for all age groups; (b) notes that the sale of Belconnen Mall would break a fundamental election promise of the Government; (c) notes that the Belconnen Mall currently provides subsidised child care facilities for parents in North Canberra; (d) calls on the Government to reconsider its proposal to sell the Belconnen Mall; (e) calls on the Government to allocate the $7 to $10 million held in reserves by the Canberra Commercial Development Authority to community development activities and facilities in North Canberra; and (f) requests that if the Belconnen Mall is sold that child care facilities continue to be provided in the Mall, with a continuation of the current level of subsidisation indefinitely, and that this be included as a clause in any Belconnen Mall lease. Senator MASON(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes that the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty signed in Rarotonga at the 1985 South Pacific Forum is the first step in making the South Pacific a truly nuclear free zone; and (b) calls upon the Government: (i) to take the initiative in moving at the next South Pacific Forum that additional items be added to the nuclear prohibitions under the Treaty, and (ii) to take immediate steps to bring Australia's internal policies in relation to nuclear matters into line with both the letter and the spirit of the Treaty. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate considers that- (a) the isolated patients' travel and accommodation assistance scheme, by focusing narrowly on specialist medical services for the isolated patient, fails to appreciate the special development needs of the isolated child and therefore denies access to the full range of paediatric health services which are available to the urban child; (b) the development of children of families who choose to live in isolated regions should not be placed at risk because of the difficulty in gaining access to paediatric health services; and (c) quality can only be applied to paediatric health services when they are based on a clear understanding of the total development of the child, covering psychological, emotional, social and physical needs. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) deplores the inaction of the Federal Government to exert pressure on the Australian Council of Trade Unions and its affiliated unions to obey the rulings of the Northern Territory Industrial Commission in the Mudginberri dispute; . (b) deplores the Government's lack of action in not demanding that its Commonwealth meat inspectors inspect meat destined for export and earn their pay; (c) condemns the Government for not governing for all Australians by its support for the union movement and lack of support for the pastoral and meat processing industries; and (d) calls on the Labor socialist Government to explain why it expects employers to abide by the awards of the Arbitration Commission when the Federal Government and the union movement will not similarly obey the orders of the arbitration system. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania) —On behalf of Senator Chipp, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, Senator Chipp will move: That the Senate- (a) calls upon the Government to: (i) actively seek the successful conclusion of a Final Declaration at the Review Conference Nuclear Non-Proliferation Review beginning at the end of August, (ii) promote the recessing of the Review Conference, and support in every way possible the issuing of an interim report calling upon the nuclear weapon states to take specific disarmament measures, prior to a reconvening of the Conference in 1986, (iii) initiate and support moves for an Amendment Conference to be called to consider amendments to Articles IV and VI in line with the above, (iv) support the proposal to establish the Energy for Development Fund to research and promote alternative energy sources, especially related to the needs of Third World Nations, (v) to propose and support any move at the Review to amend Article IV of the Treaty to end its commitment to the promotion of the use of nuclear energy for civilian uses, and (vi) promote and support any moves to separate the promotion and safeguarding functions of the International Atomic Energy Agency; and (b) condemns the Government for its failure to inform and consult with the community on the importance of the Review and the position that the Government will be taking. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —I table papers in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate I incorporate the list in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Inquiry into the grape and wine industries-report. 2. Australian Canned Fruits Corporation-annual report 1984-pursuant to section 48 of the Canned Fruits Marketing Act 1979. 3. Australian Apple and Pear Corporation-annual report 1984-pursuant to section 37 of the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation Act 1973. 4. Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board-annual report 1983-84-pursuant to section 40(3) of the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act 1976. 5. Ceramic Electric Jug Bodies-Developing Country Preferences-IAC report. 6. Electric Lamps-Filament Lamps-Interim IAC report. 7. Australia New Zealand Foundation-annual report 1983-84. 8. Castors (Developing Country Preferences)-IAC report. 9. Vinyl Planar Forms (Developing Country Preferences)-IAC report. 10. The Royal Australian Air Force Welfare Trust Fund-annual report 1984-pursuant to section 34 of the Services Trust Funds Act 1947. 11. Australian Military Forces Relief Trust Fund-annual report 1984-pursuant to section 34 of the Services Trust Fund Act 1947. 12. Services Canteens Trust Fund-annual report 1984-pursuant to section 34 of the Services Trust Fund Act 1947. 13. Royal Australian Navy Relief Trust Fund-annual report 1984-pursuant to section 34 of the Services Trust Fund Act 1947. 14. A history of British atomic tests in Australia-report by Dr. J. L. Symonds. 15. Canberra College of Advanced Education-report 1984-pursuant to section 30 of the CCAE Act 1978. 16. Australian Maritime College-annual report of the council 1984-pursuant to section 39 of the Maritime College Act 1978. 17. Commonwealth Government response to the report of the interim council on the proposal for an Institute of Freshwater Studies. 18. Repitition Strain Injury in the Australian Public Service-task force report. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minster for Community Services) —Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to make a statement concerning the Government's response to the report from the Senate Select Committee on Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes entitled `Private Nursing Homes in Australia: Their Conduct, Administration and Ownership'. Leave granted. Senator GRIMES —I seek leave to have the text of the statement incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- I wish to make a statement concerning the Government's response to the report from the Senate Select Committee on Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes entitled `Private Nursing Homes in Australia: Their Conduct, Administration and Ownership'. The report was presented to the President of the Senate in November 1984, by the chairperson of the Committee, Senator Giles, and tabled on 21 February 1985. Before proceeding, I should like to express the Government's appreciation of the Committee's work. In doing so I wish to acknowledge the extent of the Committee's activities since it was initially appointed in September 1981. In the course of its deliberations it considered 161 written submissions relating to private hospitals and nursing homes, visited a cross section of nursing homes, conducted a survey of ownership and heard evidence from a large number of witnesses. The report gives an interesting historical perspective on how the Commonwealth's programs in the nursing homes area have evolved and addresses the important issues relating to nursing home care. It addresses questions of fundamental significance in the care of the frail aged and younger disabled. This Government is committed to improving the provision of services for the frail aged and the younger disabled. One of its strategies for achieving this is to redress the imbalance between nursing home care and hostel and community care. It seeks to do this by restraining growth in nursing homes and encouraging the expanded provision of a range of hostel and community care. At the same time it is committed to continue support for nursing homes for those who need that care. The Government has already taken a number of significant initiatives in the aged care area that will impact directly or indirectly on nursing homes. In the 1984/85 Budget the Government announced the home and community care program, a major initiative to encourage the development of community care services for the aged and younger disabled. Through this program the Government is seeking to enable aged people to receive the services most appropriate to their needs. It is anticipated that as community care services are expanded there will be less pressure for the inappropriate placement of aged people in nursing homes. The Government has also been active in providing financial support for the development and evaluation of geriatric assessment. During December 1984, the Department of Community Services was established facilitating the co-ordinated development of aged care policies at the Commonwealth level and enabling the administration of all aspects of the Commonwealth's nursing home advantages to be integrated. The Government recognises that there is an urgent need to tackle the many complex issues in the nursing homes area and the matters discussed and the recommendations in the committee's report provide a focus for future government action. The Government has commissioned studies on nursing home and hostel care, including consultancies on costs of nursing homes and staffing and quality of care in nursing homes. The results of some of the consultancies will not be available until at least the end of this calendar year. In the meantime, intensive study is proceeding in the key areas which the Committee has addressed. For example, it is planned to develop over the next few months a detailed picture of assessment mechanisms currently in place and their effectiveness. Analysis of the various alternative ways of introducing a program grant approach is proceeding. The questions raised by the Committee involving information on nursing home ownership are being explored. Mechanisms for achieving simple and effective avenues for redress for persons in nursing homes and hostels are being considered. The best ways to upgrade procedures used to inspect standards of care in nursing homes are being investigated and the Government recognises the importance of ensuring that sub-standard care is eliminated. The ways in which residents and the community may be provided with structured opportunities to contribute to the quality of life in nursing homes are also being examined. The Senate will appreciate that these are extremely complex and inter-related issues and it would be, in the Government's view, unproductive to seek to respond in detail at this stage to the Committee's specific recommendations. Moreover, the Government confidently expects that many of the issues brought to light by the Committee's further report on private hospitals will need to be considered in an integrated fashion with the recommendations in this first report on nursing homes. Therefore, the Government seeks the indulgence of the Senate so that it may defer providing a detailed response to specific recommendations until both reports of the Committee are available, the studies commissioned by the Department are complete and the Government's own forward plan in this field has been settled. The Government's objective will be to provide such a detailed response in the autumn sitting next year. Senator GRIMES —I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(10.20) —I will be very brief. Although I was not a member of the Senate Select Committee on Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes I feel that there are a number of matters in the statement made by the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) which need some further examination. The Minister has drawn attention to a number of the basic problems that exist in this whole area of nursing home development and private hospital ownership in this country, but nowhere do we see any response from the Minister which indicates any line of action that will solve the problems which are quite clearly out in the open and have been exposed by the Senate Committee's report. I draw the Senate's attention to the paragraph at the bottom of page 1 of the Minister's statement in which he speaks of redressing the imbalance between nursing home care and hostel and community care. That is merely a motherhood statement with which all of us would agree. The problem is in knowing what it is that the Government has in mind in terms of the mechanisms by which that imbalance will be or can be redressed. That is where the concern of the community lies right at this very moment. The Government, in the mini-Budget in May, took action to put a freeze upon nursing home benefits in South Australia and Victoria. In those two States there is enormous concern at the availability of beds and the fact that people are suffering hardship. Those States are unable to find beds into which to put people who are in need of these services. That is the practical effect of the Government's indecision and inaction in this area. Continually we see the Government failing to take action on issues such as this and merely putting off the evil day until it has been through its so-called reviews of these various matters. One of the worst examples of the Government's procrastination in this area is right before us in this very case. The emphasis that the Government has put upon the development of the home and community care program has been exposed as a fraud since it was first announced in the Budget of 1984. This continued reiteration by the Government as the solution to every problem in the area of aged and frail aged care is an absolute nonsense. There has been no commitment of resources of any great value to that area and, consequently, we cannot see that as the long term solution to the problem. Government members might, at some stage or other, stand in this place and explain to the Senate and the people of Australia what it is that they believe they can achieve through the introduction of the home and community care program which will take pressure off those people in the frail aged category who are in desperate need of nursing home accommodation. I believe that this Government has failed desperately to show its concern for the frail aged. That has been evidenced by the action that it has taken over the assets test and numerous other proposals that it has introduced. It has offered, at the same time, no solutions whatever to the long term problems that exist in this country. I hope that the Government will take this very widespread concern, which is now evident in the community, as evidence that it is in desperate trouble in dealing with the electorate on this matter. Hopefully the Government will announce before too long some permanent and long term approaches in this area. Before I sit down I would like to reiterate that, unfortunately, the kinds of directions that the Government has announced in the statement, vague as they are, do indicate an obsession with the bureaucratic approach rather than a bit of lateral thinking and thinking through the basic problems that are inherent in the handling of the problems of the frail aged. I am very concerned that the Government has headed right down the wrong direction in this regard as it has with so many other initiatives in the area of the frail aged and of the aged generally. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Gietzelt) agreed to: That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the Senate approves the following proposal contained in the report of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House presented to the Senate on 20 August 1985, namely: The construction of additional administrative accommodation at the Australian National Gallery. Motion (by Senator Siddons) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to encourage the introduction of industrial democracy in Australian enterprises through reductions in company tax for enterprises classified as industrial democracy enterprises. Bill presented by Senator Siddons, and read a first time. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(10.27) —by leave-I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- Along with unemployment, the major problem facing Australia today is our inability to live within our means internationally. Over the last 5 years we have run balance of payments deficits, and now 30% of our exports go to servicing debt payments on money we have borrowed to balance our trade deficit. The best and quickest way to overcome this problem is to concentrate on making our industries internationally competitive. There is no reason why Australian industry cannot be as efficient as the best of Japanese industry. If the Japanese can apply management techniques to develop industries as efficient as any in the world, why cannot Australia? It has long been popular to consider the Japanese as a race apart. But the Japanese are human beings like us, with the same human emotions. We should adapt the same management techniques that have proven to be so successful in Japan and then seek to improve on them. In the economic war Australia has not yet sought to fundamentally assess the competition, let alone to beat it. It can be done. Our aim should be no less than to make the best of our industries the most efficient in the world, and make the world our potential market. We would then solve our unemployment problem and our balance of trade problem with one blow. In the early 80s American industrialists started to wake up that they were being out gunned by the Japanese. It is surprising they did not wake up earlier. They used to blame low wages in Japan, but by the early 80s Japanese wages were generally higher than in America and they are generally higher than Australian wages today. Starting from a pile of rubble after the War and with a reputation for producing shoddy imitations, by 1980 Japan had developed an industrial machine that was the envy of the world. In 1980 the Japanese produced more cars than the American auto industry. By that time Chrysler had gone broke, General Motors and Ford were losing money, and the only thing that saved the American car makers was Japan's willingness to impose voluntary export restrictions. In 1980, 90% of the world's motor cycles came from Japan, 55% of all steel consumed in America by American industry was produced in Japan. American steel companies were losing money, and again were only saved by voluntary import restrictions. The Japanese led the world in the production of cameras, machine tools and watches, and were challenging for world leadership in computers, typewriters, sewing machines, industrial robots, micro-processors-the list goes on almost forever. What is the secret of Japanese success? They have a different approach to the management of their companies. They have embraced wholeheartedly for many years now the principle of participatory management. They have developed organisational structures that provide for the total involvement of all employees, and an ability to take notice of the individual. In 1982, with the backing of the then Shadow Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Bob Hawke, and the tacit acquiescence of the ACTU, I succeeded in getting an Industrial Democracy Bill passed by the Senate. It was the first time the Australian Parliament had ever debated industrial democracy. If it hadn't been for the double dissolution I think this Bill would have passed the Lower House, because both Mr Fraser and Mr Macphee were prepared to support it. As a practising industrialist and one who has led for some 30 years an industry that has attempted to embrace principles of employee participation, I now introduce a re-vamped Industrial Democracy Bill which takes account of continuing and up-to-the-minute experience in this area. The Bill contains five criteria which define what is meant by industrial democracy. An enterprise that can convince a 7-member Industrial Democracy Board that it has substantially complied with at least 4 of the 5 criteria will be eligible to apply for a Government incentive in the form of an 8% reduction in company tax. The five criteria are: 1. At least 8 per cent employee share holding to give employees a stake in the enterprise in which they work. 2. A cellular organisation with autonomous working groups based on performance centres throughout the enterprise. This is important because such groups have the ability to meet change quickly, and to engender innovation. 3. A profit sharing scheme to reward people for their efforts and to ensure open communication on such things as sales performance and profits. 4. A consultative council to discuss small internal problems before they become major matters requiring the attention of trade unions, and 5. Small group activity. This is a very important provision of the Bill and requires that an enterprise establish small groups of about 10 people throughout the entire organisation. These groups are to be led by carefully selected and trained group leaders and are required to discuss, during working hours, such things as quality, efficiency, innovation and new equipment and to make recommendations on these to management. The question may well be asked-if industrial democracy is so good for business, then why does it not adopt it anyway, without Government assistance? The first answer is that most Australians, including Australian executives have only a very hazy idea about what is meant by industrial democracy. It means different things to different people, and like motherhood is generally perceived to be a good thing. Australians have talked about industrial democracy for many years, but very few companies have applied even its rudimentary principles. This is because there is an ingrained conservatism in Australian management along the lines that workers are there to do what they're told, and amongst workers that they are not employed to tell the boss how to do his job. It needs a Government initiative to break down these ingrained attitudes in Australia. Once the change of attitude gets under way, and people see that companies applying the principles set out in this Bill are successful, and once the Industrial Democracy Board starts disseminating through our tertiary institutions information on how to successfully apply the principles, then industrial democracy in Australia will become self-perpetuating and the Government, if it wishes, could progressively withdraw from the scene, This Bill requires the Government to make $20m available each year for the first five years, and then to reassess the situation. If Australia is to overcome its critical balance of trade problem, it must turn to the manufacturing sector to improve its export performance. Our industries can be, and should be, as efficient as any in the world. If the Government co-operates, we can do it, Debate (on motion by Senator Gietzelt) adjourned. Message received from the House of Representatives acquainting the Senate that it had agreed to the amendment made by the Senate to this Bill. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(10.28) —On behalf of Senator Chaney and pursuant to contingent notice of motion I move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving a motion relating to the order of business on the Notice Paper. On the Notice Paper today certain Senate committee reports are listed for discussion. The time allowed for that discussion is one hour. These reports come on at item No. 13. It is necessary that I now move to seek the suspension of Standing Orders in order to enable me to move a motion to vary the order in which those reports will be considered. This is the appropriate point in the Senate's proceedings when this motion needs to be moved. Several reports are to be discussed this afternoon. It is the desire of the Opposition, should this motion succeed, that we then move a subsequent motion to have one of those reports brought up to be discussed first. We understand that all the reports might be discussed in that hour but it is our concern that one of them be discussed first. Without addressing the substance of the issues which concern the Opposition, I advise the Senate that in relation to one of the reports, No. 7, the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare report on the export of live sheep from Australia, there is some confusion in the public place relating to statements which have been made. There is concern in a very significant industry which is awaiting this report. It is our belief that the way to resolve that confusion and to ease the concern of the public is to ensure that adequate debate takes place when the report is debated today. The reason for seeking the suspension of Standing Orders is that the program has been so constructed and the order of business has been set in such a way as to make it unlikely that debate on report No. 7 will be as full as we think it should be in the time allowed. It is our understanding that each of the committee chairmen will speak for 10 minutes first in putting down their reports. That will take half of the hour that is available. It will leave only a short time for general debate. Although there has been public comment, some confusion and some concern and although we have yet to hear from the Chairman, it may well be that following his speech things will be much clearer. But it is also quite likely that there will be a desire to debate the matter and to clarify it for the public. All we are asking for is the right to ensure that subsequent to the Chairman's statement there will be an opportunity to settle the matter even if this involves several other speakers. The only way we can achieve that is to move now to suspend the Standing Orders. It seems to us that the good will of the Senate should acknowledge that there has been confusion in relation to the presentation of this report and certain statements that have been made subsequent to its tabling. I think the Senate will acknowledge that it is desirable to clarify that confusion. Perhaps we can do it today but for that to happen there has to be an opportunity for those senators who have concerns to make their views known and, for that reason, I have moved the suspension of Standing Orders. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business)(10.33) —Briefly, the Government opposes the suspension of Standing Orders. Our intention to deal with these three reports in the manner in which they will be dealt with was made clear yesterday. It is my understanding that this matter was also discussed at the Whips' meeting this morning. Half an hour before the Senate sat this morning we were informed that the Opposition wished to suspend Standing Orders. Now we are being given the reasons for this for the first time by Senator Peter Baume. Quite frankly, it seems to me that if Senator Peter Baume and his colleagues had felt so strongly about this matter they should have been able to notify us well before now, either yesterday or today. Secondly, if every time the Opposition suddenly decides that some confusion surrounds a report or statement and it wishes to suspend Standing Orders the orderly running of this chamber would be impossible. I am cynical enough to believe that as this matter has come up on the second day of the Senate's operations this session all the Opposition is trying to do is disrupt the normal functioning of the place. It is trying to disrupt the program so soon after it has started and so soon after the list was put out this morning. For all these reasons we will oppose the motion. If the Opposition wishes to change the program in any way I think it should do so in consultation with the Government and other parties in this place before the Notice Paper is put together. Certainly there will be times when the Standing Orders should be suspended and when the Opposition should attempt to suspend them. I have done it myself plenty of times in the past. But if we did it for the reasons which Senator Peter Baume has given today we would be doing it not only every day but also several times every day and I do not believe that would be good for the orderly conduct of this House or the government of this country. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(10.34) —I support Senator Peter Baume's motion. This is not an everyday event in the Senate; rather it arises because of the urgency concerning the report of the Select Committee on Animal Welfare. Senator Grimes —Why didn't you do it yesterday or this morning before the sheet came out? Senator TEAGUE —I take Senator Grimes's point. There was a Whips' meeting in which this matter was not fully resolved. But the first time that most of us in the Senate see the order of the presentation of reports is when the red sheet is put before us and that was done only about half an hour ago. If there has been a misunderstanding in the Whips' discussion surely that can be overcome now by the Government's agreeing to the urgency of this matter. Senator Baume has put cogent reasons why consideration of this report can be lifted in the order of business. In addition, yesterday Senator Georges, the Chairman of the Committee, asked for priority to be given to the consideration of its report as he, as Chairman, felt that there was concern in the public that needed to be allayed as soon as possible. Finally, the first committee report listed for consideration today is that of the Standing Committee on Education and the Arts, of which I am Deputy Chairman, and I believe that consideration of that report can be given a lower priority in the order of business in the Senate today. I say to Senator Grimes: This is not an everyday event. If it became an everyday event I would readily agree with the argument that has been put forward. However, I believe that this is a matter of very real concern because of the way in which it has been reported and because the rural industry around Australia is desperately concerned about reports that the Senate gives its blessing to a statement that live sheep exports from Australia are to be terminated. That is not what the Senate wishes. It is something with which I, as one senator, do not wish to be identified. It is something to which the Liberal Party of Australia is opposed and wants to see clarified so that the rural industry in Australia may see right from today-at the first opportunity-the settlement of this confusion and be given a guarantee that an important rural industry, live sheep exports, will continue unfettered by any misunderstanding in the public. I urge the Senate to support Senator Baume's motion. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(10.37) —The Senate can function only on the basis of consultation and co-operation, and I think that has been the guideline by which the Senate has attempted to perform its function in recent times. It is clear that if one section of the Senate attempts to challenge the business paper because of some monetary problem that may exist, the Government's attempts to organise its program and the Senate's program, in that order, will to some extent be nullified. Such moves could become quite disruptive. Yesterday Senator Georges, Chairman of the Select Committee on Animal Welfare, indicated that he wanted time to debate the question in order to overcome some of the difficulties or misconceptions that may have arisen as a result of the publication of the Committee's report and some statements about it. It was the prerogative of any section of the Senate to discuss the matter with the Government. Responsibility rests with senators-particularly large groups in the Senate-if there has been a failure to come to some arrangement with the Government. The Government has no intention of putting itself in a position where it acts as a censor or puts a barrier in the way of any member of the Senate having matters properly debated. However, the order of business having been established, the Government is entitled to expect the Senate to give its assent to it. One only has to look at the way in which Committee reports have been listed for consideration. They have been listed No. 5, No. 6, No. 7, No. 4, No. 3, and No. 2, which means that the Government has at least acknowledged the need for the matter of live sheep exports to be debated. Senator Peter Baume —No, the three new ones first and the three old ones last. Senator GIETZELT —The honourable senator has been in this Parliament long enough to know that we can pass the reports of the Standing Committee on Education and the Arts and the Standing Committee on Industry and Trade-the first two reports-without any debate at all. They can be put aside in the normal course of the business of the Senate. The honourable senator has failed to take advantage of the consultative processes that are available to any honourable senator in respect of the way in which the business paper should be put together. Those processes were available, particularly to Senator Baume, having regard to the statement yesterday by Senator Georges that he wanted the opportunity to put at rest some of the misconceptions that may have arisen. If we are to be subjected to attempts to suspend Standing Orders every time an honourable senator feels that the business paper should be rearranged to meet his whim, the business of the Senate will be put aside while we debate procedural matters. Of course, that is what the Opposition is seeking to do. It is pretty clear that another avenue is available to Senator Peter Baume and his Party; that is, not to discuss Nos 5 and 6, to move fairly quickly on to No. 7 and to have those other matters listed for debate on another occasion, without going through the procedural proposals that he has suggested. I reiterate that the Senate will function properly and effectively only on the basis of consultation with the various groups in this place. We have five or six of them now, and any honourable senator who thinks that proper time ought to be set aside for discussion of a matter has only to discuss it with the Manager of Government Business, Senator Grimes, to find that that will be accommodated. As far as I am aware, no attempt was made to do so on this occasion and therefore I suggest that the Senate should not support the suspension of Standing Orders moved by Senator Baume. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(10.42) —We will not support Senator Peter Baume's motion to bring item No. 7 to the top of the list. We have argued the toss time and again in recent sessions about whether new reports should go to the head of the list, taking precedence over old reports. I suggest that Senator Baume at least ought to be grateful that we are doing so at the moment and that report No. 7 is not further down the debating list than it would have been if we had simply gone by the practice of slotting new reports in, in order, beneath those that were already on the Notice Paper. I certainly agree with him that if a new report, or for that matter an old report, is urgent it ought to be brought to the top of the list but I would not have thought that confusion in the minds of some members of the community about what is or is not in the report of the Select Committee on Animal Welfare on the export of live sheep from Australia is any indication of urgency. If we moved the order of business around every time the community was confused about some matter we would be changing the order of business on an hourly basis. I suggest that if we keep going in the way in which Senator Baume is indicating, we will have a situation in which all honourable senators will be bidding for their favourite report to be brought to the head of the list. There is a lot of interest in this place about the Standing Committee on Privileges report which, I point out to Senator Baume, comes after the one on animal welfare. I cannot believe that this place will spend the next hour debating the education and the arts and the industry and trade reports if there is such a keen desire to get on to No. 7. The best way to get on to that debate on animal welfare is to put an end to wasting time debating the suspension of Standing Orders and get on to the item with which we should be dealing. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(10.44) —I was drawn into this debate by some of the comments made by the Government and the Australian Democrats. I agree in general with the remarks that Senator Gietzelt made. Having been a Whip in this place, I understand them fully, but there are times when something of great importance to the community needs to be raised above the level that is indicated on the order of business sheet. It is not the whim of an individual senator but the wish of the whole Opposition, reacting to the confusion and concern within the community, that this matter be raised and debated, as has been indicated. Yesterday Senator Georges said that he wanted to make a statement on this matter. It is because of what Senator Georges said in the public arena as Chairman of the Select Committee on Animal Welfare that there is confusion and concern in the community. To allay that concern I think this matter should be debated, and the sooner the better. The live sheep trade is very important. Indeed, our rural exports generally are very important. The rural industry is suffering from many things, including overseas market dumping and all the rest of it. We do not want to canvass that here now but the live sheep trade is one aspect of rural industry that is working, that is providing income and that is providing not only for the exporters but also for this country. Mr Deputy President, I believe that this matter should be raised and debated so that the concern and confusion that exists in the community because of the statements of the Chairman of this Committee can be put to rest. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(10.46) -I would like to speak to the motion before the Chair. Primary exports are vitally important to this country and the live sheep export trade is very much part and parcel of our export business. It is an important export income earner. Senator Childs —On a point of order: I think Senator MacGibbon is dealing with the argument itself and not the question of the suspension of Standing Orders. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —That is always a tricky point when Standing Orders are to be suspended. Senator MacGibbon is aware of this. However, he must watch this and must not debate too much the merits of the particular case, just the arguments for the suspension of Standing Orders. Senator MacGIBBON —I am well aware of that and I am sorry that the good senator was not listening carefully to what I said. It is a matter that not only involves Australia; it also involves countries like Saudi Arabia, which has spent $30m on providing shipping for this trade. I was driving around Brisbane the day this report was presented. I heard Senator Georges on the radio, and I take great care to say that I am not certain that Senator Georges said this, but the inference of the radio broadcast was first of all that the recommendation of the Select Committee on Animal Welfare was that the live export of sheep be stopped immediately and secondly that the report of the Committee was unanimous. I do not believe that both of those findings are a true and accurate reflection of the Committee report. Because of the confusion in the community as a result of the broadcast involving Senator Georges, I believe this matter should be resolved clearly and unambigously as soon as possible. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.47) —Very briefly-- Senator Grimes —Oh, Jesus! Senator WALTERS —I am sorry that Senator Grimes finds this all so boring, but why is the Government being so pigheaded? I do not understand it. There has been some confusion in the community. Senator Grimes —Why are you wasting time? Senator WALTERS —This is exactly it. If the Government agreed to the suspension of Standing Orders there would not be this waste of time. There would be no need for this debate. I find it extraordinary that the Government is prepared to spend whatever length of time it takes to debate this motion when it intends to bring the issue on later in the day if there is time to do so. We want it debated when we know there is time for it to be fully debated. The Government has created great confusion about this. We know the recommendations of the Select Committee on Animal Welfare. The recommendations are very clear for everyone to understand because it is written very plainly that there was never any intention to do away with the live sheep export. I believe that until the Government recognises the error of its ways, stops being pigheaded and debates this subject the people who are waiting will not hear the truth. Question put: That the motion (Senator Peter Baume's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 36 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 8 —— Archer, B. R. MacGibbon, D. J. Baume, Michael Messner, A. J. Baume, Peter Missen, A. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Parer, W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. Puplick, C. J. G. Brownhill, D. G. C. Rae, PeterCarrick, Sir John Reid, M. E. (Teller)Collard, S. J. Sheil, G. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Short, J. R. Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. Hill, R. Vanstone, A. E. Kilgariff, B. F. Walters, M. S. Knowles, S. C. Watson, J. O. W. Aulich, T. McClelland, DouglasBolkus, 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. Morris, J. Cooney, B. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Reynolds, M. Devlin, R. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Elstob, R. C. Ryan, S. M. Foreman, D. J. Sanders, N. K. Georges, G. Sibraa, K. W. Gietzelt, A. T. Siddons, J. R. Giles, P. J. Tate, M. C. Grimes, D. J. Vigor, D. B. Haines, J. Walsh, P. A. Jones, G. N. Zakharov, A. O. Withers, R. G. Coleman, R. N. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Black, J. R. Chaney, F. M. Richardson, G. F. Jessop, D. S. Evans, GarethLewis, A. W. R. Button, J. N. Question so resolved in the negative. Debate resumed from 22 May, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(10.56) —The Opposition opposes the substance of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 1985 and the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill 1985 and will vote accordingly. I indicate at this stage that the Opposition will be moving a second reading amendment to the Bills. That amendment is now being circulated throughout the chamber. The Bills will implement the Government's decision to grant the land in the Uluru National Park, that is, the Ayers Rock and Mount Olga areas to an Aboriginal land trust. The Bills also will enable the implementation of an agreement with the Aboriginal people to lease that area back to the Director of the National Parks and Wildlife Service to manage that area as a national park. Our opposition to this legislation is not an opposition to the rights of Aboriginal people or to their need for secure land tenure. It should not be seen in those terms. We are opposed to this legislation because it is bad legislation. We oppose these Bills because Ayers Rock, Uluru and the Olgas are national monuments and belong to all Australians. They are part of a national park. There is no reason why the ownership of that national park should be taken from the people of Australia. When a land claim was made by the Aboriginal people under the provisions of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act for this area the Aboriginal Land Commissioner judged at that time that this area was not available for claim because it was land alienated to the people of Australia. The Liberal Party of Australia, to which I belong, has a very proud record in terms of its stand, its actions and legislative enactments in relation to Aboriginal land rights and Aboriginal land tenure. Our Aboriginal affairs policy released before the last election contained a strong commitment to Aboriginal rights in this area. That part of the policy stated: The coalition's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander policy is based on a recognition of the affinity most Aboriginal people have with their land. Aboriginal culture is derived from a unique relationship between the people and their land. Virtually all social, political, economic and spiritual relationships within Aboriginal societies have traditionally been based on land. Our policy continued: Therefore, Aboriginals choosing to live on their traditional lands, and who retain some or all of their traditional association with the land should, where practicable, be granted secure title to such land to facilitate a continuation of their lifestyle and culture. That was the election policy of the Liberal and National parties. That is the policy which members of this Opposition accept and within which we operate. It is still within that policy that we find it impossible to support this legislation in any way. As a senator I worked in 1976 to help put the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act in place. I fought and worked within my own side of Parliament to make sure that it was enacted. I would do so again. Of course, knowing now that the Act needs amendment, knowing in light of experience that the Act is not right as it is, I would do it differently. We recognise, as I recognised when I was Minister, that the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act needs amending today in the light of experience, but that is another question. We worked to get this legislation into place. It was enacted in 1976 by the Fraser Government. Do not tell us that we do not care about land rights. We have a record in this Parliament of having put the Act in place. As Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, I worked to administer that Act. I was responsible for it, and I worked to support land rights where such rights were an appropriate vehicle for improving the position of Aboriginal people. When I was Minister we had some conflict involving the State of Queensland and tenure of the reserves in Queensland. At that time, in March 1982, I laid down, with the full backing of the Fraser Cabinet, four principles which the then Government saw as fundamental when dealing with issues relating to tenure in Queensland reserves. I will remind the Senate of those four principles. They were that the integrity of the present reserve boundaries be maintained; that there should be security of tenure for occupants and preservation of their rights to use the land; that local communities should play a significant role in the management of the reserve; and, further, that there should be full consultation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people before any decisions were made. Those were good principles and were the basis on which we could enter negotiations and betray no one. With those principles we could work to secure for Aboriginal people in Queensland on that occasion the kind of tenure that was necessary. The Opposition still adheres to those four principles. Further, the Senate should remember that it was the coalition when in government during the Fraser years and the Tonkin Liberal Government in South Australia which introduced the most far-reaching land rights legislation this country has seen. It was the Fraser Government which enacted legislation in the Northern Territory, and it was the Tonkin Liberal Government which enacted the Pitjantjatjara land rights legislation in South Australia. When one remembers the high hopes, the good will, the high spirits that greeted both those legislative achievements and compares the reception which greeted the present Government's so-called preferred option-wanted by none, it seems-it is not hard to understand why it has become the `deferred preferred option'. We know that the present Government's approach to land rights is not wanted by Premier Burke of Western Australia, it is not wanted by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), it is not wanted by the left wing of the Australian Labor Party, it is not wanted by the Aboriginal communities, if we listen to what they say, and national uniform land rights legislation is not wanted by the Opposition. In fact, it is only preferred by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) and a small number of Cabinet colleagues. It has disappointed Aboriginals around Australia. They tell us they are angry, despondent and rebellious because they believe the Hawke Government has let them down in this area. Once again the rhetoric has outrun the performance. Expectations were raised by the Minister, and in this place by Senator Ryan, much higher than the community was willing to satisfy. Now those expectations are not being met and Aboriginal hopes and aspirations have been disappointed. It is important that our opposition to this legislation be seen against this background. It is a background of commitment over a long time by my Party and by those of us who have been active in this area, by those of us who have had the good fortune to have been Ministers for Aboriginal Affairs-a commitment to a fair go for what is Australia's most disadvantaged group of people. It is a background of a coalition record on granting land rights in the Northern Territory and a Liberal Party record of granting land rights in South Australia. It is also a background of the ALP's failure to live up to the land rights rhetoric and promises that were made to the Aboriginal people. I digress for a moment to say that we have no doubt by almost any measure Aboriginal Australians still represent the most disadvantaged group. Our policies when we were in government remained committed to overcoming that disadvantage. Let there be no doubt about that-we have a record on this issue over a considerable time. During the Fraser years, during the time the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act was operating, the Land Commissioner was required to hear claims from traditional groups and to hear evidence relating to traditional association and ownership. The Land Commissioner was then required to report and make recommendations to the government of the day. The fact is that the Land Commissioner recommended some Aboriginal claims and he rejected other claims. From the beginning we had in place a process of judicial judgment under which people went before Mr Justice Toohey, who was then the Land Commissioner-it was Sir William Kearney at the end-and argued their case. If on the merits of that argument the Land Commissioner supported them, a recommendation was made to the Government. As I said, the Land Commissioner approved some claims and rejected others. But that was not the end of the matter. The Minister then had to make a judgment as part of the process laid down in the Act. I remind the Senate that Ministers for Aboriginal Affairs took that responsibility seriously, and they approved some recommendations and did not approve others. I remember as Minister being faced with recommendations concerning the Borroloola claim, and those recommendations involved negotiations with the community before we reached a resolution. Part of that claim recommended the grant of Vanderlin Island to an Aboriginal land trust. As Minister I did not approve that, because the detriment that would have flowed to a particular Aboriginal in my view made such a grant inappropriate. I am saying that there was a process laid down under the Act, and it was that process which reassured most Australians that what was being done could be justified. The present proposal has gone through none of those processes. The Government has by-passed them. The coalition believes that the Uluru claim should not be introduced through the Parliament in this way and we believe that the Government's approach cannot be justified. First, there has been no judicial assessment of the present proposal; there has been no hearing of this proposal concerning Uluru before the Land Commissioner. There has been no claim in which people have had to prove the merits of this particular case. It has not been assessed, as other land rights claims have been assessed, before an independent judicial figure as laid down in the land rights legislation. It should have been. The Minister and the Government are bypassing all these essential steps which are so necessary for community acceptance of any land claim. No move has been made to prove the entitlement of Aboriginal people to this land. I think that could be done easily enough. No steps have been taken, under the procedures laid down, to prove the entitlement of these Aboriginal people to the Uluru National Park. The proposal is no good. It is not fair of the Government to proceed in this way. This is a national park. It is alienated Crown land. It belongs to the people of Australia. It is not available for claim. The Commonwealth has already given it away to the people of Australia as a national park. The Government is simply proceeding in the wrong way by moving through the Parliament to declare that this area will be granted to a land trust. I have taken the trouble to look at the report of the then Aboriginal Land Commissioner, Mr Justice Toohey, on the claim that was made. I refer to his report entitled `Uluru (Ayres Rock) National Park and Lake Amadeus/Luritja Land Claim' which was published, I believe, in August 1979. The report was sent to Senator Chaney, the then Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, and to Mr Ellicott, the then Minister for Home Affairs. If we examine this report of the Land Commissioner we find that he was quite clear about the status of the area which is the subject of the Bill before the Senate. On pages 1 and 2 he said. When the hearing began in Alice Springs on 2 April 1979 I agreed to hear submissions going to the matter of jurisdiction before dealing with the substantive claim. This I did on 2 and 3 April and on 4 April I delivered my decision. I held that the area of the National Park was not unalienated Crown land and so was not available to be claimed within the Act. Everything that followed in this report from the Aboriginal Land Commissioner was on the basis that the national park area was alienated Crown land and was not available for claim. He went on in paragraph 66 on page 13, in discussing the Ayers Rock estate and the various Aboriginal estates which are involved in the Aboriginal claim, to say: The heart of this estate is Uluru itself which is within the National Park and so outside the claim area. Further, the Land Commissioner said in his formal findings: The land described in the application, save as to the National Park, the leases within the park and the proposed Ulara village, is unalienated Crown land. He then went on to name a group of people to whom the claim area belongs in terms of the Act. But the area excludes the national park, and that is the important point. It excludes the national park entirely. If the Government wished to proceed to make the national park available it should at least have set up some way in which the judicial processes laid down under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act could be followed. It has not done so. The whole thing smells of some desire to bypass procedures which have worked well enough in the Northern Territory. The Government had no need to go this way. It could have deemed that the land was available for claim and required the Commissioner to hear the case. Why was the Land Commissioner not brought into the whole thing? The Government does not care about proper procedure. Further, the Parliament is being asked not only to approve the granting of this land to an Aboriginal land trust without going through the procedures which have been laid down but also to deem a social grouping, a certain community-the Mutitjulu community-as being the traditional owners. That is not the way in which the land rights Act has worked. The traditional owners have been determined by carefully laid down procedures argued before the Land Commissioner. We have no way of knowing whether this particular grouping of people is completely or partially the group of traditional owners. Why is the Government doing this? If it is determined to take from the Australian people a national asset, why is it not at the very least proceeding to establish the traditional owners in the way laid down under the Act? The answer is that it could not care less about the Act. Not only could the Government not care less but also it does not care what it says. On 19 August 1985 the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs wrote to my colleague Mr Roger Shipton, who is the Opposition spokesman on Aboriginal Affairs, in relation to this matter. In that letter he said, inter alia: You may be interested to know that in his Report on the Uluru (Ayers Rock) National Park and the Lake Amadeus/Luritja land claim the then Aboriginal Land Commissioner, Mr Justice Toohey, identified not less than 160 traditional Aboriginal owners . . . Of course he did. They were the traditional owners of land somewhere else. There was no establishment of the legal ownership of the area which the Government is taking now, although it was within the area claimed. There could not be, because the Land Commissioner did not hear any claim or evidence about this area. He was determining the owners of the area which was granted, and Mr Holding wants us to accept that kind of nonsense. We believe that this kind of pre-emptive action is likely to do the thing that is most damaging of all to Aboriginal advancement. I speak as someone who is deeply committed- Senator Ryan —Oh, come on. Senator PETER BAUME —Mr Acting Deputy President, Senator Ryan has been a failure in everything she has taken on. I would say that my time as Minister for Aboriginal Affairs was the most productive of my working life. It was a wonderful time in an excellent department. The action which the Government is taking now is likely to produce a backlash in the general community, the kind of backlash which will not be to the long term advantage of the Aboriginal people. I ask the Government sincerely just to think of that, to think of its role in taking this kind of action and of the backlash it may provoke and the long term effects which may not be to the advantage of Aboriginal people. I draw on my experience as a former Minister to say that Aboriginals are not satisfied with the way this is being done, and many communities I have visited and many people I have talked to say that they are not satisfied. The Government has failed, not least because it has raised tensions between white and Aboriginal Australians as a result of the action which is before the Senate today, and that is a pity for Australia. It is not fair to Aboriginals and it is not good for the Australian community. There is no basis for taking the land from the national park, from the nation. It should remain a national park, a national asset. The Government has not only taken the land from the nation and given it to a community that has not yet proved its traditional ownership before the Land Commissioner but it has then required the people to lease it back. The Australian people have lost the ownership. They have lost it not on the basis of proper procedure. We as an opposition believe that the area should remain the property of the people of Australia. We believe that it should be given to the Northern Territory Government. For that reason I move the following amendment to the second reading motion: Leave out all words after `That', insert `the Bills be withdrawn and redrafted to provide for- (a) ownership of the Uluru National Park to be vested in the Northern Territory, subject to: (i) an agreement ensuring effective Aboriginal involvement in management of the Park, and (ii) adequate and appropriate portions of the Park being vested by freehold title in Aboriginals for the purposes of living areas; (b) a right of entry to all persons subject to protection of sacred sites and the Park; and (c) the Agreement to be entered into between the Director of National Parks and Wildlife and the Land Council not to come into effect until approved by the Parliament.'. I now turn to say a few words about the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill. This is the complementary Bill to what the Government is proposing to do. The Fraser Government accepted the significance of Ayers Rock and the Uluru area to the Aboriginal community that resides there. It was for that reason that on 24 May 1977, under a Liberal Government, Uluru National Park was proclaimed under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act. This proclamation provided a means to safeguarding access to the wider Australian community, while at the same time ensuring that sacred sites and sites of significance in the area as a whole continue to be protected. Uluru is the focus of Aboriginal creation beliefs and dreamtime stories. It incorporates Aboriginal lore and inherited knowledge. The park brings together the age-old traditions of the Aboriginal people and the modern perceptions of a young Australia, an Australia with people of many races and creeds, all of whom regard Ayers Rock as a national symbol. Ayers Rock brings a perception of timelessness and continuity together with a sense of stability and pride in the nation. It is truly our country's symbol of solidity and strength. We believe that Ayers Rock should belong and be seen to belong to the people of Australia. The Fraser declaration was appropriate to achieve that purpose and there has been no reason offered in logic to seek this change or to repudiate the formula which we put in place. The Opposition opposes this legislation as well because it seeks to give title to Uluru National Park to one Aboriginal organ- isation which has not been proven to be the traditional owners. We are not sure it is the community of traditional owners. Such action negates the belief held by millions of Australians that the rock belongs to us all. In the few moments remaining to me, I want to say a few words about the proposed management of the park. I understand that my colleague Senator Puplick will say more about this later. In this situation, it is quite clear that the Government does not trust the local Aboriginal community because it has constructed a management plan in such a way that ultimate authority will rest undoubtedly with the Director of the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Regardless of the majority decision of the board, we will find that disagreements between the Director and the board which is managing the park will ultimately be decided by the Commonwealth Minister. I say to the Australian Democrats that they will be putting into the hands of a Minister power to override what may be the wishes of a board of directors. Finally, I want to refer to the wider changes that this legislation seeks to make to the concept of national parks. The schedule of the Bill contains five amendments which will seek to change the way in which national parks are proclaimed. Honourable senators should be aware of these amendments. The first of the five changes is to allow land to be added to an existing park, reserve or wilderness zone by varying an existing proclamation. This amendment provides no role for the Parliament and I am surprised that the Australian Democrats would go along with that. The Bill also seeks to clarify the public comment requirement in regard to the declaration, amendment or revocation of a park, reserve or wilderness zone. It will do so in a way which will exclude Uluru from such consideration because it goes on to say that a special `region' which now includes stages 1 and 2 of Kakadu will now also include Uluru National Park and public comment will not be required for an addition to a park, reserve or wilderness zone within the `region'. The Government is saying that it can do what it likes to Uluru and there will be no public comment and no role for the Parliament. I remind the Senate that the political wheel turns. The Senate should be very careful because a legitimate role for the Parliament is being given away. Although the Opposition notes these amendments and wonders at them it will not oppose them all. We believe that the Government has just got it wrong. We believe that the Government, if it wants to do justice to the Uluru community, could have proceeded in other ways. It has chosen the one way that heightens the sense of unfairness, of inappropriate pro- cedure and of inadequate and inappropriate practice. We urge the Senate to accept the amendments which the Opposition has laid down and, if these are not acceptable, to oppose the Bills. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland)(11.25) —I would like to remind the Senate of a motion that was passed in 1975. I think it is appropriate that we remind each other-some of us were not here at the time-of the feelings in this chamber in 1975 in respect of Aboriginal and Islander entitlement to recognition. On 19 September 1974 the then Senator Bonner of Queensland, in accordance with a notice of motion he moved on 11 July 1974, moved: That the Senate accepts the fact that the indigenous people of Australia, now known as Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, were in possession of the entire nation prior to the 1788 First Fleet landing at Botany Bay, urges the Australian Government to admit prior ownership by the said indigenous people, and introduce legislation to compensate the people now known as Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders for the dispossession of their land. That motion was passed unanimously on 20 February 1975. I think it is a very sorry commentary on politics and the politicians in this country that we have now seen the wheel turn a full circle, that the people who advocated and supported that type of philosophy are now coming out with the sort of grandstanding nonsense that we have just heard from Senator Baume. I am sure we will hear the same type of thing from some of his colleagues though, fortunately, not all of them. I am absolutely confused as to how the Opposition was so able to accommodate the idea of Aboriginal ownership of Kakadu National Park in 1979 yet now by 1985 it has decided that such an arrangement is completely incompatible in respect of Uluru. The attitude taken by the Opposition is fundamental to this debate because it highlights the fact that the Opposition is just using this entire important question as a very opportunistic cynical exercise to mislead the people of Australia. Politicians should be taking a lead on this type of issue. It is so easy for the average Australian to be misinformed and to get overemotional about Ayers Rock, our national symbol. It is up to the responsible parliamentarians in this place and the other place to set some tone in the debate about something as important as this. But, no, the Opposition, in true political sense, cannot resist the temptation to grandstand. We will hear today from a majority, though not all, of Opposition speakers who will make passionate speeches with mock concern about our heritage. Where were they during the Franklin Dam debate? Were they concerned in those days about our heritage? Were they then concerned about whether Ayers Rock belongs to all Australians or about the way in which Ayers Rock was being taken away from all Australians? The stand taken by the Opposition has me absolutely mystified. The Opposition has made completely emotive claims which somehow conjure up images of the Federal Government performing magic rites to spirit Ayers Rock away to some secret hiding place. Quite frankly, some of the speeches that I heard in the other place-and it seems as if the tone has been set here for something similar today-would lend themselves to a wonderful send-up by Max Gillies. I can imagine Max Gillies doing a goanna style send-up-the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) sitting aloft Ayers Rock as it hovers over the tourist buses and then mysteriously disappears. Really, this issue is far too important to have this cynical nonsense about the Federal Government taking away Ayers Rock from the people of Australia. First of all, we have to examine the two faces of Paul Everingham on the question of land rights generally and Ayers Rock in particular. Some of the views of the Hon. Paul Everingham were put in a speech to the National Press Club in 1982-I will not quote his entire speech-when he said: Arguments about who owns Australia are simplistic and destructive. I wish Opposition senators would remember that warning of Paul Everingham. He continued: All Australians, black and white, own Australia. The term, Commonwealth of Australia speaks for itself. Aboriginal land rights in the Northern Territory are a fact of life. Land ownership has led to a re-emergence of pride and purpose in many Aboriginal communities. My government's concern is that land rights really work in the Territory community. Through land ownership Aboriginals will be able to participate in the economy, or decide not to. That will be up to them. Today, more than two-thirds of Aboriginals in the Territory . . . live on land to which they hold inalienable title or which is under claim. Our record shows our concern. Twenty-seven per cent of land, including some of the best, within the town of Alice Springs and 325 hectares of prime land in Darwin have been handed over . . . to Aboriginals by the Territory Government. By arrangement with traditional owners and the Northern Land Council, and by special legislation through the Territory's Legislative Assembly, the Co-bourg Peninsula-the pride of our conservation reserves-was handed over to Aboriginals as freehold and the area preserved as a national park. A similar arrangement could be made for Uluru, site of Ayers Rock and the Olgas . . . That was not a speech made by the present Prime Minister of Australia or by Clyde Holding; that was a speech made by Paul Everingham in 1982. Furthermore, at that time, under the Fraser Government, there was a package of amendments in respect of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. The amendments, which were accepted by the previous Government, contained the following proposals: The Northern Territory Government would enter into negotiations with the Land Councils for the granting of title to National Parks subject to claim. Such negotiations would include the two unsuccessful land claims over Uluru and Alligator Rivers Stage II areas. At the National Press Club in 1982 the then Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, the Hon. Paul Everingham, promised: The Territory Government will give title to Uluru National Park, including Ayers Rock and Mount Olga and make an arrangement whereby it will continue as a National Park administered jointly by the Northern Territory Conservation Commission and traditional owners. That is why I am totally disgusted with members of the Opposition regarding their handling of this issue. They have done a complete about-turn. Paul Everingham, of all people, has been thoroughly two-faced on this issue. Let us compare that promise with excerpts from a speech he made in 1985. I will not take up too much time reading it. Let us hear the change in tone when, in 1985, as an Opposition member, he decided to appeal to the lowest common denominator in the Australian community, to those racists in the community. He said: Throughout Australia people are watching the passage of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill and they are angry, justifiably angry, that this Government is about to give away the best known and best loved symbol of our Australian heritage in a tradeoff to its left wing. Ayers Rock does not belong to this Government. It is not the Government's to give away. Ayers Rock belongs to all the people of Australia. He continued: If this legislation is passed . . . the hand-over of Australia's best known, best loved, cultural and spiritual symbol to a small group in the community. This Government will be remembered for it. It will be cursed for it. It is no wonder that members of the Opposition are weeping in the aisles of the House of Representatives. I imagine that the only curse relating to such a speech by Mr Paul Everingham would come from John Stuart Mill. He would be cursing the members of the Liberal Party who could so abandon those very genuine and traditional principles of true liberalism, if indeed there are any people in the Liberal Party these days who remember them. Let me outline some of the devious activities of some members-I stress `some'-of the Liberal Party in recent weeks in regard to opposing the hand-over, as they say, of Ayers Rock to Aboriginal owners. I wish to table in the Senate a petition that has been circulated. I regret to say that it came from Townsville. I am ashamed that it came from Townsville because, having been a member of the Townsville City Council, I pride myself on the fact that that council has done much to create recial harmony in an urban area. It was the first council to recognise Aboriginal people and genuinely to work and consult with them within an urban setting. I am not referring to Aboriginal communities. Townsville City Council was the first council to recognise the Aboriginal flag officially and to fly it proudly on National Aborigines Day. It was the first council to appoint an Aboriginal liaison officer so that Aborigines and Islanders in that city could feel that their needs were being considered at the local government level. Therefore, I found it somewhat disheartening that a City Council employee, a solicitor no less, should be the person who somehow got together a group of concerned citizens to dream up this petition for presentation in this place. It just so happens that this solicitor who heads the group of concerned citizens, a Mr John Robinson, is also a prominent Liberal Party member. I know that many of his colleagues this far south are very embarrassed by this document. Earlier Senator Peter Baume read out the Liberal Party's policy in this respect. He talked about the most disadvantaged group in Australia. He said that all Liberals accepted the policy of the Liberal Party. Yet here is this absolute racist document which essentially came from the Liberal Party. I will read some of the the headlines on the petition: Land rights have become land wrongs Ayers Rock belongs to all Australians-- I have heard that phrase somewhere before in debates on this subject-- Land rights have gone too far We are one nation, one people. It's time to stand up and be counted, to say ``Enough is enough''. That petition is a fraud because it has been circulated ostensibly by a group of concerned citizens. Mr Robinson's photograph has been conveniently placed on the petition. It has the Ayers Rock campaign and a post office box number. It would not surprise me if, next time there is a Federal election in the area of Herbert, Mr Robinson, aided and abetted by Paul Everingham, came forward with this sort of policy and this sort of condemnation of the rights of Aboriginal people. Yet Senator Peter Baume said in this place that all Liberals accept the policy of the Liberal Party in regard to their concern for the most disadvantaged Australians. I wonder why we hear continually in this country opposition to land rights when they affect Aborigines. It seems to me that as soon as we mention Aborigines, recognition, land rights and prior ownership there is an outcry from the reactionaries, the Opposition and, regrettably, some members of the community. Obviously those people hold strong views about Austrlaian heritage and land ownership only when the potential owners are Aborigines. Ayers Rock is a small area of the total Australian land mass. It, of course, will remain a national park with access for all Australians. Yet compare this with the fact that nearly three-quarters of Australian land is owned by a mere 160,000 individuals, families and corporations. This land is privately owned and controlled by a mere one per cent of the total Australian population. Does this create a divided continent? Furthermore, there is no outcry against the extent to which Australian resources are controlled by overseas corporations. Foreign land rights are okay, but Aboriginal land rights apparently threaten the stability of an entire nation. It is hard to believe that any intelligent individual could accept such obvious double standards and irrationality. This is a typical Bjelke-Petersen double standard in opposing Aboriginal land rights while selling off as much of Queensland as he can to foreign interests. It must continue to be exposed as a total sham. In Queensland, for instance, I know that parts of our most attractive and unique areas are being sold off for as little as $5 a hectare. At a place called Mount Molloy a certain gentleman, who must have had a certain friendly arrangement with the Premier, was able to buy land for as little as $1 a hectare. I am completely disgusted with the type of campaign that has been carried out not just by the Liberal Party. I wonder whether it is being pushed by the National Party of Australia. I have an article from the Sunday Territorian dated 11 August 1985. It is about a Mr Ian Sinclair, the National Party Leader, and is entitled `I'll amend land rights promises Sinclair...'. The article states: National Party leader, Mr Ian Sinclair, said that he was `ashamed to be a part of the Fraser-Anthony team that brought land rights in 1976'. Mr Sinclair goes on to state that as far as he is concerned the era of land rights under a National and Liberal Party government is over. There is obviously no future for Aboriginal people's recognition under a National Party-Liberal Party regime. Now I would like to deal with the fundamentals of this legislation and just run through some facts. There has been precious little in the way of facts in the debate in the House. I presume that in the chamber today we will hear a lot more emotion about our Ayers Rock being spirited away than genuine recognition of the facts as I would like to spell them out now. There is evidence of Aboriginal presence in the area as far back as 10,000 year ago-that is, prehistory. European sightings indicating Aboriginal presence in the area were recorded first by explorers in the 1870s and also by pastoralists in the 1880s. The Petermann Aboriginal reserve was established in 1920 for the protection of Aboriginals inhabiting the area in the general vicinity of Ayers Rock. In 1958 the land now forming the Uluru National Park was excised from the Petermann reserve. Had that land not been excised from the reserve it would have been included in Schedule 1 of the Act, as was the case with other reserves, and granted with the remainder of the land in that reserve in 1978. The land claim for Uluru-Ayers Rock and the Lake Amadeus Luritja area was lodged in 1979. Before the claim was heard the then Aboriginal Land Commissioner, Mr Justice Toohey, found that as the park was alienated crown land it was not available for claim. During the hearing, however, it was estblished that in relation to two Aboriginal estates in the claim area the most significant sites were located in the park. Those estates were Uluru and Katatjuta. In Mr Justice Toohey's words: So many witnesses, not merely those belonging to the Ayers Rock estate or to Katatjutanya, spoke about the great significance of both places . . . The attachment of all Aboriginal witnesses to both places was obvious. Using the rigorous tests to determine traditional ownership contained in the land rights Act, Mr Justice Toohey found 104 traditional owners for the Uluru estate and 57 for the Katatjuta estate in the claim area that extends into the park. Those traditional owners are listed in the Commissioner's report on the Uluru land claim and are a matter of public record. I would now like to go through some of the conditions and agreements that have already been announced by the Minister in the other place. I refer to the Uluru Board. The agreement reached with the Aboriginals for Uluru National Park provides for the establishment of an Uluru Board of 11 members consisting of six Aboriginals nominated by the traditional owners plus the Director of National Parks and Wildlife, one other Commonwealth official nominated by the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, one representative of the tourist industry nominated by the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and two representatives of the Northern Territory. The legislation provides that a majority of members of the Board shall be Aboriginals nominated by the traditional Aboriginal owners and that the Aboriginal representatives should be in a majority at all meetings. The functions of the Board as they relate to Uluru are to prepare, in conjunction with the Director of National Parks and Wildlife, plans of management for the park; to make decisions consistent with the plan of management; to monitor, in conjunction with the Director, the management of the park; and to give advice, in conjunction with the Director, on all aspects of the future development of the park. It will be obvious to honourable senators that this legislation establishes co-operative management arrangements in which the Director of National Parks and Wildlife and the traditional Aboriginal owners will work in partnership, with the advice of tourist industry and Northern Territory representatives on the board, towards the effective management of Ulura National Park. There will be a plan of management and procedures for development. Under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act as it now stands the Director of National Parks and Wildlife publicly notifies intent to prepare a plan of management and invites interested persons to make representations; prepares the plan of management, having regard to various objects listed in the Act; publicly notifies that the plan has been prepared and invites interested persons to make representations in connection with the plan; considers the representations and, if he thinks fit, alters the plan accordingly; and submits to the Minister plan, any representations recieved and his comments on those representations. The Minister then accepts the plan or refers it back to the Director together with his suggestions for further consideration. When the Minister accepts the plan the Minister causes it to be laid before both Houses of Parliament. Either House of Parliament may pass a resolution disallowing the plan of management, in which case the Minister instructs the Director to prepare a fresh plan. The amendments contained in the Bill provide that those steps just described will continue to apply. However, when a board has been established the plan of management will be prepared by the board in conjunction with the director, instead of by the Director. The amendments provide, in the event of a dispute between the Director and the Board during either the preparation or the implementation of the plan of management, for the disagreement to be referred to the Minister for resolution. If the Minister is unable to resolve the disagreement the Minister is required to appoint an arbitrator suitably qualified to deal with the matter impartially and to report to the Minister. The Minister will determine the matter taking into account the arbitrator's findings. The legislation also provides for the Board to make decisions on the management of the park and again provides that the Minister shall have the final say in the event of disagreement between the Director and the Board. I now refer to the review of the plan and rental. Plans of management will have a maximum term of 10 years. When the board is appointed it will be expected to begin immediately, in conjunction with the Director of National Parks and Wildlife, to draw up a new plan of management for the park. The life of the plan will be addressed during its preparation. The rental will be reviewed whenever the plan of management is rewritten but, in any event, not less frequently than every five years. The Bill provides for the Minister responsible for the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act to appoint an arbitrator to advise on the resolution of any disagreement between the Director and the board during preparation or implementation of the plan of management. The arbitrator will inquire into the matter and submit a report, together with recommendations, to the Minister. The Minister will then determine the matter, taking account of the arbitrator's findings. The arbitrator is to be a person whom the Minister considers to be suitably qualified and in a position to deal with the matter impartially. The rental is not considered excessive. It will be $75,000 per annum plus 20 per cent of park entrance fees. This is expected to amount to $100,000 per annum, given the present volume of tourist traffic entering the park. The rental, together with opportunities for employment created by the park and associated tourist facilities, is intended to add to the economic base of the Aboriginal community, further enhancing Aboriginal self-determination. I now refer to the provision of the lease document to Parliament. The memorandum of lease between the Director of National Parks and Wildlife and the Aboriginal land trust which will hold the title for Uluru is still to be finalised with the traditional Aboriginal owners. It will be based on the agreement reached between the Government and Aboriginals. The Government has made public the terms of the agreement, which were summarised in the second reading speech in the House of Representatives. The agreement provides for a 99-year lease; an annual rental of $75,000, et cetera, as I spelt out earlier; an Uluru board comprising six Aboriginals nominated by traditional owners, the Director of National Parks and Wildlife, one Commonwealth official, et cetera; and that the board is to draw up a plan of management for Uluru National Park in conjunction with the Director of National Parks and Wildlife. The ban on photography in the park is an issue which is continually raised in a most distorted fashion. There is no general ban on photography. To protect the rights to privacy of the Aboriginal people, photography of living areas and sacred sites is not permitted. Guidelines have been established for commercial filming, following a number of incidents in which film crews have been insensitive. Applications for permits to film are assessed against these guidelines, which have been agreed to between the traditional Aboriginal owners, the Director of National Parks and Wildlife, Northern Territory Government agencies and other interested bodies. Most photography in the park proceeds smoothly. In conclusion, I would like to think that this debate can continue today on a little more rational basis. I would like to hear members of the Opposition acknowledge the complete about-turn and contradictions that have occurred, particularly from Mr Paul Everingham. I would also like them to consider the double standards that are practised when it comes to national parks, particularly by the Queensland National Party, such as the wholesale availability of Hamilton Island on the Great Barrier Reef. I do not remember the people of Queensland rising up in horror when Hamilton Island was allowed to be developed as a tourist resort by a well-known entrepreneur at very favourable original rates. He had a very good deal from the Queensland Government, the sort of deal that Aboriginal people do not get. If Keith Williams from Hamilton Island on our Great Barrier Reef can get that sort of deal and there is no criticism-rather it is said that it works in harmony-why cannot the same sort of standards apply to Aboriginals and Ayers Rock? Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(11.54) —The two Bills which are before us-the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill and the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill-proceed in the form in which they do as a result of the total confusion in which this Government finds itself over the issue of Aboriginal land rights policy in Australia. They proceed from a determination on the part of the Government to try, by a series of merely symbolic actions, to overcome the facts, which are known both in the Aboriginal community and in the rest of the Australian community, that its successive spokesman and Ministers for Aboriginal Affairs have been failures, that its policy is discredited and, indeed, that it has proceeded to betray, to lie to, to mislead and to deceive Aboriginal people in Australia. Senator Ryan —We have had only one Minister. Senator PUPLICK —The Minister for Education, sitting in this chamber, is part and parcel of that process-the deception and deceit in the promises made to Aboriginal people and the way in which they have been dishonoured. An attempt is now made by some sort of symbolic gesture to restore the Government's credibility with sections of the Australian electorate whom it misled in the past. Senator Tate —Mr Acting Deputy President, I take a point of order. Because of the complexity of the sentence it has taken me a moment to work out whether to take a point of order. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator MacGibbon) —What is your point of order? Senator Tate —I believe that Senator Puplick is guilty of accusing Senator Ryan of being part of a process which he described earlier in the sentence as including lying. It is unparliamentary to use that language in relation to a member of the Senate. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I did not hear that allegation made. I rule that there is no point of order. Senator PUPLICK —I am quite happy to allow the facts to speak for themselves. The Bills proceed on the basis of changing the way in which Aboriginal land rights decisions have been made in the past. The way in which those decisions have been made in the past has largely commanded bipartisan support and the support of the Australian community in general. That process has been to have a hearing before the Aboriginal Land Commissioner as provided for under the legislation, for a determination by that independent judicial officer, for a report to go to the Minister and for the Minister to make a decision based upon that expert and other advice. In this case we have a series of circumstances in which certain reports have been provided, including one by Mr Justice Toohey, dealing with claims to Uluru. The Commissioner specifically excluded from his considerations the areas which are now brought back into the Parliament by separate legislation, to be handed to the people who are alleged to be the traditional owners. There are certain reasons for having bypassed the established, proven and accepted way in which this matter has been dealt with in the past. Senator Reynolds made accusations that there are contradictions in our approach to this matter. The greatest of all contradictions however is the one from which this legislation proceeds, namely, that after a hearing before the Land Commissioner and a determination by the Land Commissioner in regard to Uluru all of the established practices of dealing with land rights claims are now to be set to one side and a specific, separate, different, one-off arrangement made for purely symbolic purposes. This derives, as I said, from the cave-in on the five `immutable' principles enunciated by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Holding, most of which have now been put to one side, and from the continued criticism within the Australian Labor Party from the Premier of Western Australia and others about the way in which this matter and land rights legislation as a whole have been proceeded with. It is no wonder, therefore, that in the fourth annual report of the Central Land Council, for 1983-84, the Council, commenting on the way in which this Government's land rights legislation was being managed, said: The Council is very dissatisfied with the lack of progress in the processing of land claims in its area during 1983-84. The Central Land Council itself is highly critical of the failure of the Government to process the legislation and the claims made under that legislation. There is no doubt that the term `Aboriginal land rights' has led not only to a great deal of emotion but also to a great deal of misunderstanding, particularly when applied in individual cases. I well recall the problems encountered in the 1969-70 period, when I was on the staff of the first Commonwealth Minister in charge of aboriginal affairs, the Hon. Bill Wentworth, in attempting to define what was meant by the word `Aboriginal', how extensive that term was and how it should be defined. If anything has given credence to the proposition that this is becoming an increasingly difficult matter to determine it is the way in which we have proceeded with this piece of legislation. The Minister, in his second reading speech, stated that the legislation is to: . . . enable implementation of the Government's decision to grant the land in the Uluru . . . National Park to an Aboriginal land trust and implementation of the agreement with the Aboriginal traditional owners . . . If one thing can be established it is that the Mutitjulu community is not necessarily the same as the Aboriginal traditional owners. When this matter came before the Land Rights Commissioner three particular groups were recognised as being the traditional owners of the area in question and they were members of the Pitjantjatjara, the Jankuntjatjara and the Matuntara clans or linguistic groups. Those three groups were identified by the Aboriginal Land Rights Commissioner and in his report on the Uluru claim honourable senators will see a list of some 160 named persons. A degree of confusion arises in this area. For instance, it is known that the Jankuntjatjara people have been in the area, certainly in an identifiable form, as far back as 1896. But the Pitjantjatjara people, who were recognised as being part of the claimant process, have been in that part of Central Australia probably for less than a generation. Therefore the question of how this extraordinary body-the Mutitjulu organisation-can be said to represent the traditional owners when it does not comprise exclusively representatives of the groups previously identified as being potentially the recognised traditional Aboriginal owners of the area, I think, creates an extraordinary and unsound precedent in the handling of land rights claims. I will come back to that matter later. The second point I make is that in this legislation we have moved a long way from the determination about land and its significance which was laid so clearly by His Honour Mr Justice Blackburn when he pronounced his judgment in the case of Milirrpum and others v. Nabalco Pty Ltd and the Commonwealth of Australia which was really the legal test case from which Aboriginal land rights legislation has since proceeded. His Honour, in his judgment, in part stated: As I understand it, the fundamental truth about the aboriginals' relationship to the land is that whatever else it is, it is a religious relationship. That is of enormous significance when one considers the precise details about Ayers Rock, Uluru in general and the Aboriginal communities for whom this legislation is alleged to have been drawn. Professor Strehlow, a noted and distinguished expert in this area, writing in the Inland Review in 1969 about this particular part of Australia and Ayers Rock itself in particular, stated: It cannot be stressed too much or repeated too often that the religious importance of a major totemic site in Central Australia was not determined by any spectacular aspects of the landscape . . . that is important-- but purely by the sacred myths, songs and acts that had been attached to it-- that is to the rock-- by an age-old tradition. What we are confusing here is our European concept of the ownership of the Rock to be vested in the way in which it is in this legislation, with what genuinely constitutes the spiritual and religious significance of the whole area to certain Aboriginal people who, as I have said, I do not believe to be exactly equivalent with the so-called Mutitjulu organisation. I think it is also unfortunate-I make a personal comment in terms of what Senator Reynolds said-for everybody to be, as it were, intellectually threatened by declarations made in 1975 or at any other time about the obligations we have to provide some sort of restorative justice to the Aboriginal people of Australia. My ancestors, undoubtedly, were grossly guilty of oppressing the native people of British colonial India. However, I do not accept any degree of personal responsibility, guilt or the need to make acts or restorative justice for events that took place in this continent in the course of the last 200 years. I think it is absolutely wrong to try to base legislation upon that sort of principle rather than to try to establish that legislation has a specific beneficial effect for doing something to improve the conditions of people today who are entitled to have their conditions improved and to determine the best method of going about that. We have been told by Senator Reynolds and others that whatever we do we must not make comments such as: `Ayers Rock belongs to all Australians'. Somehow that comment is regarded as a form of covert racism, or somehow it is regarded as an untrue statement, whereas I would aver that that is a perfectly true statement and one which is important because certain propositions flow from the very concept of Aboriginal ownership of a particular site or area. Mr Justice Woodwood, at paragraph 109 of the Second Report of the Aboriginal Land Rights Commission in April 1974, stated: One of the most important proofs of genuine Aboriginal ownership of land will be the right to exclude from it those who are not welcome. This means one of two things: Either there is recognition of the right to exclude people from a particular area within the designated region to which this legislation applies; or there is not a right and that the fundamental premise of Aboriginal ownership is being set at nought by this Government because this is simply a cosmetic trick. It is one or the other of those and the Government, of course, gives us absolutely no indication as to which it believes. In 1958 only some 2,300 people visited the park area. By 1988 it is expected that that figure will reach a quarter of a million. Whatever Senator Reynolds may have to say about photography, her proposition is simply not acceptable. It is not an acceptable proposition to me that people should be prevented from taking photographs in a national park if they want to. I do not care what sort of regime is being established. If an area is a national park every Australian has the right to do something such as taking photographs in it. It is certainly not the right of any other Australian to try to prevent one of his fellow Australian citizens from doing precisely that. It is not just photography; in the management of a national park and at the insistence of the people about whom we are talking today, a life saving alarm system which was to be installed at the top of the Rock has been prohibited. Since when have national parks worked on the basis that the safety of people wishing to enter the national parks should be jeopardised under those sort of arrangements? The management of the park has been subject to a number of inquiries and reports. It is interesting to look at the Fourth Report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation of March 1977 and to see what the alleged claims were in 1977. In part, the report says: Aboriginals have not made any request for the exclusive use of Ayers Rock for ceremonial purposes. The report went on to indicate that the House of Representatives at that time believed that it was important that sacred sites should be given some form of protection, but not that the national park administration should be altered or prejudiced by being placed under an entirely different regime. If one looks at the series of reports one sees, for example, that in the Plan of Management which was published in 1982 exactly the same point is made. It is interesting to note that, since the 1977 report which drew attention to the fact that certain claims had not been made, on 1 December 1978 the Central Land Council lodged the claim entitled Lake Amadeus/Luritja Land Claim, to which I will return, and in February 1979 the claim was amended to include the area of the national park. Accordingly the claim title was amended to Uluru (Ayers Rock) National Park and Lake Amadeus/Luritja Land Claim. Included in the comments in Professor Ovington's report entitled `Comments on the representations concerning Uluru (Ayers Rock-Mount Olga) National Park plan of management' are recommendations by the Australian Conservation Foundation. It does not call for any change in the status or ownership of the park. The Foundation has been anxious to have the national park continue to be administered and owned in the way that it has been. Had Dr Mosley seen some advantage in changing the status of the park I am sure that he would not have been backward in letting Professor Ovington know. The National Parks and Wildlife Service commented that it was conscious of the importance of the park to Aboriginal people but it did not believe that its status should be altered as a result. In the whole of Mr Justice Toohey's report entitled `Seven Years On', a report on the Land Rights Northern Territory Act 1976 and related matters, he did not see that there was any necessity to qualify or go back on or recommend that the Parliament should reconsider the comments that he had made as the Aboriginal Land Rights Commissioner in presenting to the Parliament the Uluru (Ayers Rock) National Park and Lake Amadeus/Luritja Land Claim in August 1979. He indicated in that report, as Senator Peter Baume has rightly said, that the area we are now discussing was not available for a land claim. He indicated clearly that this was the case and when he had the chance to review that proposition in his report entitled `Seven Years On', he did not bother to comment that the Parliament should intervene or alter that regime. Senator Peter Baume —They have been to the Land Commission and they have lost on this one. Senator PUPLICK —The claim has been made exactly as Senator Baume says. It has been tested in the proper manner and rejected and now the Government comes forth to overturn the rejection of the claim by the Land Rights Commissioner for no good and valid reason, but simply as a public relations exercise to try to get itself off the hook on which Mr Holding has found himself on the question of Aboriginal land rights, promising a great deal, unable to deliver anything and, indeed, being opposed and threatened with High Court action by a Premier of his own political persuasion. That is what is occcurring with this legislation. In the Committee stage we will have a chance to discuss the amendments to the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Bill, particularly as it relates to the definition of `the region' and to the underhand way in which it is proposed to take from public scrutiny changes to park and reserves within the defined-for the purpose of this Bill I should say redefined-region. We will come back to the fact that buried in a schedule to the Bill is an amendment proposal to subsection 7 (11A) which will have major consequences for the way parks in the Northern Territory are managed and the extent to which the Government can make changes or variations to park arrangements without the process of proper public consultation. It is interesting that throughout both these pieces of legislation is a determination on the part of the Government to take rights away from a large number of non-Aboriginal Australians, to take away their rights to public participation in the changes in the management arrangements of parks in the Northern Territory under the Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill, to take away rights in terms of the Aboriginal Land Rights Northern Territory Amendment Bill which have been held, exercised, valued and appreciated by hundreds of thousands of Australians to whom access to Ayers Rock is no less important to their sense of Australian identity and culture than it is to the people who are being vested with additional rights in this matter. It is of some significance to see this legislation not simply as a continuation of a process established largely with bipartisan support about Aboriginal land rights, but as a variation, a taking out of the usual mainstream way in which these matters have been dealt with, as the provision of exceptional circumstances, the oveturning of the Land Rights Commissioner's original judgment and the establishment of a regime that is, I believe, unacceptable to the overwhelming majority of Australian citizens to whom, I repeat, Ayers Rock also has a significance in the establishment of cultural identity which ought to be equally respected and equally protected. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(12.18) —Before the debate on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill and the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill started I was curious to know what argument members of the Opposition would raise. They have raised what might be seen in one sense to be an ingenious argument but nevertheless trivial in as much as it plays on the notion of the claim that was made regarding Uluru and Lake Amadeus. I will read from the report by the Aboriginal Land Commissioner to set at rest people's minds. The judge states on page 3: I held that the area of the National Park was not unalienated Crown land and so was not available to be claimed within the Act. This was the simple basis on which it was excluded. That was not even considered because at the very beginning claims were made that it was not part and could not be part of the hearing. There was no hearing on Uluru and Katatjuta at all. It was excluded totally, so the previous two speakers for the Opposition have perpetrated what is, in a sense, an utter fraud by claiming that there was a hearing about this. It may also be interesting to note, if honourable senators wish to do so, that the same report, unlike what Senator Puplick thought, also stated that the land is not held by the Crown. Section 7 (7) of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act quite specifically says that the Crown is vested of its right, title and interest. The people of Australia have not held that interest since 1978. There was also a bit of an operation in history in Senator Peter Baume's speech. Because he was the Minister at the time, he would have known that it was made a park in 1958 by the Northern Territory Government. He failed to mention that and, of course, it is quite relevant in regard to what occurred in the intervening period. The reason it is relevant is that the people themselves were excluded from that property, as becomes very evident if people read the evidence given before the Committee. They will see that if they read through the transcripts of the evidence that was given at the actual hearings. We also had trotted out by Senator Puplick something which I presume he pinched from a book recently launched by the Premier of Queensland about the Pitjantjatjara people. Quite frankly, if one reads the report again, it makes very clear that the Pitjantjatjara people had one of the strongest ceremonial attachments to that area. I refer to paragraph 120 of the report which states that with regard to the exclusion of Uluru and Katatjuta there was an unreality in dealing with the claim area divorced from the national park; that is, the two sites which had been excluded were really the focal point of that entire area, the focal point of the area of the people's concern. Senator Puplick spoke about confusion and, indeed, I think there is an enormous amount of confusion in this area. However, most of the confusion seems to be his and the people he supports. The simple matter is that the Mutitjulu community, which is named after a waterhole quite near Uluru itself, is called Mutitjulu for the very good reason that it could not be called the Uluru community because Paddy Uluru had died some time previously and it is a tradition of the people in the area not to use the name of someone who has died, particularly an elder of the standing of Paddy Uluru who, of course, was one of the custodians of the rock. Hence Mutitjulu was the name that was used. I also raise the fact that what we are talking about is trusteeship, not ownership. The people at the Mutitjulu settlement are indeed Pitjantjatjara and Yunkantjatjara people. Those two peoples see themselves as basically the owners and that the people now currently at the rock have been delegated by their own communities to be the custodians of the rock-not the owners, the custodians of the rock. Indeed, in ownership terms, it is more correct to say that the rock owns them than that they own the rock. It is part of their religious heritage. What seems to be unable to be understood time and time again in these debates, probably because most people here stem from a Christian tradition in which religious beliefs are attached to a person, is that the religious beliefs of the Aboriginal people very largely are circumscribed by lands and areas. I would not have thought it was too difficult for people to work through that singular difference and to try to understand and empathise with that different religious tradition. When I knew this debate was coming on I took the trouble to go out and sit down with the people at the rock, to talk to them and to listen why they wished what the Government is now doing to occur. That seems to me reasonable and fair. I suggest that if other senators who are taking part in the debate had done so, they could not stand up in this place and say that there is no good reason for this legislation. The reason is very clear when one sits and listens to the people. The dominant reason is-and while it may not go down well with a lot of honourable senators, it is the reason why the people want it to occur-that the lore is growing weak, that the ownership, the control and the custodianship of the rock have for so long been alienated from the rightful people that the lore, as they say in their own words, is growing weak. It may be that that does not mean much to many honourable senators but I suggest if people took a more sympathetic view of a different religious tradition, it would mean a great deal that the lore grows weak there. It is not an insignificant reason why this is occurring. It means a great deal to those people; it means an enormous amount to those people. I suggest that if previous speakers had listened to the people, as I did, and watched tears roll down their faces when they talked about how weak the lore was in fact becoming because of their alienation from the rock, these speakers would not have taken the types of attitudes they took in the debate today. What the Government has done is nothing more than what previous governments suggested. The history of this matter is reasonably complicated. I wish to quote from a Press release issued on 2 June 1982 by Ian Wilson, who was Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in the Fraser Government, which said: The proposal will also provide for the recognition of prior ownership by Aboriginals of the Uluru (Ayers Rock/Mount Olga) National Park by way of a grant of title to Aboriginal trustees and for that area to be declared and managed a national park . . . That is precisely what the two Bills before us today do; precisely to the word. Somehow between 1982 and 1985 all sorts of other spurious reasons have been trotted out as to why in fact a decision made by the Fraser Government should not be implemented. It is a pity that some people do not read back through Press releases that have been issued. If members of the Opposition are interested I could read another Press release by Senator Chaney, when he was Minister, which is virtually to the same effect. Mr Everingham has spoken in the other place with regard to this matter and Senator Reynolds has already referred to the speech that he made to the National Press Club on 28 July 1982 when he was putting down what he believed was the settled situation for his Government. He said: The Territory Government will give title to Uluru National Park, including Ayers Rock and Mount Olga and make an arrangement whereby it will continue as a National Park administered jointly by the Northern Territory Conservation Commission and traditional owners. Of course what is now occurring is that the Northern Territory Government is not involved, it is the National Parks and Wildlife Service. But the self same proposition appears there as appears in the two pieces of legislation before us today. I think we need to be aware of the ideas that are lurking in the minds of the two honourable senators who spoke for the Opposition when they raised what they consider are doubts and concerns that are expressed outside this chamber. They know as well as anybody else in this chamber that under the National Parks and Wildlife Act, regulation of those parks is at the discretion of the Director. By regulation the Director is able to make regulations with regard to the entrance into those parks, the use to which the parks are put, what one may do in those parks and how one may act within those parks. We believe that that is reasonable. This chamber believes that it is reasonable. After all, the last amendments to the Act were made by the Fraser Government; so presumably members of the Opposition here also believe that that is reasonable. Why is it not reasonable when the Uluru Board happens to include Aboriginals? Why is it then that all sorts of ideas are raised that certain things are going to be taken away? I was recently in a national park in which there was a commercial venture and I was not allowed to take photographs. I did not hear honourable senators scream and yell about that. The reason I was not allowed to take photographs was that I had to buy slides so that whoever had the commercial operation in that place could make money out of it. In fact, the Aboriginals in that area do not want photographs taken, not for money reasons but because surrounding the rock are rather important sacred sites that may not be photographed. There are already concerns, for example, that people who climb the rock may be able to overview a site sacred to Aboriginal women in the area. That site has been used by women and has been very important to them. Because I knew these sacred areas were around us, in my discussions with the Aboriginal people I asked them what their intentions were. Their intentions were, they said, to allow tourism to continue and to develop. They said that they had plans which they hoped to put in place for the development of tourism in that area. They believed that the plans that they had in mind would make the site far more attractive for people from outside Australia than it had ever been in the past. In listening to them I gained the very clear impression that they were keen, interested and willing to get going on that task. Why is it that we in this place cannot see ourselves granting the same trust to those Aboriginal people as seemingly we are able to place in white directors of the national parks? I find it very odd and very disturbing that that is not yet possible in Australia. The Aboriginal people believe that by the restoration of their custodianship of Uluru people outside this country will once more come to see the rock as it is-as part of the undying heritage of this country. It is not a matter of removing the rock as a tourist attraction; it is a matter of restoring it to its rightful position. Of course, that ultimately leads us to the fundamental notion of land rights and the granting of land rights. My party and I believe that that notion is one of justice and not charity. It is a recognition of just claims and not the granting of handouts. We believe it is based on the self same moral imperative as underpins the rest of our community. We believe that the moral basis of ownership of any area, no matter where it is, rests on the argument of first occupancy or prior ownership. Every honourable senator who owns property in Australia gains it by rightful transfer of title. For honourable senators who are interested, that happens to be a moral imperative of the Christian religion to which most people in this place subscribe. The moral basis for ownership recognised by every establishment church is prior ownership, first occupancy or rightful inheritance. It is not a matter of taking the blame for what happened in the last 200 years as Senator Puplick suggested. It has nothing to do with that at all. It is a matter of what in 1985 we do in regard to the future. What we do in regard to the future must rest upon the justice of the current situation. If any of us take title to a car, land or any other goods to which the person selling does not have rightful title we are in receipt of stolen property. That is the normal law of this land. The amount of time involved makes no difference. I have tried to explain that aspect in parts of my own State which are not all that receptive to some of these arguments with a useful analogy. For example, if during the last war this country had been occupied by invading Japanese forces that were still in possession today I am quite sure that my father, the fathers of other senators and, indeed, some honourable senators present who were themselves adults at the time, would still say to their children: `This is your land; it is not theirs. They have occupied it by force, but nevertheless this is your land. Believe that always'. If those children departed from that view we would believe them to be reneging on something which we held to be pretty near and dear to us. I am quite sure that had such forces occupied the country since 1945 this would make no difference to us as to who rightfully owned the land. We would not have it as rightfully owned by invaders but by the people who had lived here before. I have met Aboriginal people who have had parents shot. I have met Aboriginal people who have had uncles shot. I have met Aboriginal people who themselves have been forcibly taken from their parents and put in indentured labour. We are not talking about something of the past. We are talking about 1985. At some stage we have to address the problem of the formation of the Commonwealth of Australia. It has to be addressed in a just way. I believe there are only two ways in which that may be done. Firstly, where lands are available and able to be restored, they must be restored. Secondly, where lands are not available to be restored, compensation must be paid. Without addressing the problem in those two ways I believe the issue will not go away. All the waving of arms and all the bright speeches made by people in places such as this will not kill the flame of undying attachment of Aboriginal people to their land. Why is it that in a debate such as this we are talking about depriving somebody of something, rather than talking about the restoration of that very sacred place to its custodians? Having spoken to the people who will be on the Board, I am very confident that in fact they will develop that area in terms of tourism in a way that will surprise many of us. I think it will become much more of a national monument than it has been in the past. It will be something in which all of us can take pride because it will indeed be a very clear symbol of what we should be doing in other parts of this country. However, unfortunately, the Government in its preferred land rights model has seen fit to cast those matters aside. As some speakers have already said, Ayers Rock will remain as a symbol. It will remain as a symbol until the issue is finally settled in justice and reconciliation between the two groups of people who have an interest in this country. Ultimately, it cannot be done in any other way. I believe that this is an excellent, fundamental and very important reason why these Bills should be passed. They at least take a very great symbolic step in the right direction. Not only is this a step of vital importance to the Aboriginal people themselves. It will be symbolic to the entire Australian community that we have started down a road which for this nation is historic-a road which ultimately will lead to a just settlement of the entire land rights issue. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(12.40) —I wish first to refer to the Opposition's amendment to the second reading motion. One difficulty that faces Opposition members is that their arguments do not support their amendment. The amendment seeks to: Leave out all words after `That', insert: `the Bills be withdrawn and redrafted to provide for- (a) ownership of the Uluru National Park to be vested in the Northern Territory, subject to: (i) an agreement ensuring effective Aboriginal involvement in management of the Park, and (ii) adequate and appropriate portions of the Park being vested by freehold title in Aboriginals for the purposes of living areas; (b) a right of entry to all persons subject to protection of sacred sites and the Park; and (c) the Agreement to be entered into between the Director of National Parks and Wildlife and the Land Council not to come into effect until approved by the Parliament.'. I believe that Opposition speakers will find difficulties in supporting those provisions. Let me take the first proposition that ownership of the Uluru National Park be vested in the Northern Territory. Both Senator Peter Baume and Senator Puplick have said again and again that Ayers Rock, Uluru, the Olgas and Katatjuta are national monuments owned by all Australians. Yet the Opposition's first proposition would put ownership of the rock in the hands of 130,000 people in the Northern Territory. In other words, Opposition members argue strongly that this should be a national area, but then propose that it should be given to a State-in fact, to an area that is not yet a State. Why, on the basis of the Opposition's argument, should the Northern Territory get the rock? If it is to be confined to the Northern Territory, why not confine it to the Aboriginal community? Opposition spokesmen then say that the reason the Aboriginal community should play no part in this operation is that the Aboriginal community has no right to the rock. There have been investigations into this area and it is said that the sorts of Aborigines who are there now are not the sorts of Aborigines who were there before. Indeed, it is said that they have been there for only a generation and have no entitlement to this area. If that is so, why does the Opposition then propose an agreement ensuring effective Aboriginal involvement in the management of the park? Why include that provision? On that argument, why should the Aborigines have any right at all to manage this park if they have no right to the rock? If, on the other hand, they have some rights to the rock, what is wrong with the legislation that is now before the House-legislation introduced by the Government and supported by the Australian Democrats? Bearing in mind that the Opposition's view is that no Aborigines have any right to the rock or to the surrounding area, which is the proposition put forward by Senator Peter Baume and Senator Puplick, the Opposition's amendment continues: subject to . . . (ii) adequate and appropriate portions of the Park being vested by freehold title in Aboriginals for the purposes of living areas. Why should the Aborigines get freehold title to live in the area if they have no right to this rock, and if, according to the Opposition argument, the rock has no significance? Freehold title to the rock would be a stronger title than that proposed by the present legislation. Why give the Aborigines freehold title if they are not entitled to the rock at all? The Opposition's amendment also proposed a right of entry to all persons subject to protection of sacred sites. Why should the sacred sites have any significance if there is nobody around to give then significance? If there are people around, as the amendment seems to propose, to give the sites sacred significance, what is wrong with the present legislation which is proposed by the Government and supported by the Australian Democrats? What is wrong with this legislation if there are sacred sites to be protected and if there are Aborigines with an attachment to the land, as this amendment suggests? The Opposition cannot have it both ways. Opposition members cannot say in this debate that the Aborigines have no attachment to this land and yet propose to this Parliament that legislation be enacted to give protection to people whom they allege, in the next breath, have no right to this land. Paragraph (c) of the Opposition amendment suggests: the Agreement to be entered into between the Director of National Parks and Wildlife and the Land Council not to come into effect until approved by the Parliament. The fact is that Parliament always has rights; it has the ability and power to legislate over areas in which it has jurisdiction. No matter what has been enacted in previous years, of course Parliament later can intervene. Therefore, I do not see the point of the Opposition putting forward that proposal in its amendment. Perhaps later in the debate Opposition speakers will enlighten us on that topic. The Opposition has got itself into difficulty in this matter. The Opposition seems to suggest that there is a religious significance for Aborigines in this area, yet for some reason it does not want to go ahead to allow the Aborigines to possess that land right. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer and relates to the Treasurer's Budget Speech reference to the fact that the price effects of devaluation `should be taken into account at the next two national wage cases'. I note the reported view of the Minister for Finance-in a pre-Budget report-that the full 3.8 per cent wage rise should be granted but postponed. I ask: Do the words `the effects of depreciation will be taken into account', which were used in the Budget Speech, mean that the Government will argue for discounting of the full effects of devaluation or that the Government intends to argue for partial discounting only? Senator WALSH —Firstly, I want to correct Senator Chaney on a point of fact. It is correct that I was reported as saying that the full 3.8 per cent should be passed on, but it is not correct that I said it. I put out a statement a day or two later pointing that out. When one is misreported it is always very difficult to make a judgment about whether to correct the error because there is no guarantee that the correction will be accurately reported either, particularly given the calibre of some of the newspapers that we have to put up with in this country. In fact, what I canvassed as a possibility at that time is now Government policy; that is, that the devaluation-induced component of the consumer price index increase should be deferred from the September wage case and the March case. Senator CHANEY —I have a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for that answer but I ask him whether he is in a position to advise the Senate of the period of deferral that would be advocated by the Government. Senator WALSH —When I say `deferred' I mean that the matter will be deferred until such time as there is a capacity to absorb it, which could be within 12 months, I suppose, because of productivity gains. Senator TATE —I precede my question, which is directed to the Minister representing theAttorney-General, by saying that I believe that the Attorney-General dealt admirably with the purported disclosures of jury deliberations in recent times. In relation to jury trials of Federal offences, will the Government consider introducing legislation to ensure that the deliberations of jurors are sacrosanct? In particular, can such legislation make it clear that it is a contempt of court to obtain, disclose or solicit particulars of the deliberations or votes cast by jurors? Does the Minister agree that jurors may be reluctant to undertake this onerous civic duty if they suspect that their every word and mood in the jury room is going to be subjected to publicity? Senator GARETH EVANS —The honourable senator will be aware that the Law Reform Commission is presently considering the whole question of legislation in relation to the law of contempt. That consideration will include the question of the application of the law of contempt to protect the secrecy of deliberations of jurors. That reference was given to the Law Reform Commission by me when Attorney-General and the Government will be considering the report of the Commission as soon as it is available. I understand that it will not be available for some time yet. A very large number of issues, apart from this one, have to be considered, and the process is really only at the issuing of discussion paper stage. While no immediate legislation is proposed, I should refer Senator Tate and others to what was said by the Attorney-General, Mr Lionel Bowen, in relation to the disclosure of the jury deliberations in the Murphy trial in a statement that he made on 5 August. The Attorney-General said that in the exercise of his discretion he did not propose to institute proceedings for contempt against John Laws, radio station 2GB or the National Times for publishing comments by members of the jury following the verdict in the proceedings involving Mr Justice Murphy. The publications in question, it will be recalled, followed statements, some of which could be fairly construed as an attack on members of the jury for the manner in which they had approached their task. However, the Attorney-General did say-I think this picks up some, if not all, of the concerns expressed by Senator Tate-that he would take a different view if any persons deliberately sought out members of the jury for the purposes of obtaining material for publication in the media in respect of Federal offences. His advice was that this would normally constitute a contempt under the existing law, quite apart from any punitive change to it. He said that he would be acting promptly on that view where the circumstances made that appropriate. Senator DURACK —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Is it a fact that about 750,000 Australian taxpayers will move into higher income tax brackets by the end of the financial year, nearly half a million of whom will move from the 30c in the dollar to the 46c in the dollar marginal rate? How much will this higher taxation by stealth contribute to the 13.3 per cent increase anticipated in pay-as-you-earn tax receipts? What relief can these people expect from a government which has abandoned tax reform and whose only remaining intention is to impose new and higher taxes in selected areas? Senator WALSH —I am not able to say whether the figures cited by Senator Durack are precisely correct. They sound to me, however, as if they would be approximately correct. Because of the movement into higher tax brackets there will be some increase in government revenue. I am not sure just how much of the increase is attributable to that movement. It also should be noted, however, that the full year effects of last year's tax cuts have yet to come through and that the full year effects of those cuts are some $700m or $800m greater than the part year effects in the previous financial year. When Senator Durack is doing his calculations, or his speculations, about the sources of revenue increase, he ought to take into account the fact that there are full year effects of tax reductions as well as fiscal drag through people moving into higher tax brackets-what his former Prime Minister used to call the secret tax of inflation and promised he would abolish for all time and then abolished for one year, after which he backed down on his promise, as he backed down on almost everything else. The major reason for the increase in government revenue is the extremely high growth rate which is anticipated, for the third year in succession, in this Budget. This financial year real non-farm product growth is expected to be 5 per cent. This is the third consecutive year of very high growth. I know that that is something that might be very hard for Senator Durack and other members of the Liberal Party to understand, because they could not achieve two consecutive years, let alone three consecutive years, of high growth in the period that they were in government. This Government has achieved a high growth rate for every year it has been in government. The most painless way to increase government revenue and to provide greater services to the public is to sustain high rates of growth. That is what this Government has done and that is what it intends to continue doing. I suggest that if the Liberal Party ever manages to return to office it ought to pursue the same goal. I wish it luck, if it ever gets back into office, in pursuing that goal but note for the record that it has a dismal record of failure in all the years that it was in government. Senator DURACK —I ask a supplementary question. We have heard interesting rhetoric from the Minister for Finance and again from the Treasurer. I ask the Minister, in view of the fact that he has not been able to answer my specific question regarding calculations of the increased taxation which will be paid by 750,000 Australians, whether he will obtain those figures, have those calculations made, and let us know as soon as possible? Senator WALSH —I will pass that on to the Treasurer. Senator ROBERTSON —I refer the Minister representing the Prime Minister to the important package of initiatives contained in the Budget designed to improve the position of young people in the community. Can the Minister comment on the importance of these initiatives? In particular, what does the Government plan to do about one of the main disincentives-- Opposition senators interjecting- Senator ROBERTSON —I can understand those on the other side being concerned because they did nothing. The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator will ask his question. Senator ROBERTSON —What does the Government plan to do about one of the main disincentives to the employment of young people, namely, payroll tax and workers compensation? Senator BUTTON —Senator Robertson is right as usual in his perceptions about some of these matters. He is an astute politician. He has analysed some of the key elements in the Budget and has drawn attention to them in his question. Of course, that has not been manifest in any questions which have been asked from the Opposition side of the House so far today. Of course, I think one can modestly say that the Government has had some success in bringing down the rate of youth unemployment in Australia. But the problem of opportunities for young people is still significant and is much wider than the simple question of statistics in relation to employment. Since the Government came to office, about 76,000 more jobs have been created for young people. There have been, of course, structural changes in the economy. The difficulties which young people have had with welfare needs, housing and health necessitate positive government action. The Budget contains a series of related measures, perhaps for the first time in the history of Federal government in this country, to deal with some of these problems. First of all, there is the provision of a traineeship system which is targeted to produce 10,000 traineeships this year and 75,000 traineeships when fully implemented in 1988-89. Secondly, from January 1986 a new wage subsidy program will be brought in which will integrate the existing schemes of which there are a number. That will be done at a cost of $142m in that year. There will also be an increased allocation to the Commonwealth Employment Service of $2.9m to enable it to improve the quality of its services to young people. Further, in Senator Ryan's area-if I might stress again, a very importantly related area in terms of trying to grapple with this situation-an extra 20,500 places in higher education will be provided over the 1985-1987 triennium. There will be increased expenditure on tertiary education for that and other purposes. There will be a rationalisation of income support and higher levels of assistance for young people out of work. Additionally, there will be a range of improved support services for young people. Details of the extensive range of these measures, which represent a very positive commitment to the problems that young people have in this community, are contained in the Budget and in the Budget Papers. As I said at the beginning of this answer, they also represent an integrated approach to a very complex and difficult problem. I commend to the Senate the reading of the Budget Papers in respect of those matters. Finally, Senator Robertson particularly asked me about the relationship between workers compensation and payroll tax and young employees. That is an important issue across the whole area of employment whether it involves young employees or adult employees. Yesterday the Prime Minister wrote to all State Premiers seeking early discussions on ways to remove these impositions or impediments to the employment of young people. I am speaking about the add-on cost of payroll tax and workers compensation premiums. Of course, these are State imposts, not Federal government imposts. The Commonwealth is hopeful of reaching early agreement with the States to eliminate these imposts. This is another measure related to the broad package of youth employment and training initiatives to which I referred early in my answer. Senator CHIPP —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs a question. Is it a sad fact of life that the United States of America and the Soviet Union disagree on almost everything? Is it not ironic that at the forthcoming Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference to be held in Geneva from 27 August these two nations, the most powerful on earth, will use all their influence on their friends and allies to achieve a common purpose, that is, to ensure that no meaningful alteration is made to Article VI of the Treaty which places constraints on the spiralling arms race and the proliferation of nuclear weapons? Would it be true to say that Australia will be nakedly helping its ally, the United States, and indirectly the Soviet Union, to make sure there is no real progress in adhering to Article VI? At the Conference will the Australian Government be actively seeking a final declaration specifying steps for compliance with Article VI? Will the Government be supporting a timetable and program for disarmament and a proposal from Third World countries to establish the Energy for Development Fund to research and promote alternative energy sources? Will the Government be funding a non-governmental organisation representative to the review? Senator GARETH EVANS —With respect to Senator Chipp, it is not accurate to say that the United States of America and the Soviet Union will disagree on everything at the NPT Review Conference except on Article VI issues. One of the remarkable features of the history of the Non-Proliferation Treaty has in fact been the strong and continuous support it has had from both superpowers despite the vicissitudes of their bilateral relationships during the decade and a half since the NPT entered into force. Senator Chipp —Fantastically successful! We now have 50,000 bombs-fantastic! Senator GARETH EVANS —We have not got 50,000 bombs spread around the rest of the then non-nuclear world, and the object of the Non-Proliferation Treaty is to stop the proliferation of weapons as between non-parties to the Treaty. The United States and the Soviet Union will no doubt claim to have complied with the provisions of Article VI and stress that they are currently negotiating in good faith on effective measures relating to the cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament. It is expected that the non-nuclear weapons state parties will argue strongly, however, that the nuclear weapons states have not met their expectations in relation to Article VI. These differences, we believe, are likely to lead to a lively and detailed review of the Treaty and not a sterile talkfest. Australia will certainly be aiming to contribute to such an approach to the conference. As to the specific question about Australia nakedly helping our ally the United States to make sure that there is no real progress in adhering to Article VI, I can say that that simply will not be the case. We are just as dissatisfied as the other non-nuclear states over the lack of progress under Article VI and we will be voicing our very critical concern under Article VI about this situation during the review conference. At the same time, we will obviously be concerned to avoid a breakdown of the conference on this issue with the consequent possibility of damage to the NPT itself. There will be no doubt some skirmishing around those possibly incompatible objectives. Senator Chipp asked whether we would be actively seeking a final declaration that would go to specify steps for compliance with Article VI. We certainly will be seeking a final declaration that is critical of the situation with regard to Article VI which requires all NPT parties, especially the nuclear weapons states, to do better in future, particularly in respect of the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty which Australia has been very actively pursuing in the multilateral negotiating forum in Geneva and drastic reductions in nuclear weapons. As to the question about timetables and programs for disarmament, we are not proposing to be presenting or supporting a timetable and program of disarmament as such at the review conference itself but we will be supporting the inclusion in the final document of an admonition to the multilateral conference on disarmament in Geneva to expedite its negotiations on a comprehensive program of disarmament which is scheduled to be presented to the forty-first session of the United Nations General Assembly for adoption in 1986. As is well known, Australia through its Ambassador for Disarmament, Richard Butler, has been very actively involved in those negotiations. Finally, I think Senator Chipp asked me about funding non-governmental organisation representatives at the conference. We are not proposing to fund an NGO representative at the conference because the conference is an inter-governmental conference of the parties to the Treaty. Non-governmental organisations can, however, attend the conference as observers by approaching the United Nations secretariat. It is anticipated that a number will be doing so. Senator Chipp —Why don't you fund them? They have no money. Senator GARETH EVANS —How else can we maintain our Budget deficit commitment of $4.9 billion? Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. I refer to the Government's 1983 undertaking to close the gap between the standard rate of pension and the pension for single unemployed adults without dependants. What will be the difference between the two payments following last night's Budget and how does this difference compare with that in 1983 when the Government's policy was introduced? Senator GRIMES —When we came to government, the single unemployed in the community had not received increases in their unemployment benefits for many years and, as Senator Maguire said, they no longer had their unemployment benefits indexed. As a result of the policies of the Government since 1983, the gap between the single unemployment benefit and that paid to pensioners has been halved. As a result, the relative positions of those two groups have improved considerably. We always felt that it was wrong to discriminate against the unemployed in this regard, particularly those unemployed who were older than 45 or 50 and who were losing jobs because of changing technology and increased automation. Budgetary restraints have made it not possible to make an immediate reversal of the previous Government's policy, but we will proceed as we have in each Budget. As I said, the deficit between those two pensions has now been halved. We will continue to proceed in that way until we have a fair and equitable system again. Senator COLLARD —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Has any estimate been made of the likely rate of inflation if full discounting for the effects of the currency devaluation is not successfully argued before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission next month? Does he agree that a rate of close to 11 per cent is possible in those circumstances? Senator WALSH —The short answer is no. The Government had to make a decision at one point as to wages assumptions because they affect both outlays and revenue. The assumptions built into the Budget figurings, including the inflation estimates, are that there will not be any discounting. At least, I believe that is consistent right through the Budget figures; it is certainly what is built into the revenue estimate. I believe that assumption carries through in all the Budget estimates, but I will check that out on the specific point of inflation. In either case there is no way the rate could go as high as 11 per cent. I should say that the inflation rate was 11 1/2 per cent when this Government was elected. Within a couple of years the rate had been halved. It is now marginally increasing but it is nowhere near the 11 1/2 per cent that it was when this Government came into office. It should be noted that the previous Government had an all time record. It was the only government in Australia's history that managed to achieve double digit inflation and double digit unemployment at the same time. It had both inflation and unemployment above 10 per cent. No other government in Australia's history has ever done that-not even the Menzies Government, which presided over an inflation rate of 25 per cent at one stage for one year, managed to have double digit unemployment as well. We should not forget the dismal record of failure of the Liberal Party, when it was in government, in setting the conditions which produced inflation above 10 per cent and unemployment above 10 per cent as well. That is something that is very difficult to do. I do not think any political party other than the Liberal Party could have achieved that. Senator COLSTON —I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. My question refers to nurse education, specifically the Commonwealth offer to the States of a per capita sum of $1,500 per annum, plus the payment of the tertiary education assistance scheme allowance, as an incentive to the States to proceed with the transfer of nurse education from hospitals to colleges of advanced education. Will the Minister advise the Senate of moves in the various States to take advantage of the Commonwealth offer? Has the State Government of Queensland not accepted this Commonwealth offer and has that State Government thus shown a lack of interest in the upgrading of nurse education? Senator GRIMES —As Senator Colston said, the Queensland Government does not seem to be very interested in this matter. I was an observer at the last Health Ministers meeting and it was interesting to see the difference in attitude between the Queensland Minister and the Ministers of the other States, including the Tasmanian Minister, who shares his political philosophy. Given the size of the transfer of nurses to college education-some 18,000 students will be involved eventually-there will be a considerable impact on health care in this community. There will also be a considerable impact on the educational sector. Because of this impact co-operation between the States and the Commonwealth is important. Despite the fact that nursing education has traditionally been a State government responsibility, the Federal Government has been careful to proceed in a way that we believe will enable us to co-operate with the States and have a sensible transfer in this area. In general, the States have responded in the same vein. New South Wales has all its first year nursing students in colleges of advanced education now. Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia have commenced taking additional nursing students in their college courses. The Australian Captial Territory will commence the transfer in 1986, I think. The Northern Territory intends to commence in 1987. Tasmania's timetable is still under consideration, but the State Government in Tasmania has agreed with the Commonwealth Government on how we proceed. The difficulty there, as Senator Walters and others will know, seems to be a matter of differences between the north and the south of the island rather than any differences between the governments. Negotiations will continue with the States on the transfer arrangements. These negotiations have been made more complex by the need for suitable arrangements between the health and education sectors at the State level and by the existing nursing shortage which occurs in some States. Queensland has simply rejected the Commonwealth's offer. It is seeking total Commonwealth funding, which is typical of the approach of the Queensland Government. It is an example, as Senator Colston said, of the low priority the Queensland Government has given and continues to give to nurse education and, in fact, has given and continues to give to its public hospitals system in general. The transfer of training will produce savings in the hospitals. All other States are prepared to use these savings for the education of nurses in colleges. All the States, except Queensland, are operating in good sense and with a sense of co-operation with the Commonwealth Government. Clearly, the Queensland Government has some hang-up about changes in nursing education, despite the fact that changes in medical technology and health care require alterations such as this to the nature of nurses' education. We hope that the Queensland community in general will not miss out on benefiting from the advances which will take place in these changes in education, but I think that will depend largely on either a change of attitude by the Queensland Government or a change of government there. Senator PETER RAE —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Does the Minister agree with the business editor of the Melbourne Age, Mr Terry McCrann, that the Government's economic strategy will be undermined if it persists with the remnants of the so-called tax reform package which Mr McCrann describes as `viciously anti-business and anti-enterprise'? I ask: Bearing in mind that the Budget projections for private sector investments were relatively morbid, does the Minister further agree that any move which increases taxes on business or discourages enterpreneurial activity, as is expected from the September tax statement, will reduce economic activity and could make more dismal the prospects for substantial increase in private sector growth which is so important if this Budget is to achieve its targets? I ask the Minister, who has reportedly written to his colleagues with a cautioning word on taxing of fringe benefits, such as motor vehicles, whether he will do everything he can to ensure that economic growth is not jeopardised by an assault on the wealth creating sector of the economy. Senator BUTTON —I find that question, coming from a Liberal front bencher in the Senate, and the quotation from Terry McCrann's article, quite extraordinary. This Government has not attained anything like the same degree of expertise in decreasing economic activity as honourable senators opposite attained in seven years. This Government has shown an expertise in increasing economic activity while it has been in office and we will continue to do so. I have not read the comments made by Mr McCrann in this article, but on the basis of what has been put to me in Senator Rae's question, no I do not agree with Mr McCrann about that issue. I think he should perhaps wait to see what the tax package does hold for business before he makes comments which suggest that it would be a totally one-sided package or anything of that kind. That is the purport of the quotation to which Senator Rae referred. If he is asking me whether I have said that there should be caution in matters of tax reform, yes, that is my postion and always has been; it will not change. Senator ELSTOB —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism. It refers to the New Zealand accident compensation rates payable to Australian travellers. Is the Minister aware that, for death or injury resulting from an accident, compensation payable to a foreign national not earning income in New Zealand is $NZ4,000 plus $NZ2,000 for each dependant child, that only those funeral expenses incurred within New Zealand will be met and that no further payments will be made or expenses met? Is the Minister satisfied that the current rates of New Zealand compensation payments are adequate? Will the Minister agree to investigate the matter? Senator RYAN —I have no information with me to answer Senator Elstob's question but, obviously, the matter he raises is of great concern. I will make sure that the investigation to which he has referred in his question is carried out by Mr Brown as soon as possible. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE —I refer the Minister representing the Treasurer to the forecast of a reduction in the public sector borrowing requirement and a moderate increase in business investment. In light of these forecasts, will the Minister tell the Senate when interest rates, which are already the highest in the world in real terms, are likely to begin to fall? Senator WALSH —If I remember correctly, the forecast fall in the public sector borrowing requirement is from 7.3 per cent of gross domestic product to 5.8 per cent of GDP, which is obviously a very substantial reduction of almost one-quarter in the real size of the public sector borrowing requirement. I will not make predictions about when interest rates will fall or to what level they may fall. For a variety of reasons I think one can expect that they will fall, but I will not say when, much less attempt to quantify it. I remember that other politicians have done that sort of thing in the past. Mr Anthony, for example, in the run-up to the 1977 election said that if interest rates did not fall by 2 per cent in the next year he would eat his hat. Like most of his other promises, that was one he failed to keep. The discredited former Prime Minister was saying the same sort of thing at the same time. It did not happen. Not only did interest rates not fall at that time; they in fact went up. There is really not much point in politicians trying to talk down interest rates. I believe that the record of fiscal discipline and sound economic management which this Government has now displayed for the third consecutive year will have a favourable effect on market interest rates. Senator SIBRAA —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs seen Press reports from Capetown that Mr Ian Macphee, the Opposition foreign affairs spokesman, told Dr Craven, the Chairman of the South African Rugby Board, that no Australian government, either Labor or Liberal, would ever allow rugby to be played between the Wallabies and the Springboks? Is the Minister encouraged that on this important issue of sporting links with South Africa a genuine bipartisan policy now appears to be emerging? Senator GARETH EVANS —Mr Macphee's statement, if he does in fact speak for the Opposition parties, is a very welcome contribution to bipartisanship in an area where bipartisanship is crucial if Australia is to maintain maximum effective pressure on South Africa to change its disgraceful and contemptible apartheid regime. If, however, as I suspect may be the case, Mr Macphee's views prove not to be in accordance with those currently prevailing in the Opposition parties, I am happy to advise him, as I have in the past, that if he wants a more receptive environment for his own basically humane and decent views of the world, providing he complies with certain formalities we would be only too happy to give him an open clearance to the Labor Party at any time. Senator MISSEN —My question, which is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, relates to the flood of legislation introduced into the Parliament during the last few weeks of the autumn session. A total of 64 Bills were introduced into the Senate during the last two sitting weeks. Is it not a fact that the House of Representatives was required to sit till late hours and with inadequate debate to pass many allegedly urgent Bills, some 22 of which still sit on the Notice Paper of the Senate? Is the Minister aware, first, of the immense constraints this places on individuals and private organisations wanting to study and comment on various Bills? Secondly, is the Minister aware of the adverse effect it had on the operation of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, which had to work hurriedly and with inadequate time to ascertain defects in legislation and which was on occasions forced to present reports on Bills after they had already been debated in both Houses? As this was the worst case of legislative foul-up for many years, and in an effort to achieve both high quality legislation and to restore respect for the parliamentary process, will the Government give an undertaking that such a trend will not be repeated during this session of Parliament? Sentor BUTTON-Senator Missen has asked me to admit, affirm or deny a number of situations which he set out in his question. I am really unable to do that. I do not think the House of Representatives was unduly stressed by what happened to it at the end of last year, but I quite take the point about the Scrutiny of Bills Committee and so on. I am saying this only by way of comment. I think the important point of Senator Missen's question is whether we will try to arrange the timetable better during this session of the Parliament. Today or tomorrow I will be bringing down a statement relating to the Government's legislative program. I hope that will be helpful to honourable senators in determining-- Senator Puplick —Keep to it this time. Senator BUTTON —I will be bringing down that statement and we will do what we can to try to see that we keep to it. I hope Senator Puplick will do the same and try to make less ponderous speeches than those he made in the last session. Senator CROWLEY —My question is directed to the Minister for Community Services. Is the Minister aware of the campaign of misinformation being orchestrated in South Australia by the Liberal Opposition members regarding cuts in child care? Is he aware of a letter sent to parents of children in kindergartens in Adelaide stating that kindergartgen fees would rise by $65 a term? Can the Minister explain yet again what are the facts about child care funding and the difference between child care and pre-school education so that parents in South Australia can be freed from the scare tactics and misinformation purveyed by the Opposition? Senator GRIMES —Yes, I am aware of the campaign referred to by Senator Crowley. I assume that we heard what was a continuation of that campaign this morning in notices of motion given by Senator Messner. What has happened in South Australia is that Liberal members of parliament have taken it upon themselves to write to parents of children in child care centres and pre-schools in South Australia telling them that as a result of actions of the Federal Government their fees will rise by $65 a term or, as in a couple of cases which have been drawn to my attention, by $36 a week. These figures come from the imaginations of the people who wrote them, assisted, I dare say, by some of their Federal colleagues. We have done two things in child care. The first thing we have done-- Senator Button —Senator Messner looks very guilty to me. Senator GRIMES —He is always guilty. The first thing we have done is stop the pre-school grants to the States. We announced that in the May economic statement. Those grants had been diminishing as a result of inflation. They had stayed the same in nominal figures since 1978, I believe. The States were under notice that whichever government was in power those grants would eventually cease. As a result of their cessation States such as Tasmania, Victoria and, I believe, Western Australia have announced that they will pick up the deficit. I believe that States as enlightened as South Australia will probably do the same thing when their Budgets come down, or one hopes that they will. If any State does not do so it will indicate that it puts a low priority on pre-schools, not that the Commonwealth does. As for the cuts to the overall children's services program for child care centres and children's services generally, we have stated that towards the end of next month, or early in October, we will announce changes to the funding of child care centres in this country, the result of which will be that some people, particularly those on high incomes, will have to make a greater contribution to child care. The reason we will do this is that child care is, of course, an expanding area, and despite the fact that we have managed to increase the number of children in subsidised child care from 4 per cent to 7 1/2 per cent we still have a long way to go. There is no open-ended budget in this area any more than there is in any other. Also, under the existing system we pay the same subsidy to people earning $50,000, $60,000 or $100,000 a year as we pay to people earning $25,000 a year, and that is quite clearly unfair. The increase in costs will be distributed to the high income earners. Figures such as $36 a week and $65 a term are not on my desk and not before the group which is organising proposals for change at the moment. They come from the imaginations of politicians on the opposite side. They come from some vested interests which are doing very well out of the existing child care arrangements. We will not be pushed back from making those changes by such campaigns. I believe that as a result of the changes-- Senator Messner —All people want to know is what is happening. Senator GRIMES —People want to know what is happening but they do not want letters from you and your colleagues asserting outrageous changes when you have no knowledge at all. Senator Messner —You will not tell us what is happening. Senator GRIMES —You remind me- The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister will address his remarks through the Chair. Senator GRIMES —Senator Messner reminds me of, I think, Mr Kremlin in Sybil who was described as `profound in his ignorance, he has but one idea and that is false'. That is Senator Messner's capacity in this area. That is Senator Messner's problem in this area. If he and his colleagues want to indulge in scare tactics such as this, let the people who are receiving the letters from them know that those letters are the results of their imaginations and contain nothing but lies. Senator SANDERS —I have a question but first I inform you, Mr President, that I will accede to your request about my attire. The PRESIDENT —I appreciate the honourable senator's remarks and ask him to ask his question. Senator SANDERS —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence and I ask-- Senator Aulich —Is Marlon Brando still alive? Senator SANDERS —That is a typical interjection from a Tasmanian parliamentarian. When the Minister agreed that the Australian Government was to assist with Geosat satellite tests was the Minister aware, firstly, that it would be helping in the Trident II missile program; secondly, that unclassified United States defence information states that the mission of the Geosat satellite is to collect gravitational data to increase the accuracy of submarine launched ballistic missiles and is funded by the Trident II project; and, thirdly, that United States congressional hearings were told that Geosat would improve the accuracy of Trident II missiles? If the Government was unaware of these facts why was it unaware? In the light of the Government's undertaking not to assist in the MX MIRV program-that is, the multiple independently targeted re-entry vehicle program-now that the true nature of the Trident II MIRV involvement is known will the Government terminate that involvement? Finally, are the Australian scientists, mentioned by the Minister as being involved in this project, defence scientists? Senator Chaney —Mr President, I did not wish to take a point of order when Senator Sanders was asking his first question but there have been a number of extremely lengthy questions which have gone way beyond what is reasonable. They have given rise to what are effectively ministerial statements. I simply draw your attention to that and ask you to exercise some discretion in challenging the very lengthy questions which are being asked. The PRESIDENT —I appreciate the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. I was going to draw attention at the end of Question Time to the length of questions and answers. I ask the Senate to bear in mind that after the last election the Senate was enlarged. There is a greater number of senators in the place who are anxious and keen to ask questions and I ask senators to restrict their questions to the minimum and Ministers, in responding, not to debate their answers. Senator GARETH EVANS —I congratulate Senator Sanders on both his maiden question and his erudition. I fear that I shall be hearing a good deal more of both. Geosat is part of a long-standing United States program of geodetic mapping which, if I can interpolate some erudition of my own, is accurate mapping of the geoid, which is the earth. The PRESIDENT —Order! Will the Minister answer the question? If he does not do so, I will have to ask him to resume his seat. Other senators want to ask questions. Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government program has been funded by the United States Naval Research Laboratory and the United States Naval Electronic Systems Command. It is not connected to the Trident program funding. The Government has never denied that geodetic mapping has a wide range of both military and civil uses. Indeed, the June 1985 Press release from the Minister for Defence announcing the establishment of the temporary Geosat tracking station on Norfolk Island specifically referred to the value of the data from Geosat in mapping and gravitational field research as well as in other uses. We co-operate in the Geosat program because we believe that as a nation it serves our purposes to do so. Geodetic mapping and other data are of use in the preparation of both civil and military maps. The sort of precise position fixing it involves is valuable in mineral exploration and in the positioning of off-shore oil and gas rigs. In addition, the information is used in a wide range of scientific work, such as measuring glacial ice movements and even movements in the earth's tectonic plates. As to the particular program to which Senator Sanders referred, the validation tests over the ocean to the south of Tasmania which concluded yesterday, the Australian Government was aware of all aspects of that program and decided to give it our co-operation after giving careful consideration to the range of factors involved and the assurances received from the United States Government as to the character of the activity there involved. The data obtained from those tests in relation to wave height, wind speed and so on will be of benefit to Australian scientists interested in weather forecasting for that region, as many are. The Royal Australian Navy will have a particular interest, as do the defence scientists who have been involved in the project, in data on an area in which it routinely operates. The United States Navy is making that Geosat data available to the RAN Research Laboratory. I conclude by saying that the Geosat validation flight series that has just concluded is not directly related to any missile tests, whether they be Trident II, MX or anything else. The Government certainly does not deny that there is a wide range of uses, civil and military, for Geosat data but reiterates that our co-operation is provided on the understanding that that data will provide benefit for Australia. Senator BOLKUS —I refer the Minister representing the Treasurer to the fact that over the last 2 1/2 years this Government has successfully managed the economy and in doing so has reduced unemployment, inflation and the Budget deficit. Are the Minister and the Government satisfied that last night's Budget continues economic management along a more successful and different track from that of the previous failed Government? Senator WALSH —I am confident, and every other member of the Government and the parliamentary Australian Labor Party is confident, that the Budget brought down last night will continue the excellent record in the areas of economic growth, employment growth and inflation control that this Government has established since it has been in power. Of course our present situation stands in stark contrast to that which we inherited. Firstly, this Government presents honest figures in its Budget estimates and in both of its Budgets those figures have been remarkably close to the actual outcome. This is something the previous Government did not do. We have a record of sustained high rates of growth, a record of having generated an extra 410,000 jobs in just over two years which contrasts with what the previous Government achieved. In its last 12 months in office it destroyed a quarter of a million jobs and in the whole of its 7 1/4 years in government it did not manage to generate as many additional jobs as this Government has in just over two years. I am very confident-we are all very confident-that that excellent record of employment growth, economic growth and inflation control will be sustained in the next year and the years beyond. Senator MESSNER —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. In his current mood of providing information to the Senate, I invite him to comment on last night's social security announcements. I ask: Will the new carer's pension be made available only to people providing constant care to pensioner spouses or near relatives who are pensioners? Senator GRIMES —That is my understanding. I will check it with the Minister for Social Security. Senator MESSNER —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Will people providing constant care for service pensioners, spouses or near relatives who are service pensioners be eligible for the carer's pension? Senator GRIMES —I do not know the answer to that question. I will find out from the Minister for Social Security. Senator REYNOLDS —Can the Minister representing the Minister for Health give any logical explanation why the responsibilities of Australia's School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine will be transferred from Sydney University to the Australian National University as reported in the Bulletin on 13 August? When will the Tropical Medicine Research Unit be returned to north Australia where the first research unit was established before the First World War, where serious research of tropical diseases can be carried out first hand instead of in Canberra laboratories thousands of kilometres from the region affected and where no tropical viruses would survive anyway? Senator GRIMES —I suspect from the firm manner in which Senator Reynolds asks that question that she assumes I have the answer. I am afraid I have not. I will have to get it from the Minister for Health and inform the honourable senator as soon as possible. Senator LEWIS —My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and relates to the payment this month of an Australian record price of $2.94m for a Canberra service station leasehold site which tops last October's record of $2.61m for a similar site. Is it a fact that petrol far in excess of Australian Capital Territory usage is being invoiced to Australian Capital Territory service stations? Is this surplus being resold or perhaps just simply re-invoiced back into the States free of State taxes to the detriment of State revenues? Has not at least one State complained to the Government about this? Why has not the Government done something about it? Senator BUTTON —As a member of the Government I have no idea what the honourable senator is talking about. I will find out and give him an answer. Senator JONES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer to the Government's success in meeting the trilogy in the 1985-86 Budget. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the fact that Mr Howard claims that the trilogy was met in his first Budget? Senator WALSH —My attention has been drawn to the false claim by the discredited former Treasurer. Indeed, I have the transcript in which Mr Howard states: I have got to correct both you and the Treasurer. The trilogy which was never a particular severe discipline was met in the first budget that I brought down. What he purported to be correcting was a statement in the Treasurer's speech-it was repeated by me in the Senate-that the trilogy requires no increase in the percentage of tax revenue as a proportion of gross domestic product, no increase in expenditure as a proportion of GDP and, to quote the Treasurer's speech, `a reduction in the size of the deficit'. Mr Howard said that this was not a particularly severe discipline. That is a matter of opinion but it is a fact that in none of the five Budgets that he brought down did he meet what he calls a not very severe discipline. In every one of his five Budgets he failed to reduce the deficit and hold both outlays and taxation to a no higher proportion of GDP. Mr Howard, according to the Budget Papers, met two of the three legs of the trilogy in his first Budget. He did not meet the third leg. I refer the Senate to page 383 of Budget Paper No. 1 which shows that the deficit increased from $3,309m in 1977-78 to $3,449m in 1978-79-Mr Howard's first Budget. The deficit increased by some $140m. Senator Walters —What year was that? Senator WALSH —In 1978-79 compared with 1977-78 the deficit increased by some $140m. That was the first Budget that Mr Howard produced. So his claim on the Carleton-Walsh Report last night was false. Mr Howard may have been thinking of the forecast Budget deficit which he brought down in 1978-79. The forecast deficit was $2,813m but the actual outcome, as I have already stated, is on page 383 of Budget Paper No. 1, and was $3,449m. Of course it was typical of the discredited former Treasurer to produce figures in the Budget estimates on both outlays and deficits which were exceeded by Budget outcomes. In every one of the five Budgets he produced outlays that were in excess of the Budget estimate. In one year this figure was a very small amount but in his spectacular swan-song year it was almost $2 billion. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table which shows the discredited former Treasurer's failure to meet the trilogy constraints year by year. In short the score is that for two of his five years as Treasurer he met two of the three constraints of the trilogy but for the other three years he met only one of the three. Leave granted. The table read as follows- ACHIEVEMENT OF TRILOGY LIMITS 1976-77 TO 1985-86 Outlays Tax revenue Deficit 1976-77... Yes No Yes 1977-78... No Yes No 1978-79... Yes Yes No 1979-80... Yes No Yes 1980-81... No No Yes 1981-82... No No Yes 1982-83... No Yes No 1983-84... No Yes No 1984-85... No No Yes 1985-86... Yes Yes Yes Senator HAMER —My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Does the Government agree with the opinion of the Federal President of the Australian Labor Party that people damaged by strike action should sue the strikers for compensation? Will the Government be pressing the Australian Broadcasting Corporation-- The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator is seeking a legal opinion in that question. Senator HAMER —I was asking whether members of the Government agreed with an opinion expressed by the Federal President of their Party. That is not a legal opinion. Will the Government be pressing the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to sue those unions responsible for the outrageous disruption of the telecast of the Australian Opera last Saturday? Senator BUTTON —I did not see any comment attributed to Mr Wran that persons damaged by strikes should sue those responsible for the damage. If the New South Wales Premier said that I would certainly not endorse thatopinion as being of universal application. I doubt very much whether the Premier would either, as far as it being desirable as a universal principle. I was asked more specifically whether the ABC will be suing employees responsible for action which disrupted a television program at the Sydney Opera House last Saturday night. I agree with all the adjectives Senator Hamer used to describe that piece of stupid conduct but that is a matter entirely for the ABC which is not influenced by government pronouncements on matters of this kind. Senator DEVLIN —Is the Minister for Veterans' Affairs aware that the galleries at the Australian War Memorial are being used as office accommodation? What efforts are being made to relocate staff from galleries so that Australia's outstanding collection of wartime artifacts can be displayed? Senator GIETZELT —It is apparent that the Australian War Memorial has been starved of resources for some years and despite its increasing popularity with tourists and other visitors to the memorial, making it one of the most popular institutions in Canberra, there have nevertheless been great difficulties in making available sufficient gallery space to exhibit most of the material held by the War Memorial. For this reason the Government was persuaded during the allocation of portfolios and ministerial arrangements to transfer the Australian War Memorial to my jurisdiction. I refer Senator Devlin to the fact that, in the Budget reported in the Senate last evening, sufficient staff has been made available to make an impact on the effective functioning of the Australian War Memorial and $0.5m has been allocated for the preparation of plans and specifications to build a special administration block. At the moment, too much of the gallery space is taken up with the administration of the War Memorial. When the plans are prepared the Government will allocate sufficient funds to have the new administration block functioning by 1988. That will enable a very considerable proportion of the Australian War Memorial space to be available for galleries and exhibitions. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technololgy and Commerce) —by leave-I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to end financial assistance under the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Grants) Act 1980, and for related purposes. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator SIDDONS —As a member of the Australian Senate I have been criticised by some section of the media and others for being chairman of a public company that has an operation in South Africa. Incidentally, that operation is mainly concerned with the selling of goods manufactured in Australia. By way of explanation I make the following points: The first is that the operation was set up by me in 1956 when I was Managing Director of Ramset Fasteners (Australia) Pty Ltd at a time when the Menzies Government was actively encouraging Australian manufacturers to sell goods in South Africa. The company has operated successfully from that date and makes a very small contribution to the profits of Siddons Industries Ltd. Secondly, it employs about 30 people, both black and white, many of whom have been with us for over 30 years. Our South African operation is non-racist. Last year it received one of the highest ratings under the Sullivan Code. This code is totally independent and lays down more stringent guidelines than those contemplated by the Australian Government. I am totally opposed to the policy of apartheid and have never hesitated to voice that opinion publicly. As chairman of a responsible Australian company I have to consider our employees, both in Australia and South Africa. I have also to consider my company's investment in that country which amounts to about $1.5m. In view of the deteriorating race relations in South Africa, and the announcement of the state of emergency in that country which is undoubtedly a violation of human rights, my board has publicly stated that it intends to phase down its operation in South Africa as quickly as possible, with a view to ceasing trading in that country. I am unable at this time to give any firm undertaking as to the time frame necessary to execute that policy. The PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The serious consequences for Australia of the Government's failure to deal adequately with the issues raised by trade union action against the Mudginberri meat works. I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.07) —The only point that I wish to clarify in this matter of public importance is that we are not dealing here with a problem of trade union action against an employer, we are dealing with the problem of a trade union which is taking action against employer and employee alike. We have a situation in which trade unions which are not directly concerned with the affairs of a business enterprise are seeking to prevent, for their separate purposes, that enterprise from carrying on its business. We regard this matter as having a broad significance. In the Budget context one might make the point that the Government has budgeted $7m for marketing assistance for the meat industry this year and, at the same time, it is actively permitting-and it would appear conniving with-a union to act against a company which has export contracts valued at about $5m and which has been prevented from carrying on its business of exporting meat to the European Economic Community. Nothing could be a better illustration of the Government's failure to get down to basics and to treat some of the symptoms of the problems that we have. I do not think that anyone in Australia is under any illusions about the significance of the trade union movement in the affairs of this Government. I suppose last night's Budget was as good an example as any of the central role which the trade union movement plays in the Government's freedom of action. In the Budget speech last night we had an affirmation of the need for Australia to stay competitive. We had an affirmation of the fact that if we are to do that we cannot afford to allow production costs to rise above those of our competitors and that we would be throwing away any prospects of sustaining the growth rate required to get unemployment down if we did not have discounting of the next wage rise to take into account the effects of devaluation. It is quite clear from the Budget Speech and from public comment since that the ability of this Government to meet that vital principle, to cope with that very major problem that we face as a nation of ensuring that we improve our competitive position, and the ability of the Government to do anything, are very much in the control of the trade union movement. In the last 12 hours we have seen attention focused not so much on the Treasurer (Mr Keating) but on Mr Crean and it was Mr Crean's response to the Budget which told us all where power lies in this important issue. Watching Mr Crean and the Treasurer on television last night we saw much shadow boxing. In the end it was quite clear and indeed it was said that whether or not there would be any arrangement between the Government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions was a matter for private negotiation, and then the Government would go to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Even then we have the threat of a breakout. We have the threat of non-trade union compliance and it is quite clear that the trade union movement has a veto power over much of what this Government does. I do not think recent events give much ground for optimism in believing that the trade union movement is going to behave in a co-operative way with this Government. After all, look at the tax summit; the Government was apparently determined on the need for reform, the Leader of the Government (Senator Button) and the Treasurer made brave statements about their determination for reform, and we saw that reform vetoed by the trade union movement. What we now see is the prospect of tax changes, which are those tax changes which are either permitted or required by the trade union movement, taxes on capital gains and a tax on fringe benefits which will be paid by employers and not by employees. Why then should we be considering Mudginberri when these large issues are about? Mudginberri, after all, is a small commercial operation which operates in the Kakadu National Park. It affects a relatively small number of employees. It affects a relatively small amount of our exports-perhaps $5m. Why is it that Mudginberri has become the focus of so much public attention and so much attention in this place? It is because the dispute is one which is vital to the people who are concerned with it. It affects the continued viability of that enterprise, the continued employment of people in it and the continued business existence of those who run it. Even more attention is focused on it because it is vital that the principles in the dispute be satisfactorily dealt with. Further, I think it is important because it is a very good example of why Australia is not competitive in so many areas. I am glad that the Leader of the Government is present for this debate because he has expressed many opinions on the importance of Australia being competitive in the industrial area. I also believe the dispute demonstrates the resistance to change to some of the more absurd labour practices which exist in Australia and which damage employer and employee alike. The dispute is important because it shows yet again that trade unions are too often prepared to flout the law and to regard themselves as above the law and beyond the reach of it. The facts in this dispute are essentially simple. The position has been complicated by the actions of the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union, by the Government and by the Government's employees. Let me turn to the basic facts. I suppose one of the most important facts is that there is no dispute in this matter between the employer and the employees. In the abattoir the employer and employees are at one that they wish to operate within the award laid down by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. That award gives the employer and employees a choice. They may operate under the tally system, which is common in many meatworks in Australia, a system under which there is a fixed number of beasts for a kill, a fixed rate of pay for that kill and then some additional rate if any more beasts are killed. Alternatively, the award permits the parties to enter into an agreement whereby the work force is paid by results-paid at a rate of so much per beast. That is a matter of free choice, and the Mudginberri abattoir has chosen to pay for results. The exercise of that choice has had a rather benign effect in terms of the interests of both the employer and the employees. The result of adopting that system is that output has increased, the wages of the employees are higher and the returns for the employer are higher. Put simply, the operation is more efficient. Therefore, by definition it is more competitive and it is more profitable. It is the sort of operation that is likely to flourish, as against the many meatworks around Australia which in the recent past have closed because of their inability to find markets or to compete. We have a quite simple situation. Under an existing award the employer and the employees have chosen to work on a basis of being paid for output. It would seem that is a simple matter and a matter for which there would be general approval. Instead of the general approval that might have been expected, what we have had is an interference by the trade union movement, initially by the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union, which objects to the abattoir being conducted on that basis. It has chosen to picket the abattoir. It has done that in what has been described in a quite benign way. It does not seem to be a massive picket, but it has been massive in its effect on the meatworks because other trade unionists, in particular the meat inspectors, have chosen not to cross the pickets and that of course has stymied the abattoir and has removed it from the export market. At a time when Australia is hungry and needing exports, at a time when there seems to be general agreement that we have a problem with our balance of trade and balance of payments, an export contract is being interfered with because trade unionists will not inspect the meat and certify it in a way that would permit its export. The Government has effectively done nothing in response to that. On the other hand, the employer has done something. Utilising laws that were passed by the previous Fraser Government, it has sought and obtained from the Federal Court of Australia damages for the interference by the trade unions with its business. I understand those damages have now been paid because of the efforts that were made to sequester the property of the trade union. The employer has exercised legal rights that are currently available to it and that in turn has given rise to further trade union action-strikes on the waterfront, support for the strikers by the ACTU, and again no action by this Government to effectively assist those who are trying to operate within the law. The key points about this dispute are that there is no dispute between the employer and the employees. The Arbitration Commission has said that there is no industrial dispute. The courts have said that there is no dispute except in the minds of the those who seek to interfere with the lawful actions of those who are at the abattoir. It is important to note that the abattior, the employer and the employees are acting within the terms of an award. It has been established by the Arbitration Commission and the Federal Court that they are acting lawfully. They are adding to efficiency and productivity in this country and it is other elements of the trade union movement, including the ACTU, which are trying to force the abattoir to change its arrangements. Fines have been imposed under the Trade Practices Act. Those fines have been collected and yet the Government keeps trying to suggest that this is a matter which ought to be satisfied by talks, that there is apparently some need for compromise. Why is it that people who are acting lawfully, who have been found by the courts to be acting lawfully, who are being unlawfully interfered with, are being told that they should sit down to negotiate their position? There is nothing to negotiate. There is no dispute. We have a situation where the Government is offering no protection to people who are subjected to unlawful pressure and who themselves are acting within the law. This is not an industrial dispute. The parties have no dispute. It is outsiders who are illegally interfering and it just happens that those outsiders are trade unions. Perhaps we have a glimmer of hope on the horizon in that in the other House the Government has now introduced legislation to deregister or to assist in the deregistration of the Builders Labourers Federation on the basis of that union's flouting of the law. However, I say to the Senate that whilst the Builders Labourers Federation may have a more numerous record of breaches of the law to its credit, the actions of the meatworkers in this case is similarly unlawful and should not be tolerated by this Government. I call on the Government to show some consistency of approach in dealing with this matter and to show some desire to protect those Australians who are lawfully going about their business. The Mudginberri dispute is not something which is about being anti-trade union. There is nothing in the actions of either the employer or the employees to suggest that they are against trade union involvement. I mentioned earlier that they are acting within an award. The workers at the abattoir are no longer members of the union because the union chose to throw them out. What I would like to remind the Senate is that there are many positives in the arrangements that Mudginberri has entered into. The effect on the employees is benign. It enables the employees, by dint of their better performance, to earn more. The arrangement is not anti-union. Indeed, I understand the terms of settlement put forward by the employer and by his solicitors includes the desire for the workers to be entitled to rejoin the union. It is not against the system of conciliation and arbitration because all that has happened at the meat works has occurred under the aegis of that system. Therefore, what we have is a system where what is happening is good for the abattoir, for its profitability and output, good for the employees who can get more and good for Australia because it enables us to be more competitive in a difficult market. What could have been done by the Government to avoid this dispute and to enable these people to go about their business lawfully and to maintain the export contracts they had obtained? I put to the Senate that the most important thing that could have been done by this Government-what it has failed to do-is to make it clear that in its view the law should be upheld. These parties have gone to the courts, sought their remedies and at great expense managed to keep their legal position clear. However, there has been no word of encouragement from this Government for their position as against the position of those trade unions that are flouting the law. As recently as yesterday in Question Time in the other place Mr Willis made it quite clear he was not prepared to make any commitment even to leave in place the law which has protected the interests of the abattoir and the employees in this recent case. Mr Kerin, the Minister for Primary Industry, could have done something to remedy the situation whereby this export contract has been destroyed by the failure of officials of his Department to do their work. Mr Kerin will say, of course, that these men were left for some period without pay, stood down for a few hours and not paid for a number of weeks. No effective action was taken to get them back to work. Mr Kerin does not seem to want to do anything because he believes that if he does anything effective it might exacerbate the dispute. The simple solution that was open to Mr Kerin was to authorise the Northern Territory meat inspectors to act as inspectors for the Commonwealth. There was no legal barrier to that being done. It could have been done immediately to permit the export of this meat. Mr Kerin has failed to do this. Mr Kerin goes around the bush establishing his personal bona fides with the farming communities, much and all as they may dislike the Hawke Government. I believe that on this occasion Mr Kerin has signally failed to do his duty and has failed to take action which he could take to support a beleaguered section of the industry for which he is responsible. Minister Willis could have supported the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, which has said that this is not a matter of industrial dispute and that this is an illegal picket which should be removed. We have seen nothing from Mr Willis which would support the position of the Mudginberri abattoir. Mr Dawkins might have been concerned about the trade lost to Australia. Of course, we have heard nothing from Mr Dawkins. Mr Cohen, who might on other occasions have been concerned about the illegality of the picket which is camped against the law at a national park, has not seen fit to require any action to be taken either. Most of all, I suggest, we should lay fault at the feet of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). We have heard a lot about the Prime Minister's skills and a lot about his special relationship with the trade union movement. Mr Deputy President, I suggest that the time has come for the leader of this country, the Prime Minister of this country, to make it quite clear that he expects the trade unions of Australia to respect and to obey the law. He should not be urging, as he is, that this dispute be sent back to the Arbitration Commission when in fact no dispute exists. He should not collude with the meat employees union in this matter. He should defend those in the right and do something to solve this problem which is so obvious. This is a matter which is important to Australia. After all, I think it is admitted by the Government that the secret of our survival and our advancement is to be more productive and more competitive. That is a matter on which we hear many words in this place, I think it is widely understood within the Government that it is this sort of trade union action which is one of the contributing factors preventing us from being as competitive as we should be. We find some very brave words about this in the Budget brought down last night. The Treasurer said that because of devaluation our competitive edge has been restored and `Australia is back in business'. The Treasurer stated: . . . in the face of slowing world economy we must increase our share of markets to pay our way as a nation. He continued: This means we must stay competitive. He said: . . . if we are to do that, we cannot afford to allow our production costs to rise above those of our competitors. He further said that if we failed: We would be throwing away any prospect of sustaining the growth rates required to get unemployment down. In light of those statements and in light of the importance which this Government places on the improvement of Australia's competitive position, or at least the maintenance of it, I ask: Why has the Government stood by and permitted the trade union movement to move in a way which is destroying this enterprise's ability to compete, or indeed to operate? It is shameful. It is totally unacceptable to the Opposition. I believe it is totally unacceptable to the people of Australia and should end. The Government has a duty to act in this matter and it must act. Senator COOK(Western Australia)(3.25) —The most extraordinary thing about this debate is that it is occurring at all. This is the first full business sitting day of the Senate since our return yesterday. Of course, we all know that yesterday was a day of formal opening and the presentation of the Budget. We have returned to business today after a three-month break. One would have thought that the Opposition during that three months of not having to attend the Senate would have sifted the major political issues of significance to decide what were the matters of moment for this country. It is not as if we are now sitting at the fag end of a long session and the Opposition is trying to put on the Notice Paper matters of public importance to fill out the last weeks of a long session. This is supposed to be a vigorous, fresh and confident Opposition addressing the No. 1 issue of the nation. Straight after the bringing down of the Budget yesterday we find that to the Opposition, in its view at least, the No. 1 issue is a dispute involving almost two dozen people in the Kakadu National Park on an abattoir at a place called Mudginberri. If that is the best that the Opposition can do, if that is the most significant issue that it can bring against this Government immediately following the Budget and a long recess, this Government has nothing at all to fear from the Opposition because it is bankrupt; it has nothing at all to bring forward. Clearly, in terms of the economy and in terms of other aspects of political action, Australia is in good hands. I think it is important to note that the day after the Budget the Opposition cannot make even one criticism of the Budget. The Opposition had that option. However, it has chosen the subject of Mudginberri and it is this matter that ought to be debated. Perhaps it is worth mentioning also that this matter was debated yesterday in the House of Representatives. I am informed that yesterday also it was debated, peculiarly, in the Parliament of Western Australia, which had its first business day sitting yesterday as well. One could quickly gain the impression that what is being attempted is an orchestrated move across the nation to whip up a small dispute into something more significant than it really is, to generate acrimony once again by trotting out the tired and, one would hope, discredited efforts of the Liberal Party and the Opposition to divide Australians. By dividing Australians the Opposition believes somehow it will conquer us as a government. However, the orchestrated nature of this debate and the orchestrated push being mounted here should also be noted. I said that immediately after the Budget no matter of real importance arising from the Budget has been raised. I think it is important to say that the most ticklish part of the Budget announcement in terms of industrial relations-if that is the field the Opposition wants to pursue-is the strong and courageous stand being taken by the Government to achieve a discounting of the consumer price index to account for the devaluation of the Australian dollar. That is a tough and important stand. The working out of that proposition is probably the most important thing happening in the world of industrial relations today in terms of the general economy. The Opposition has not chosen to raise that matter. The Opposition has not picked on the Budget in any way. One would imagine that the Opposition might have attacked us because the deficit was too large. The Opposition has not chosen to do that. It has not chosen to attack us over discounting for devaluation. It has not chosen to argue that our package for rural Australia is not good enough. Nor has it chosen to argue that the massive boost given to social welfare recipients in the Budget was still too little, or, because the National Party is part of the coalition, too much. Knowing the Opposition, neither has it launched an attack at all on our youth policy in regard to employment opportunities and greater tertiary openings and opportunities for the young people of Australia. They are the issues being debated in Australia today. None of those issues were chosen by the Opposition as the subject of a discussion of a matter of public importance. No doubt the Opposition will say that it will raise those matters in due course in a week's time. It is significant that not one aspect of our Budget has come under any scrutiny in the first opportunity that the Opposition has had to do so. The Opposition has chosen to focus attention on the subject of industrial relations. That is an area the Government is quite happy to debate and argue. Not only is the Government's performance by far and away better than the efforts of the coalition Government, but industrial relations is an area of activity at which, as the people recognise, the present Government is more proficient. The people of this country are gratefull for the present Government's achievements in lowering the number of industrial disputes. When the present Government came to office it never accepted that the present law and legal framework applying to industrial relations were perfect.As the Oppositions knows, and will have the opportunity to debate in the autumn session next year, we embarked upon a full inquiry of the law processes of industrial relations. I refer to the Hancock Committee of Review on the Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems, which has now reported comprehensively. There has been a significant public debate about the contents of that report and the Government has announced its intention to proceed to legislation in the autumn session. It will do so after exhaustive consultation with unions and employers, a technique perfected by this Government, and it will conduct those consultations on a section by section basis of the Act. It is not a global consultation, but a detailed and close-up consultation. Our approach to industrial relations has been calm and orderly, and in concert with the main actors in the field work, to overcome years of Liberal neglect and Liberal abuse of industrial relations which led to the politicisation of that important sector of human endeavour. Our achievement has been to depoliticise the issue of industrial relations so that it can be best dealt with on its merits, and dealt with objectively and in a framework of co-operation, a framework on which we have been able successfully to build and to harness the co-operation of both employers and unions. Senator Crichton-Browne —Tell us about the next wage case. Senator COOK —If the Opposition wants to hear about the next wage case, it will be most embarrassed, because the case will be a stunning success for the economy-quite different from what the former coalition Government did when it was in power. But let me not divert from the main point. The main strategy of the Opposition in this debate has been focused on five major areas. These five areas are, unfortunately, the tired and worn-out rhetoric of the Fraser years. Nonetheless, they have been resurrected and represented in an effort to show that, by mere repetition, they will somehow become true. The first point made by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Chaney, in raising this matter of public importance was to argue the need for law and order and the need to accept sanctions in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. The second point was to assert, baldly and ridiculously, that this Government is dominated by unions, and that the failure of the Government-which is not true-to condemn the actions of the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union or to order the Meat Inspectors Association across the picket line is somehow proof of this Government toadying to the trade unions. The third point is to argue that there needs to be greater flexibility in the industrial relations system. The fourth point is that unions are somehow oppressive of the community, and finally there has been an argument that this is part of a flimsy attempt to justify section 45D of the Trade Practices Act and to bring in sanctions in the industrial field which properly belong elsewhere. That is the rhetoric of the Opposition. It is the rhetoric of the Fraser years, and it was voted out in 1983 by the people of Australia who rejected it for its falsity and the debilitating and divisive nature of what it brings to the Australian general framework. Let me take a couple of the assertions before I turn to the general issues in this dispute. Any effort to make this Government appear to be somehow dominated by unions, on this day of all days, would be a most hollow assertion. It is on this day that the Government is in debate with the trade union movement over the discounting of the CPI. In order to hold the accord together the Government is negotiating that through, so that there can be a submission put to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission by this Government and accepted by the union movement to enable the economy as a whole to be enhanced and jobs to be created. We could have backed away from that issue and, if the Opposition's assertion is true, we may have done so-but we have not. We have chosen to address that issue, and I believe that the Government in the Budget Speech courageously put its position. Also on this day the Government has before the House of Representatives a Bill to deregister the Builders Labourers Federation. If the Opposition's assertion were true, of course we would not be taking that course. The Opposition cannot justify its assertion because the present Government has recognised the constructive role of the trade union movement and has sought to enhance by due recognition of proper claims and procedures bringing the trade union movement into the economy in such a way that it can play a constructive, respected and responsible role. That means that we support the constructive, respected and responsible things the trade unions do and oppose those that are improper. That has been the record of this Government and any assertion to the contrary is ridiculous. I believe that the people of Australia understand that. Let me turn to this Government's general performance, because in the few minutes I have been speaking I have concentrated on the general framework. If what I was saying were not true, industrial disputes would have been out of control in the last two and a half years Labor has been in power. The facts are that the industrial disputes level in this country is at record lows. It remains the lowest for over a decade and a half. The latest Australian Bureau of Statistics data available from April 1985 reveal that during April the number of working days lost due to industrial disputes was almost half the level of the previous month. This was the lowest April figure for 17 years. During the 12 months to April the number of working days lost was 4.8 per cent lower than for the same period a year ago. This was also the lowest level for this 12 month period for 16 years. That is the record. One can abuse the record by applying rhetoric to distort the image, but the reality is that that is the achievement of this Government. What we have sought to do has been rewarded by results which the people of Australia can understand and see. One can see by comparing polling in 1983 that industrial relations problems ranked at a level of No. 5 or No. 7 as the most important issue to excite the minds of electors. That issue now ranks at around No. 27 with only about half of one per cent of the community concerned about that topic. That half of one per cent must be the ideological rump of the Liberal Party. It is not only a reality that we have achieved a much calmer, moderate and reasonable industrial relations environment, but through the Government being courageous, honest and prepared to address the issues, the people of Australia think that that is the case too. With those remarks, I think it is about time I turned to the content of this dispute. One of the assertions by the Opposition is that the Government has not been prepared properly to condemn or reprove the actions of various organisations where that has been necessary. I do not know what papers, articles or references the Opposition relies on for that assertion, because Opposition members have produced no evidence that that is true. However, one need only consult Hansard and various Press releases from the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) to see that the Government has not condoned the actions of the AMIEU and has required the union to lift the picket and to make application to the Commission to vary its award. That has been the Government's position. We have been critical of the AMIEU for not accepting the terms of the award, after it gave a commitment to do so. We have made it clear that we cannot condone that action or the criticisms of Commissioner McKenzie. That has been the Government's position. The assertion is to the contrary. The reality is that the Government has done everything possible to resolve the dispute through the normal industrial processes as we have always sought to do, but it has been frustrated by other parties-that is the real tale of this dispute-which have been interested only in using the dispute for their own political objectives. While trying to resolve the dispute, the Government has been conscious that any action which widens the dispute could have massive adverse consequences for the major national industry. The proposal put by Senator Chaney a few moments ago in this debate as to what the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, would have done would have had precisely that reaction. It would be a reaction which, if precipitated by this Government, would rightly have been condemned by the community. In my view, the responses that we have made to the Mudginberri dispute are proper. To put them into context, I would say that the initial dispute that arose in 1984 saw a six-point agreement between the parties before the Commission as the basis for the Commission creating an award in the Northern Territory. The AMIEU breached that agreement by not accepting the terms of the award and its actions cannot be condoned-we have said that and have made that clear. This dispute is primarily one, however, for the parties directly involved and it has been the interference of outside parties that has caused the escalation of this dispute. We as a government have made every effort in a sensible manner to resolve it. We recognise our responsibility to provide meat inspection services. The Department of Primary Industry has directed meat inspectors on three occasions to cross the picket line. We have sought an order from the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission directing meat inspectors to perform normal duties at Mudginberri. This was refused by the Commission. Salaries and allowances for meat inspectors who refused duties were stopped from 30 May to 24 June when the abattoir switched to domestic production and no longer required Commonwealth inspectors. We sought Australian Council of Trade Union involvement at an early stage. We had meetings with representatives of the ACTU, the AMIEU and the Meat Inspectors Association. Minister Kerin has also met the National Farmers Federation and the Cattle Council of Australia. Government representatives have met individually with all the parties to explore a basis for resolving the dispute. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has offered to chair meetings between the unions and employers. The thrust of the Government's efforts has been to achieve an acceptable solution, not engaging in what the Opposition would want us to engage in-grandstanding, which could only worsen the dispute. The Government has sought a settlement in the national interest and a consideration of the issues involved, that is, the tally and union coverage, in a sane atmosphere. By contrast, the other parties have offered nothing constructive in resolving the dispute and have shown little concern for the overall interests of the industry. The National Farmers Federation sees this dispute as a convenient weapon in its campaign in the first instance, as it sees it, to destroy that ethereal monster that it has created called union power and secondly, but more importantly, this being the point of the dispute, to destroy the tally system and spread a contract system throughout the industry despite the fact that all major awards throughout the country provide for a tally system. The National Farmers Federation has already spread its deregulation efforts to New South Wales where it has served a log of claims on the Meat industry Employees Union seeking to double tally numbers. It has taken extensive legal action, refusing to participate in discussions, and, by persuading the other parties from participating in talks, has ensured that this issue is prolonged. Its refusal to participate in talks because matters were before the court was ludicrous. Its 15 point confidential list of claims is absurd and is in no way designed as a basis for settlement of this dispute. We believe, too, that there is significant evidence to justify the belief that the Federation has sought to prolong the dispute by providing funding in the case of the owner of this meatworks to finance those legal actions and to encourage legal actions under section 45D of the Trade Practices Act which have been used to extend the dispute. The Melbourne Age of 16 August described the actions of the National Farmers Federation as follows: At the moment the NFF is fighting to the last drop of someone else's blood. It might not be so brave when its blood, and that of hundreds of individual employers, is on the floor. It is a courageous position of the NFF which, after all, is only tangentially concerned with this dispute. I am informed that the facts are that in the Northern Territory a significant number of abattoirs have gone broke by applying the formula that the NFF wants to be applied at the Mudginberri abattoir, whereas those which have stuck with the tally system have not gone broke and are still profitable enterprises. This issue is now being turned into a political football. Once again the Liberal Party is seizing upon industrial relations to try to make some political kudos for itself. The Opposition's anti-union campaign was obvious when Mr Sinclair, Mr Shack, Mr Everingham and, of course, Senator Kilgariff visited the abattoir earlier this year. Nothing that the Opposition has said has offered anything but escalation of the dispute and the possibility of not being able to resolve the matter. In the face of all those circumstances, it seems to me that on post-Budget day we should as a nation be debating in this Senate, the only chamber being broadcast to the community of Australia, the matters of great moment of the economy. This dispute is in progress. It has not exhausted all the provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. That is not an Act of our creation but of the creation of honourable senators opposite when they were in government. The provisions of that Act have not yet been exhausted and the Government is taking every step to see that they are being properly exhausted. Honourable senators opposite cannot argue a matter of public importance in the Senate when the provisions of the Act have not been properly seen through and all the mechanisms for dispute settlement have not been properly acted upon. This Government will see that this takes place and, given its record in industrial relations and its record of being able properly to deal with these things objectively away from the political spotlight, will bring this dispute, like so many others, to a speedy and, I believe, effective resolution. However, neither can honourable senators opposite complain about the effect on trade, which is a matter of major and significant concern to this Government, without looking at the whole issue and not just at one section of it. We have to concern ourselves with the trade argument by also looking at the role of the National Farmers Federation in taking a politically expedient opportunity to try to win a system of contract labour in the Northern Territory that does not apply generally. It is the Federation's right-one respects its right-to choose to do that if it wishes, but it should do it through the channels of the Commission and not run a campaign by boycotting abattoirs that do not apply the contract system. It should do it properly. If it did it properly there would not be dislocation of our trade performance. If there is to be any condemnation it should be directed to all parties that have not acted properly. The Government, of course, has acted properly. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(3.45) —I cannot agree with Senator Cook that the Mudginberri dispute is not of sufficient importance to be raised as a matter of public importance and debated at this stage. It is a vital issue potentially facing the whole of Australia. It is escalating to the point where it could threaten all our industries and certainly would threaten a very important export industry. I also cannot agree with the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, when he says that the dispute is not an industrial dispute. It embraces industrial principles that are vital to the trade union movement and there is no way that the Australian Council of Trade Unions cannot involve itself in the issues in this dispute. It raises the question of collective agreements and whether unions should be involved in them. It also involves the operation of section 45D of the Trade Practices Act. All these matters are of vital concern to the unions. It is an industrial dispute, in my opinion, and as such it is a dispute that should be negotiated. It must be negotiated and the place to negotiate it is the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. To do this, of course, it would probably be necessary to lift the picket lines. I believe that this is the area in which the Government should use its influence with the ACTU to ensure that picket lines are lifted and that the dispute is negotiated in the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. It is not in anybody's interests to see this dispute widened. It will open a pandora's box of issues that are not readily resolvable-if they are capable of being resolved at all in the current climate of industrial relations in this country. If the dispute escalates it will cause widespread suffering to hundreds of thousands of Australian people and immense loss of government revenue at a time when our balance of payments is in a precarious position and it will undoubtedly split the Australian community straight down the centre. It will add no credit to any of the parties to the dispute-not to the Government; not to the ACTU; not to the National Farmers Federation; not to the Meat and Allied Trades Federation of Australia; nor indeed to the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union. I believe that the Government, up to the present time, has been reasonable and has recognised the industrial realities of the situation. It has endeavoured to get the parties to negotiate, but so far the National Farmers Federation and the employers have refused to do so. I guess we are supposed to apportion blame for the escalation of this dispute. If we do that there is no doubt that the large measure of blame must lie at the feet of the union. In refusing to lift the picket line following the Federal Court order and by refusing to pay the contempt fines following that refusal, the meat workers have upped the stakes, which without any doubt will now involve the rest of the trade union movement. The escalation of the dispute by the unions is one side of this rapidly worsening industrial dispute. The other side, which is equally important, is the refusal of the National Farmers Federation and the Meat and Allied Trades Federation of Australia to agree to meet with our Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) or the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) to discuss the dispute. I do not believe that the argument used by Senator Chaney is sustainable. I do not believe that one can say that this is not an industrial dispute. It is all about industrial relations and how they are exercised in this country. It is all about the way in which the meatworkers are to be treated in this country. I believe that the Government can, should and probably will use the leverage that it has through the accord with the Australian Council of Trade Unions to influence the meatworkers to negotiate. I believe that the onus is now fairly and squarely on the other side of the dispute-the National Farmers Federation and the employers-to look at the consequences of escalation, to look at the enormous stakes which are involved if this dispute escalates and to negotiate. Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen today claimed that he proposes to negotiate contracts in Queensland and to make the contract system the norm. It so happens that the Australian Democrats support collective agreements-we believe that this is a good alternative approach to industrial relations and wage fixing-but not the sort of collective agreement that is at the heart of the Mudginberri dispute. We believe that, if direct negotiation between parties results in some written agreement which is enforceable in our courts, it is absolutely essential, vital and fundamental that the unions be involved in those negotiations. The unions were not involved in the negotiations in the Mudginberri dispute and that is the fundamental problem. Senator Collard —No, just the workers were. Senator SIDDONS —The unions must be involved in industrial disputes. In 1984 the Government introduced legislation to repeal sections 45D and 45E of the Trade Practices Act. This was part of the Government's commitment under the accord. The Government was unable in 1984 to give the Democrats adequate guarantees for the protection of small business and innocent third parties. As a consequence the Democrats opposed the repeal of those two sections. It is interesting to note that during the debate that took place at that time the Confederation of Australian Industry argued that section 45D was necessary because it brought the parties to the negotiating table and that the threat of using section 45D or the injunction itself would be sufficient to bring the parties to the negotiating table. That has not happened in the Mudginberri dispute and as a result that argument seems to be fallacious. In fact, the problems associated with section 45D are very considerable. However, the facts of the matter are that there does not seem to be any reasonable alternative at this stage to protect the rights of minorities and third parties in industrial disputes. Until there is some alternative, the Democrats will maintain theirposition that section 45D should remain as it is, where it is. The Mudginberri dispute puts the whole meat exporting industry in this country under threat. I believe that the Government's action during this whole dispute has been directed towards trying to avoid escalation. As such, I think the Government's action has been quite reasonable. I do not pretend to know enough about the ins and outs of this dispute to apportion blame. I know that it is a very complicated matter. I have heard people from both sides say that they have problems and that the Democrats should take sides in the matter. We do not intend to do that. We believe that this is an industrial dispute and that the only place to negotiate and solve industrial problems is in the conciliation and arbitration courts, which have been set up for that purpose. Until this dispute is brought to the courts, this country is in great danger of seeing a first class confrontation that will divide the people on a very sensitive issue of industrial relations. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(3.55) —This debate, which was introduced by Senator Chaney, the Leader of the Opposition, basically centres upon the Mudginberri abattoir dispute in the Northern Territory. It is notable that Senator Cook, who lead for the Government and who obviously spoke for the Government, indicated that this dispute and this debate are insignificant. Probably no other dispute is focusing the attention of the nation at this time or will do so in the time ahead as this dispute. It is almost a watershed in Australian industrial relations. I will have something further to say about that matter shortly. It was quite interesting to hear what was said by Senator Siddons, whom we welcome back into this chamber as the Australian Democrats' industrial spokesman. He introduced a piece of industrial democracy legislation into this chamber this morning. The honourable senator said that this was an industrial dispute and that there was need for more discussion. How much more discussion do we have to have and where else do we have to have it? Industrial discussions have been held in every conceivable place. Agreements have been reached all along the line, and I will have a little more to say about that later. It is typical of the Australian Democrats in this place to sit on the fence. I only wish that the fence was a wooden fence topped with broken glass or a barbed wire fence. If this were the case they would get off it. In the closing days of the previous session, on 23 May, Senator Jack Evans, the then Australian Democrats industrial spokesman, said that his party wanted the Australian Council of Trade Unions to guarantee that legislation would be passed, a guarantee that 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. On that basis the Democrats once again went to water. Look what happened in Queensland yesterday. All the Democrats can do on this occasion is sit on the fence again. The sooner we put barbed wire on the fence and the Democrats learn to go one way or the other and stand up for something the better off we will be in this place. Let us talk about what this dispute is all about. The Democrats have said that we need discussion; Senator Cook has said that the dispute is insignificant. The dispute, while not insignificant, is really a very simple matter. The employer and employees sat down and talked about the wages and conditions under which they wanted to operate. They sat down and negotiated their rights. They made an arrangement which was to the mutual benefit of the employer, the employees and the community. A good relationship was worked out resulting in good productivity, low costs and good wages. The Australian Democrats should note that all of these arrangements were agreed to by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and the Federal Court of Australia. What does the Government want to do-start the discussion all over again and see whether it can win? However, the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union was intransigent and intervened. It is unfortunate that sections of the union movement to this day want to continue this ridiculous class struggle. We had every reason to think that this whole matter had been solved. The discussions took place, the workers got together with the bosses, suitable arrangements were entered into and everybody was happy. However, once again we have run into this ideological problem that we must keep this ridiculous gulf between the boss and the worker. This situation developed after all that normally happens had gone on and everybody was happy. But worse was to follow. Since then there has been collusion between the Government and the ACTU. Dare I mention once again the puppeteers pulling the strings. The puppets of this Government are click-clacking their way across the industrial stage of this nation. They are dangling on the ends of the strings once again. Senator Chaney quite rightly mentioned in his speech how the Government is dangling on the ends of the strings with respect to the Budget, and so it is that the puppets of this Government are dangling on the ends of the strings and are click-clacking their way across the industrial stage. The same thing happened in the Queensland electricity dispute where they tried to win the battle and lost all over. The intransigence of the union movement, once again, prevented a suitable arrangement which had been made from going into effect. I know of a very simple little case involving a builder on a major project in my home town of Rockhampton. The builder made a suitable arrangement with his staff. His gang of men decided to start work early, knock off half an hour for lunch and go home early. Everybody had agreed to the arrangement; it suited them fine. Dare I mention what happened. The BLF walked on to the site-end of suitable arrangement. Workers are told: `You have to do this; you have to do that. You cannot be happy in your job. You cannot have a good relationship with your boss'. For some unknown reason this intransigence and inflexibility must be built into our industrial relations system. If the workers and their boss want to sit down and work out their own arrangements to their mutual benefit without other people walking into it, why can they not do it? This nation was founded on people who did not have to sit down and have a smoko directly at 10 o'clock in the morning and knock off for an hour at midday. I think that one of the important things that have to be remembered is that this nation must compete in the world trade arena. Senator Chaney —All those opposite were shop stewards. Senator COLLARD —All shop stewards and no troops. That is why nobody is doing any work over there. Senator Chaney —All the Labor men here have made their living out of this system. Senator COLLARD —Yes. It must be remembered that we are a trading nation. We cannot exist if we cannot trade. In 1983-84 beef and veal were worth $1.114 billion to this country. They represent 4.5 per cent of our total exports. They represent 17.6 per cent of our agricultural exports. The major impedance, as we are seeing now, is the rigidity and the tunnel vision of certain sections of the union movement, aided and abetted by a compliant government. Already, over a period, thousands of trade union members have been put out of work. In this industry alone, 50 export abattoirs have been closed down in the last six years. I do not know how many meatworkers have been put out of a job. Senator Cook —For what reason? Senator COLLARD —One of the problems is the adherence to the old tally system, as Senator Cook has mentioned, which was laid down many years ago. The tally system works out how many head of cattle will be handled in a day. Of course, the crazy part about it is that sometimes the figure can be achieved in as little as four hours. In that event, either the workers go home and the abattoir sits idle for the rest of the day or the workers go on to overtime. The whole problem is that not one of our competitors has shackled itself with this ridiculous and archaic system. It is an archaic system which was decided on years ago before we had electric saws, an electric chain system, hide pullers and so on. The result is that it costs up to $158 per head to handle cattle. How can we compete on world markets? How can we provide jobs? That $158 was the cost at the Katherine abattoir. The result was that the abattoir closed down. A total of 159 meatworkers were put out of a job because the abattoir just could not compete. It closed down. The Point Stuart abattoir went bankrupt. Two-thirds of all the cattle in the Northern Territory are now slaughtered interstate. Mudginberri abattoir made an arrangement with its workers, which was agreed to by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Its costs were reduced from about $140 per head to $40 per head. Mudginberri is now a viable abattoir which enjoys a happy relationship with its workers. It provides jobs and exports for this country. But what happened? The AMIEU, aided and abetted by this compliant government, with the ACTU pulling the strings and dangling the puppets across the industrial stage, now has illegal pickets. Mr Acting Deputy President, if you or I wanted to camp in Kakadu National Park we would probably be prosecuted. Certainly, we would be turfed out before we had a chance-- Senator Brownhill —They are cutting down trees too. Senator COLLARD —Yes, breaching all the things that would cause anybody else to be prosecuted. Commonwealth meat inspectors will not cross the picket line. I have driven past the line, as everybody does, but the Commonwealth meat inspectors will not go past the picket line. We have a very weak Minister for Primary Industry who will do nothing about it. He can do many things. It is quite significant that the Commonwealth meat inspectors used to live on-site but for some unknown reason-I do have a cynical mind-they moved out of Mudginberri and went to live in Jabiru towards the end of last year. If Mr Kerin wanted this dispute to be over he could licence the Northern Territory meat inspectors to handle that meat tomorrow. They are trained just as well as other meat inspectors. If he wanted to he could end this dispute tomorrow. We should get rid of the Commonwealth meat inspectors. They do not want to work and they do not want to walk past the picket line. Let us get rid of them. We are not interested in them. We should license the Northern Territory meat inspectors to do the job. I return to a very simple matter. Let nobody lose sight of the fact that a group of workers sat down and talked with their boss about the terms, wages and the conditions under which they wanted to operate. They came to an agreement which was agreed to in the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Let nobody lose sight of that. The agreement was agreed to in the Federal Court. The abattoir enjoys a good relationship, excellent productivity, low costs and good wages. The wages are probably better than any member of the AMIEU is getting in any other meatworks. It is only on that basis that the meatworks can operate, can provide much needed export earnings for this country and fulfil a contract to provide buffalo meat to Europe. That is the crux of the whole matter. An agreement has been reached and everybody is happy, but this ridiculous class struggle must be perpetuated by the union movement with nothing being done by the compliant government which is in Canberra at present. The Government is acting as the puppets as the ACTU pulls the strings once again. The puppets clickety-clack their way across the industrial stage to the worsening situation of meatworkers generally and particularly these in the Northern Territory. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(4.09) —The matter of public importance which is before us reads: The serious consequences for Australia of the Government's failure to deal adequately with the issues raised by trade union action against the Mudginberri meat works. As has been pointed out by those who have spoken before me, this is a serious matter. Suggestions have been made as to how the matter may be disposed of. The mechanisms that have been suggested were fairly gung ho. Whether gung ho means of disposing of industrial problems are the right ones is very much a matter of doubt. The question has been put: What has this Government done to settle this problem, to see that the dispute is settled? What the Government has done and what has not been done by the speakers opposite is look at industrial reality, a phrase that is used again and again by those who practice in the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. In my view it would be very useful if all of us as politicians in this chamber look at what industrial reality is and how it ought to be taken into account. If people look at what the Government has done in respect of this dispute it will be seen that it has acted very much in line with industrial reality. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), a man quite experienced in the field, has done just that. As Mr Justice Neaves said on 14 August 1985, it is unrealistic to look simply at what is going on at Mudginberri in isolation. He said: . . . it is unrealistic, in considering the scope and object of the provisions here in question, to confine one's attention to the circumstances relevant to the particular establishment and treat as extraneous and irrelevant wider considerations concerning the industry generally. One way this dispute will not be settled is by calling one side the perpetrator of class warfare. In my view it is much too simplistic and provocative to class simply one side of the dispute, as it were, as the perpetrator of class warfare and not look at the matters that should be taken into account in this action. If one were looking at this matter in terms of political and industrial reality one would see that, firstly, there is a union which has, by dint of an award from the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, gained cover for meat workers throughout Australia. Whether we like it or not, that is the situation. The men who control that union, the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union, have to act in a particular way as they see fit. To say to them simply that Mudginberri can be excised from their regard and can be taken away from the constitutional cover which that union has will certainly bring, whether rightly or wrongly, a strong reaction from the union. That ought to be taken into account when this matter is being looked at for the purpose of disposing of it. To say simply that legal steps have been taken and that is as far as it goes is being unrealistic. The other point about this situation is that Senator Chaney said that people have exercised legal rights, that this is a legal matter and that it is not an industrial or a political matter. He said that people have exercised their legal rights and that is the end of the matter. If that is so and if it is simply a legal matter, why has he brought the matter into the Parliament? Why has he brought this issue into a very political forum indeed? Why has he brought it up as a matter for public importance? It is quite inconsistent for him to say that this is a legal dispute and to ignore the very action he has taken. If it is simply an industrial dispute why has the Premier of Queensland entered into the matter? An article which appeared in the Courier Mail of 16 August this year stated: Sir Joh disclosed his involvement in the dispute yesterday while telling a business function of his government's labor policy. He said a government inquiry into extending the use of contract labor beyond the electricity industry would report in October. The article went on to state: The Premier said yesterday he and the owner of Mudginberri station, Mr Jay Pendarvis, met late on Wednesday night to discuss the issues. Again when looking at this matter in terms of the industrial and political reality of the situation one has to take into account, whether rightly or wrongly, that a political figure-the Premier of Queensland-has entered into the dispute. So simply to put forward, as Senator Chaney did, the proposition that this is a legal matter is again to ignore the realities of what has taken place. In yesterday's issue of the Australian this statement appears: The Premier, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen said yesterday he had organised funds for the abattoir. `I've made sure that he (the owner of the abattoir) is funded so the unions can't ever run them out of business,' he said. Sir Joh said State Government funds had not been used: `There are plenty of people who would fund him'. Mr Lester said he hoped Queensland's legislation would be in place by Christmas. He is referring to legislation to oppress further union operations. Regardless of whether one agrees with what has been done, the reality remains that what is happening in Mudginberri is a very political action. There are two points to make about that. First, one would expect a reaction from the unions, whether rightly or wrongly. Secondly, one would expect that a Federal government acting responsibly would seek a political solution. What is the solution suggested by the honourable senators opposite? Their solution is to use the big stick to crash down on the union and to use every legal instrument available. It just seems to be inconsistent that they or people with whom they are allied go for it in a political way. They have introduced matters of public importance. They are associated with a Premier who is seeing that funds are available in this situation. They act in a very political way. But they criticise this Government for acting politically too. They say that the Government should not act politically but in a legal way. That is just inconsistent. What in fact has happened, as it should have happened, is that this Government has attempted to get an adequate and positive solution. The Prime Minister has tried to get a meeting with the National Farmers Federation and there has been a disappointment in that regard. Having said what I have it would be wrong for me simply to say that the National Farmers Federation or any other body is solely responsible for this affair. But it is not irresponsible or improper for me to say that the unions have certainly not been looked upon as the one and only perpetrator of evil in this situation, which is what the Opposition is doing. That can lead only to an exacerbation of a situation where people are opposed. That deep division, which Senator Collard spoke of as existing, would only be exacerbated. What would a responsible government, opposition of parliament do? It would seek realistic ways out of this problem. As Senator Siddons said-- Senator Brownhill —How many years do you want to solve the problem? Senator COONEY —That raises the question of how many years it would take to solve the problem between worker employees if we took the approach that is suggested by the honourable senator's question. He is suggesting that we ought to go to a situation where there are penal sanctions and where members of a particular group in the community-namely workers-are treated as criminals; that is, in effect, what penalties involve, treating people as criminals. If one does that, as was illustrated very powerfully I think by the case of Clarrie O'Shea, one will have to start talking in terms of years to see industrial peace in this country. This is exactly the point Senator Siddons made. I can only, with great respect, agree with him. He said that one has to, in a realistic way-I hope that is the operative word I have used in the speech so far-get the parties together. One has to assume that people are reasonable, decent citizens. That was the proposition he was putting, as I understood it. If they are brought together some agreement can be reached. That is the way to convert what would otherwise be years of problems, dispute and warfare into a fairly readily obtainable resolution to this dispute. The fact of the matter is that sooner or later, somewhere down the line, this dispute has to be resolved and will be resolved. It is a matter of how it can properly be resolved. As Senator Siddons said, one has to take into account in this equation the union. It seems to me to be just too brutal and too unrealistic an approach to say that a certain 20 people have been taken out of a union and can in some way control and decide what the issues will be for a union which represents many thousands of people. Senator Kilgariff —The Arbitration Commission has said that. Senator COONEY —What Senator Kilgariff says is quite right. He says that this is in the award; that the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has provided for it. But what I have been saying is that, if we look at the matter purely and simply in legal terms, as a matter of reality, whether we approve of it or not, we will not get anywhere down the line. If the Opposition wants, as it has suggested, simply to sit upon a particular legal basis rather than on an industrial or political basis or a combination of all three bases, all I am saying and what the Government is pointing out is that we will not get the ready resolution that we might otherwise get if we pursued the course that the Government has pursued. If the Opposition wants to sit back and say `There is an evil side to this matter. One of these parties is very bad. We will crush it.', so be it. If that course is pursued, this matter will not be disposed of. The difference in attitudes is interesting. Mudginberri wants contract labour. Tennant Creek wants the tally system. Senator Kilgariff —That has gone broke. Senator COONEY —One of the reasons is that the employer has said that unless the unions agree to work to a tally system the abattoir will not open. As I understand it, Elders-IXL is interested in Tennant Creek but only on the basis that the employees work on a tally system. Senator Cook —The Northern Territory cattlemen's organisation has boycotted it. Senator COONEY —That is the interesting thing. The cattlemen who produce the cattle should remember that they are the producers and that the employers of the union labour, the meat workers, are the ones who kill and export. Perhaps then some progress could be made. As I understand it, most of the employers are not interested in deregistering this union. They are interested in settling the whole matter. I do not say that the National Farmers Federation has the sole responsibility, but perhaps it is exerting an undue influence on those who run the abattoirs. If that were not the situation, perhaps the whole matter would be more readily settled. The fact that there is an award is a very significant matter to take into account. But to dispose of the matter we have to look at other things as well. We should not be looking to score points. I am not saying that that is necessarily what the Opposition is trying to do, but the effect of its argument is to create a situation in which this matter could become very serious and bubble up into an unnecessary intrusion upon the industrial peace in the community. Senator Siddons is a very experience employer. He has pointed out a way through this situation. We are looking at the matters which should be taken into account. Each side has to remember that the other side-the unions and the employees or the employers and the National Farmers Federation-has amongst its members people who will sit down to dispose of the matter. Throughout the dispute the Federal Government has offered at all times the forum in which it could be settled. In doing so it has acted most responsibly and very much in terms of the industrial reality of the situation. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(4.24) —The matter of public importance is: The serious consequences for Australia of the Government's failure to deal adequately with the issues raised by trade union action against the Mudginberri meat works. The purpose of the debate today is to give this problem an airing in the Senate to allow the people of Australia to know what the trouble is all about. A young couple in Arnhem Land-they are battlers and pioneers-operate a buffalo abattoir. They are working within the law with their employees, but there is a move to crush them financially. As I said, and as one can see, they are working within the announcement by Commissioner McKenzie on the Northern Territory meat processing award of 1944. That was made in April, prior to the unions picketing the abattoir. In April this year a new Northern Territory meat workers award was handed down by a Full Bench of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. It introduced the option of a payment by result system which allows for the negotiation of a piecework system between employers and employees. This system bypassed the union. Such a system was introduced by Jay and Joy Pendarvis in their abattoir at Mudginberri, with the full agreement of their employees, on 9 May this year. On 10 May a picket was established outside the Pendarvis abattoir. It was set up by the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union. Since its establishment no Commonwealth meat inspectors have entered the abattoir to inspect meat for export. As Commonwealth meat inspectors are the only persons authorised to approve meat fit for export, the Mudginberri abattoir has been unable to fulfil its overseas contract obligations for over three months. This has brought the Pendarvis couple almost to financial ruin. It is interesting that the Northern Territory meat inspectors live at Mudginberri. Not so long ago the Federal meat inspectors also lived at Mudginberri, but they have moved to Jabiru. Now if they wish to inspect the meat they have to cross the picket line. The Pendarvis couple, rightly believing that the picket was illegal, applied for an injunction against the pickets. An injunction was granted under the Trade Practices Act, but the pickets refused again and again to comply with the court's order. They were acting against the law of the country. In June the AMIEU was fined in the Federal Court of Australia for its disobedience of the previous court order. The union continued to ignore the courts' directives and persisted in maintaining the picket. It continued to break the law of the land. The Pendarvic concern at the prospective loss of overseas markets grew and representations were made on their behalf by the Northern Territory's Minister for Primary Production, Steve Hatton, to the Federal Minister for Primary Industry, John Kerin. Mr Hatton sought to have Mr Kerin empower Northern Territory meat inspectors to certify meat fit for export. Mr Kerin refused to do so. Why? The owners of Mudginberri abattoir face the loss of export markets worth at least $5.5m this year alone. A business employing more than 40 employees faces closure and those employees face the prospect of joining the ranks of their unemployed former colleagues of the Australian meat industry. I say `former' because when the Mudginberri employees decided that they wished to work under the present system they were kicked out of the union. So much for democracy! The debate today is not about just an isolated industrial dispute in the Northern Territory. It is about the future of this country's industries. It is about the double standards in the current industrial relations circus and the present Federal Government's complete and abject failure to take any action to control a union which is acting completely outside the law. Senator Siddons is not in the chamber now; but, as the Senate is not sitting next week, I invite him to go to the Northern Territory and visit Mudginberri. If he does, I think he will be very surprised at what he finds out on the spot. Perhaps some of this thoughts would be tempered. If what is happening at Mudginberri is allowed to spread throughout industry, if unions are to be permitted by the Government to act outside the law and, in the process, destroy the businesses which employ their members and if that is the direction which this Government intends Australia to take, our hopes of becoming competitive in world markets and of reducing unemployment are dashed before we even start. If ever there seemed to be a business operation which contained all the ingredients for financial success as well as employee satisfaction-I have spoken to the employees and I assure honourable senators that they wholeheartedly support the abattoir after their experience in working in other abattoirs under the tally system-it was at Mudginberri. Both parties at Mudginberri were in agreement. The employer and the employees had put their heads together and had come up with a remuneration arrangement which was highly satisfactory to all. I have visited the Mudginberri abattoir and spoken to the meatworkers. I have also been to the picket line. The workers have worked under the tally system in abattoirs, as I have said, and they are in no doubt that they are far better off under the payment by result system. Mr Pendarvis has a market for buffalo meat and has jobs to offer his employees at a rate of payment upon which they agree. His employees wish to work. The Arbitration Commission says that the payment arrangements are legal. The union says that it is not prepared to abide by the rulings of the Commission. Meanwhile, the Government stands by and does nothing while this rebel union is on the rampage breaking the laws of the country. The Government has done nothing about the Mudginberri picket and it did nothing about the Australian Council of Trade Unions sanctioned 24-hour waterfront strike in support of the Mudginberri pickets. The Minister for Primary Industry has refused to authorise Northern Territory meatworkers to inspect meat for export. He could do this with the stroke of a pen. His excuse is that such action could escalate the matter into a national dispute. He is looking the other way; he is doing a Pontius Pilate act, he is washing his hands. He is not prepared to support the legal operators, the Mudginberri operators. Rather, he looks the other way and disregards the actions of a union that is breaking Australian law. Mr Kerin is offering to the AMIEU the Mudginberri station as a sacrificial lamb in the hope of avoiding industrial difficulties in other meatworks around the country. What he fails to see is that the Australian meat industry in its present depressed state needs more than ever the sort of arrangement which was struck between the employer and employees at the Mudginberri station. The National Farmers Federation has quoted figures which indicate that the cost of slaughter per beast under the payment for result system is some $34 per head, as opposed to the cost under the tally system of some $158 per head. The level of productivity under the payment for result system is also much higher than it is under the tally system. The arrangement reached between the Pendarvises and their employees was one which would have allowed the abattoir to operate viably. It would not have gone the way of other meatworks in this country, many of which have closed because of the incredible operating cost of slaughtering a beast under the tally system of $158 per head as against $34 per head under the payment for result system. However, the dispute goes further than that. Primary producers have a market. Nothing would be left for them if it cost some $158 per head to kill a beast. It is incredible that today we have this dispute at Mudginberri. It is killing the industry and a young couple who are pioneers and at the same time hundreds of meat workers are without jobs. I can assure honourable senators that the situation will get worse due to the simple fact that abattoirs in the country are now becoming more and more uneconomic under the tally system. It is difficult to believe that the Federal Government, and for that matter the unions, cannot see the merit in the system which was operating at Mudginberri. It is difficult to believe that they cannot see the potential for employers and employees to come together to negotiate their wage or salary arrangements to their mutual satisfaction and within the award set down by the Arbitration Commission-within the laws of the land. It is even more difficult to believe that the Federal Government prefers to establish a practice of allowing unions to ignore the decisions of the Arbitration Commission and the Federal Court but that, it seems, is the case. That is why we are giving this problem an airing in the Senate today. There is no question that both the employer and the employees are morally and legally entitled to proceed with the agreement which they have reached but they are being thwarted by the union. The union is using strong arm tactics and has the obvious support-this has been seen-of the ACTU which, obviously, is out to crush the young couple, the Pendarvises, in Arnhem Land. As I have said, we have had no constructive action from Mr Kerin despite the fact that he stated unequivocally on the Four Corners program that the activities of the AMIEU in this dispute are illegal. Mr Kerin's refusal to confront the issue is in line with the weak, servile and negligent approach which has been taken by many of his colleagues. Many Ministers in the Federal Government are involved in this issue in various ways. For instance, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, has recently indicated that he wishes to see the matter referred back to the Arbitration Commission. He is attempting to pass the responsibility for the dispute to the Commission and so absolve the Government of its responsibilities. The responsibility lies in the hands of the Government. The Minister for Trade, Mr Dawkins, seems to have no regard for the fact that the Pendarvises and Australia stand to lose a lucrative overseas market. The contribution of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to the dispute has been even less. The only time he has been involved in any way in this dispute was when a private and confidential letter stating the terms of settlement proposed to him by Mudginberri on 12 August turned up in the union ranks, with the AMIEU. I am not suggesting that the Prime Minister would have leaked this confidential document but it did go to his office. I wonder why and how such a confidential document turned up in the hands of the union which is the cause of all the problems. It is a most peculiar situation. As I have said, all Ministers are avoiding the issue because they know that they simply cannot handle the union movement. This Government has made a lot of its accord and its ability to manage economic policy because of its special relationship with the trade union movement. That special relationship is good only as long as the trade unions want it to be. Comes the showdown and the Government buckles or merely refuses to tackle the issue. This is exactly the situation which applies today in regard to the Mudginberri dispute. The dispute at Mudginberri has indeed been very revealing. It has put the lie to the Government's claims of being able to deal with the unions on the basis of consensus. It puts the lie to the Government's claim of being able to deal with the unions at all. The Government's failure to deal with the issues raised by the Mudginberri dispute is like its problems with the ACTU over tax reform. It is only the beginning of its problems with the unions and that will mark the beginning of the end of the Labor Government. Let us have a little sanity regarding this dispute. We all realise-I have said this before-that unionism is a good thing. It has brought many things for the workers of Australia but it is being abused now by the AMIEU. Senator AULICH(Tasmania)(4.38) —I begin by summarising some parts of the speech of the Opposition spokesman on industrial relations and employment in another place. In a speech he gave in Katherine in the Northern Territory on Saturday, 10 August, he stated: In the meantime, let me clearly state to Jay Pendarvis, his employees at Mudginberri, the Meat and Allied Trades Federation and the NFF in this dispute you have the Federal Opposition's unqualified support. Firstly, is it not wonderful that in an area so complex as industrial relations, in an area where changing work practices are already being negotiated, discussed and debated someone could be as sure about where he stands as that? If that sort of person can do this with every dispute and be so sure about where he stands and so sure about solutions, obviously that person has a long career in industrial relations ahead of him and should never have been in this Parliament in the first place. In fact, he should be working as an industrial relations expert for one of the major companies. Surely such companies would be prepared to snap him up, as no doubt they will after the next election when he loses his seat. I do not want to take this chamber up the old fashioned track where we find Mr Shack's old fashioned ideas. We ought to look at what this dispute represents. We are not talking about just one dispute. I agree with the Opposition that it is in some ways a symbolic dispute. Of course, it is being made symbolic by the Opposition's activity both in the Northern Territory and in this chamber. We are talking about the future of an orderly and fair labour relations system which has existed in this country since 1904. It is not the Government that is under attack today. It is not the meatworkers' union which is under attack. The Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and the Australian industrial relations system are under attack. That system has worked quite well over a long period for the benefit of both employers and employees. From where does this attack come? It comes from the Liberal-National Party Opposition, the same people who brought us the great wages explosion of 1981-82, who brought us four different and failed industrial relations Ministers, one of whom is their current leader. Between 1979 and 1982-just three years-we saw four of them go down the chute because they were unable to handle the mess into which they had placed themselves. They brought us an inflation rate of 12 per cent and left government at a time when there were 733,000 unemployed. They were finally and justifiably thrown out by the electors. Members of the Opposition pretend to give us advice about the way to handle industrial relations. That comes at a time when industrial relations in this country have improved dramatically. Let us look at this matter in the simple terms of the number of days lost through industrial diputes. We have the best record for 16 years. Take it from the final year of the Liberal-National Party Government. In 1982 there were 4,564 days lost per thousand; in 1983, the next year and our first year of government, the figure dropped form 4,564 to 1,801; in 1984 it dropped to 1,572; and in 1985 at the end of January-these are all comparable end of January figures-the figure was 1,326. That is a dramatic and consistent drop over three years. That did not happen by accident. It happened because of the way this Government has been involved in the industrial relations game and the way it has handled industrial relations. It is the fruit of the arrangements that we made before we came to office. It is the fruit of the accord and a positive and properly negotiated arrangement and approach to industrial relations. This attack on the system comes at a time when the Hancock Committee of Review of the Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems has just presented its report on the future workings of the system. That Committee consisted of some of the best industrial relations brains in the country and rejected the whole idea of deregulation of the industrial relations system. It said basically that we should have more of the same with amendments and improvements to the current system. It rejected out of hand the calls for the abolition of the arbitration system and for total deregulation of the labour market which have been made so often by the Opposition. We have to look at this matter in political terms because this is basically what the debate is about today. It is not an industrial relations matter in the minds of the Opposition. Why is it a political matter? Why has the subject of industrial relations suddenly been put on the agenda? It is because the Federal Opposition at the moment is short of places to go. This Government-basically a conservative, reform oriented government-has taken the middle ground, the common sense ground, on so many issues in political life and it has left the Opposition with nowhere to go. We have floated the dollar so that it has found its true value and Australian exporters have benefited from that true value and from the extra competitiveness that it has given us. We have allowed foreign banks to come into the country to create competition and to give our exporters a base abroad. These are two things of many which John Howard would have liked to do but was not able to get through his own party because of the ineptness and, I must say, the cowardice of many of his colleagues. He failed where we have succeeded in doing what should have been done a long time ago. So where does the Opposition go? It has gone back to the bare shelf of ideas to look for something that will distinguish it from our Government, from the common sense middle ground. It has looked at the shelf labelled `Deregulation of the Labour Market'. The Opposition has picked that up because it knows that we as a government will not move in that direction. For good basic economic and humanitarian reasons we will not touch deregulation of the labour market. We have made that clear. What is the Opposition's model? The problem with the Opposition is that it has two models for the appropriate way to move down the industrial relations track. The first is a very authoritarian and paternalistic model that has been born out of the Queensland situation. In fact, if we look at the appropriate motions moved in the Senate we will see that Senator MacGibbon, for example, has moved that we should follow the Singapore model of industrial relations-the Singapore model for heaven's sake. We all know what that means for the very existence of the trade union movement. Senator Childs —A one-parliament model. Senator AULICH —Yes, it is a one-parliament model and a one-union model-the official union. It is basically an authoritarian model. I will not spend too much time on it. It is not worthy of it. We should consign it to the scrap-heap in the same way as the fancy theories about the hydrogen car and Milan Brych and other viewpoints of the Queensland Premier ought to be consigned to the dust-bin. We will leave that matter. There is a second string to the Opposition's bow that we should look at. In many ways that string is quite different from the first. It is total deregulation. We move from paternalism to de-regulation. What do we see? We see the Opposition pushing the American model of collective bargaining. That is what its support of the dispute at Mudginberri is all about. It is to give it the opportunity to push the idea of the abolition of the Arbitration Commission and of our industrial relations system. It is an interesting but an alien idea that does not fit into the Australian social and industrial environment. It is about as relevant as Ronald Reagan's hair oil. It is not suitable for this country. The people who know that this is irrelevant, who have to practise within the system, who have to make profits in their business, the workers whose unions are representing them, know that the American model will not work in this country. Let us look at some matters. As part of the symbolism there was a visit to Mudginberri the other week by that wonderful quartet, Shack, Sinclair, Everingham and Senator Kilgariff. Someone described them as the butcher shop quartet. That is quite appropriate because when they went there they sang like birds about deregulation and the loss of liberty by the owner and employees. What were they trying to do? They wanted to lift the whole issue to the symbolic status that it is achieving today. But it will not move on because the rest of the industry and business organisations, and the unions that have to work in this current system, will not cop an alien system-one that the Liberal Party Opposition wants to transplant from America. Why will they not cop that? They know that in a country where 50 per cent of the workforce is unionised it is just not possible to go down the same track as was followed in America, where something like 18 per cent of the work force is unionised and where even in the best years following the Wagner Act less than 30 per cent of the work force was unionised. Do people want to go down the track of the United Kingdom? Again, people in this country have too much common sense to follow that track. They saw what happened with the miners strike in Great Britain-a dispute which went on for a year, which is still simmering and which left a legacy of nastiness and bitterness that I do not think that industry will get over for a long time. They saw the coal strike in Britain in 1971-a six-month strike that again brought Britain to its knees. They saw the Post Office strike that went on for six to seven months in Britain and which left Britain almost totally without telecommunications and postal services. Those people in industry are not fools. They have watched the failure of deregulation in other countries. They have watched the failure of collective bargaining in other countries and they are not going to have it here. In case the Opposition does not get around amongst the business community-and from where I have been in the last month or so my guess is that it has not been getting around-let me tell the Opposition that the business community in this country, let alone anyone else, will not tolerate this move towards deregulation. They know that track is an American model that is not suited to this particular country. Think about that because if one tries to change the industrial relations system in this country-and basically that is what this debate is all about-one has to be prepared to follow a track that is much harder, tougher and bloodier than it would be in other countries. It was easy to do it in the United States where the history of trade unionism is very tenuous. It is fairly easy to do it in Britain because the institutional structures in Great Britain make it possible to make attacks on the union movement and get away with it. There will be social dislocation and enormous damage to the British economy, but one can get away with it in many ways. That will not happen in this country. The trade union movement is institutionalised in a commonsense way, in a way that has worked significantly and well for over 80 years and the trade union movement is not going to give up the sort of benefits that occur under this system. Employers are not going to give up the sort of benefits that occur under this system. Therefore, if we follow that other track we are heading for disaster in this country. The warning is there. The National Farmers Federation, alone amongst employers as a major national organisation, is not heeding that advice. It does not see the writing on the wall. I conclude with a quote from the Age newspaper of 16 August because I think it puts it quite succinctly. In a sense I think it categorises all those people dealing in symbolism when they talk about industrial relations, those people who live in cloud cuckoo land and who are prepared to take that leap into the dark that deregualtion of the labour market would be all about. I quote: At the moment, the NFF is fighting to the last drop of someone else's blood. It might not be so brave when its blood, and that of hundreds of individual employers, is on the floor. The Age was speaking metaphorically, but can we afford as a country the sort of dislocation and damage that will occur if we follow the other track of deregulation which is what this motion is designed to create a climate for. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The debate is concluded. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(4.54) —I am sure Senator Cooney will be delighted to hear that on this occasion I have something reasonably nice to say about the Government's science policy and one of the areas of success of the Government's policy-building upon what has in fact been a long established and remarkably successful scheme, the Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives scheme. This scheme is peculiarly oriented towards the encouragement of commercial undertakings within the science and technology area, and within the area of research and development in particular. In the very few minutes that are available in the debate I draw just a few highlights from that report of the Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board. The first and most important point occurs on page 5 of the report, where the Board notes: the Board was pleased to note an apparent improvement in the level of IR& being undertaken by industry. I think this is a most encouraging sign for the whole industrial research and development scene in Australia. One of the major events which took place during 1983-84 is recorded in the report in these words: To the end of 1983-84 only one company has applied for a grant for IR& undertaken on behalf of corporate clients. It is disappointing that only one company has taken up the opportunity to undertake work on behalf of corporate clients provided under an amendment to the Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act passed in the 1983 Budget session. I do hope that in the course of the next couple of years we will see some increase. I shall forbear from making comments on the section of the report dealing with sunrise industries because in the past I have expressed a view about the inappropriateness of picking winners as far as the science budgets are concerned and as far as the allocation of money is concerned. I make my final remarks regarding the section of the report in chapter 9 on the national biotechnology program. Australia has the opportunity to become one of the great world leaders and one of the great beneficiaries of changes in biotechnology. I instance just a couple of things that are under way in Australia at the moment. The Government, I think through the Department of Health in particular, has put something like $7m into the development of a malaria vaccine which will have not only world-wide implications in terms of public health but also in terms of the revenue that can potentially be derived for Australia and which I think would be one of our most significant high technology exports. Biochemists at Monash University have become the first Australian researchers to build a complete working gene and that has very significant implications for the development of biotechnology and for the development of technologies, particularly in relation to the agricultural sector. Professor Keith Williams at the Macquarie University has succeeded in an extraordinary process of creating what might be regarded as a biological factory which could be used for the genetically engineered production of enzymes, hormones and vaccines for such things as hepatitus B, anthrax, foot and mouth disease and it possibly may even have some relevance in terms of a potential cure for acquired immune deficiency syndrome. Researchers have recently announced, for instance, a capacity to use biotechnology for such things as increasing the meat yielding capacity and the milk yielding capacity of animals. It is interesting that a fairly recent report has indicated that the United States of America is slowly losing its place of world predominance in biotechnology and that countries such as Japan and Australia are poised to take advantage of this. There are some criticisms which can be made of the way in which we as a nation have approached the whole area of biotechnology but I do think this report indicates that basically we are on a sound track and that the Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board has done an extremely good job in its operations in the last couple of years. On this occasion the Government is to be commended for having made the funds available and it is encouraging to see that the private sector is now taking up more of the opportunities which this scheme in fact was designed to encourage to ensure additional participation on its part and hopefully additional benefit accruing to Australia. Debate (on motion by Senator Chaney) adjourned. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(5.00) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. Mr Deputy President, as you would know, the very important report of the Inquiry into the Grape and Wine Industries has great significance and importance for the State of South Australia in particular and, of course, other wine growing States such as New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia. In particular I draw the Senate's attention to the recommendations of the committee of inquiry because some of them are highly relevant to considerations at present. It is known that the Government has been considering for some time the expansion of the system of indirect taxation on various goods and services. Indeed, that was one of the main subjects for discussion at the recent taxation summit. Indeed, the Government is still considering, as we understand, options in the area of indirect taxes generally. I think the point that needs to be made is that following the imposition of sales tax on wine in the 1984 Budget the committee of inquiry recommended there ought to be no further increases in the tax applied to wine in light of the fact there had been insufficient time for evidence to be gathered as to the effect of those increased taxes on the sales of wine and, of course, on the industry as a whole. I think this ought to be brought to the attention of the Senate at this time because there has been speculation that in the not too distant future increases in the rate of tax currently applying to wine will be announced. This is causing a great deal of concern in South Australia. Senator Walsh —Concern by you. I do not know of anybody else. Senator MESSNER —I know that fact must have been brought to the Minister's attention. I am seeking to do so again to show that such increases do have a dramatic impact on the industry. The second part of the report's recommendations relate to the question of imported wine. While the Government has made it easier for imported wine to be brought into Australia, to compete with Australian production and, obviously, put Australian jobs in the wine industry at risk, the committee of inquiry has recommended that that will need to be examined very closely before there is any further alleviation of this problem. It has recommended in fact that the whole area be tightened up in favour of Australian production. The statistics have shown a very clear growth in imports at present. This is to the detriment of Australian wine sales. It is fairly clear that new wines flowing in from overseas, particularly perhaps those being dumped on our markets by the European Economic Community-which of course has a vast surplus of wine-will have an effect on the future of the industry in South Australia and other places. This of course needs to be remembered. I am sure that the Minister understands those arguments and will do his best for his State of Western Australia with its embryonic wine industry to ensure such effects are not felt. Senator Walsh —I cannot understand whether you are for deregulation. Senator MESSNER —I cannot understand what the Minister is mumbling about. If he were to move his hand a little perhaps we would understand more easily what he is saying. The fact is that the wine industry is very conscious at present of these developments. The industry particularly is concerned that if the Government proceeds along lines contrary to this report's recommendations there could well be a disaster in the industry in the years ahead. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(5.05) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The Australian Canned Fruits Corporation has done a very fine job in trying to maintain some stability in an industry which has been wracked by problems, some of which are internal but the majority of which are international. The way the Corporation has gone about trying to maintain the viability of its own industry and the industries it supports I believe deserves enough credit that we should take this opportunity to give recognition to the Corporation now. In 1984, the year under review and an off year in the fruit industry, overseas sales were somewhat reduced. However, the real matter of concern was that Australian sales suffered a decline of 12 per cent in that year. It will be a matter of very considerable concern if these Australian sales are to decline and the Australian industry is unable to ascertain whether it is caused by consumer transference to other products or imports. For reasons that I do not now understand and which probably I never will understand the major Australian grocers of Australia insist on buying overseas products to compete with the products that their own customers are producing. It is not only a matter of price. It is certainly not a matter of quality. I think we all should take note of how undesirable it is to go into a major supermarket and see stuff in blue and white cans or wrapped in blue and white packets or whatever, products which are in direct opposition to the products produced by people in Australia. For Example I find it most extraordinary to go into shops in Shepparton and find produce of California, Spain or Greece on the shelves. Similarly, when recently in Nambour I found the shelves of the major supermarkets full of tins of pineapple marked `product of Taiwan'. I believe it is time the people of Nambour, Shepparton or wherever, as the case may be, started to picket those shops and throw the jolly stuff into the streets. Those shopkeepers who stock those products want as their customers people whose living is derived from producing such products right on their own doorstep. If such products are to be introduced into this country importers have enough sensitivity not to bring them into the heart of the growing areas. It is very difficult to cope with the Greek peaches, the Italian pears and the now products of Spain and Portugal which are being brought into this country when there is no doubt that the Australian produce has no superior in the world. Senator Lewis —Are you suggesting they are being dumped in the market? Senator ARCHER —I am suggesting that the pricing of these products being brought into the country is highly questionable. I believe that we take insufficient care to determine that the prices of such products are reasonable. That is the appeal that I wish to make in support of the canned fruit industry. I think we should take far greater care and be more cautious of the products that are brought in to compete with our own. We should at least ensure that those products brought in are of as good a quality and priced on as reasonable a basis as are our own. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(5.09) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This paper refers to the tenth report of the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation. I believe that the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation deserves credit for the stability it has been able to introduce to a market which, before the Corporation took control and got the growers working together, was in great difficulty. I think it is worthwhile looking at just two or three of the Corporation's functions. They are to promote and control export, to promote trade and commence, to improve production and to encourage consumption. The Corporation does its job very well. It has carried out a considerable amount of work in organising producers to go into the particular varieties that are considered important and to concentrate on special markets. The apple industry in particular is of great consequence. Apples are grown in every State of Australia, and every State has its own fruit industry. It is interesting to note that what at one stage used to be referred to as the Apple Isle now rates only third in apple production. Production in New South Wales with large plantings in recent years has risen from a total of 3,355,000 boxes to 4,500,000 boxes between 1981 and 1985, while at the same time production in Tasmania has declined from 4.1 million to 3.6 million boxes. Pears do not comprise as large a crop, but they require different forms of merchandising. The Corporation has done a lot by the way of promotion on a national basis. It has carried out this task by advertising, by providing a good deal of point-of-sale material, by organising school programs and public relations exercises and by issuing press releases and so on. The industry has gone a long way towards stabilising theposition, providing what the local market requires, and seeking to gain particular markets for particular fruit. This has involved the Singapore market, and efforts are being made to gain access to Japan, Indonesia and Taiwan, where prospects look quite good. The Corporation has done a lot of work in the area of transport in view of the fact that the cost of shipping apples is high. The Corporation did a lot of work involving persistent dealings with shipping conferences to achieve satisfactory freight rates which, in the main, enabled existing rates to be held, or in some cases actually reduced. I commend the Corporation and hope that it will be even more successful in the future. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.14) —Unless somebody else has an interest in these matters, I seek leave to move a motion relating to papers 5, 8 and 9, all of which relate to developing country preferences for different manufactured items. Leave granted. Senator CHANEY —I move: That the Senate take note of papers 5, 8 and 9. I draw the Senate's attention to the fact that although these reports deal with a relatively confined area of manufacture, included as an appendix to each report is a government statement regarding developing country preferences. That statement is in common form in each agreement. The statement in part points out: The system permits specific products imported from developing countries to enter Australia at rates of duty below the relevant General Tariff rates providing that such imports do not, or would not, cause or threaten injury to Australian industry. A little later the statement says: . . . preferences are not accorded, or if accorded will be modified or withdrawn, in circumstances where injury or threat of injury to Australian industry arises. Anyone who has any contact with Australian manufacturers will know of the oft-expressed concern about the operation of developing country preferences, as is evident from our recent experience where under the Government's steel industry plan there was some modification of preference when certain items of steel imports got beyond a certain proportional level of Australian use. Significant trade problems can arise when preferences are withdrawn. Honourable senators will probably recall the concern expressed by the Republic of Korea about Australia's change to an item or two under the steel plan. The reason for drawing the Senate's attention to this paper is that it is a matter of concern to a substantial group of manufacturers in Australia. Apparently, the Government has found it difficult to come to grips with the principles that should be involved. The Government has had under review for a considerable time the question of developing country preferences and, when asked, Senator Button advises that consideration is continuing. I understand that he has commissioned an independent study on the subject. In any event, it is a matter which could warrant more detailed debate at some time. Therefore, I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later stage. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(5.16) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(5.17) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. We as parliamentarians must understand that water, and its careful management, are of paramount importance in Australia. Rainfall in this country is both uneven and low, and there are few natural streams. Droughts are ever-present. The report by the Institute of Freshwater Studies deals with an area that is of the utmost importance to Australia, namely, management and handling of freshwaters. Water is used in all aspects of agriculture. Without water the dairying, livestock, citrus and wine growing industries in my State would quickly fold. In urban areas we need quality water. Water is extremely important in tourism, and is also an essential part of health and welfare. We need to manage pollution in water. We need to manage planning for drought and environmental degradation, to the areas surrounding our rivers and streams. We need to manage our underground water resources. The Murray-Darling basin covers four States. South Australia depends on water from the River Murray. Some 80 per cent of this is surface water and 50 per cent of the total use of water in South Australia comes from the Murray. The town of Whyalla and the northern towns are wholly dependent upon the River Murray for their water. The income from irrigation in the basin is estimated at $350m per annum. The cost of salinity control currently is around $60m. The total estimated cost of the Institute to handle research for this area was estimated at only $5m per annum, and yet the Interim Council decided to recommend against such a proposal. A vast number of bodies, authorities and research organisations handle the subject of water. As such we need a focus. The operation proposed by the Government is to institute an Australian Water Research Advisory Council and a National Water Resources, Assessment program whose functions are purely advisory and for funding distribution. This is apparently going to cost an amount of $0.7m and these bodies will not carry out any research in their own right. There is also the proposal that $0.8m should be provided for the Till laboratory at Albury-Wodonga and $2.5m for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and other research organisations. It is pleasing to note that $8m may be distributed to sundry other laboratories through the water research assistance fund. If the Minister for Resources and Energy approves! However, I believe that both the co-ordination through this administrative body and the various activities that are being carried on within the CSIRO and the universities are quite insufficient and I recommend to the Government that it consider a centre of excellence which deals with the whole area of water research. There are so many areas and strands to be brought together. We have to compare our situation with that of Canada, Holland, the United Kingdom, South Africa, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Spain, which all have national organisations to co-ordinate their water resources. Water is Australia's scarcest resource. Surely it deserves research, management and information services of world class and excellence. A centre for this could be the Institute of Freshwater Studies. The Interim Council and now the Government recommended against it, and I deplore their decision. Debate (on motion by Senator Collard) adjourned. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(5.23) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Debate resumed from 20 August, on motion by Senator Colston. That the Senate take note of the report. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(5.25) —Yesterday I moved that the Senate take note of the second report of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts on its examination of annual reports. The Committee's report was presented to the Deputy President of the Senate on 9 July 1985 pursuant to a resolution of the Senate on 31 May 1985. As honourable senators know, under sessional order 7, the annual reports of Commonwealth Government agencies tabled in the Parliament are referred by the President to the legislative and general purpose standing committee he deems appropriate. Under the same sessional order, the standing committees may, at their discretion, pursue or not pursue inquiries into these reports. The Standing Committee on Education and the Arts decided early in this session of Parliament to present a series of short reports on the annual reports referred to it. On 15 May this year I tabled the Committee's first report. That report dealt with when government agencies should report and examined whether they had adhered to these reporting requirements. Later today I intend to table a third report which covers children's television standards. This is an issue highlighted in the 1983-84 annual reports of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal and the Australian Children's Television Foundation. My remarks today concern the second report in the series. Before I discuss the second report, however, I should express the Committee's appreciation of the prompt response made by the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) to its first report. The first report recommended that the Minister for Education should determine whether the Australian Capital Territory Apprenticeship Board is subject to the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No. 1) 1983. It recommended that, if this were the case, the Board should be directed to conform to the provisions of the Act regarding the furnishing of annual reports. Honourable senators will know that the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No. 1) requires statutory bodies, which are obliged to produce annual reports, to furnish those reports within six months of the end of their accounting period. In a letter dated 30 May 1985, only 15 days after the Committee's report was tabled, the Minister stated that the Australian Capital Territory apprenticeship board is subject to the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act and that she would inform the Board accordingly. The Minister also stated that even if the Board were not subject to the Act she would still insist that it report within six months. On behalf of the Committee I thank the Minister for her rapid response to the first report. The second report in this series sets out the Committee's views about what should be included in the annual reports of government agencies. The report is intended primarily for the guidance of those statutory authorities and government departments whose annual reports are referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts. In its report, the Committee has drawn attention to the various guidelines for the production of annual reports set down by the Commonwealth Government, the Australian Institute of Management and the Royal Australian Institute of Public Administration. In the Committee's opinion, compliance with the Commonwealth Government guidelines should be the minimum goal for all government agencies preparing annual reports for 1984-85. Government departments and larger statutory corporations, especially those engaged in commercial activities, should aim at meeting the more elaborately defined criteria suggested by the Australian Institute of Management and the Royal Australian Institute of Public Administration. In this report, the Committee has also examined in detail the 1983-84 annual report of the Australian Bicentennial Authority. This examination was based on the Commonwealth Government guidelines and was undertaken to give an example of the Committee's approach. The report concludes with comments on the timeliness of annual reports on the operation of certain Acts of Parliament. These comments could not be included in the first report because the information was not then available. Mr President, I regret to report that the Committee's examination of 33 annual reports has shown that few government agencies appear to appreciate the value of their annual reports. Good annual reports contribute significantly to the public's understanding of the achievements and difficulties of government agencies. They also facilitate parliamentary scrutiny of the activities of the Executive Government. For these reasons, government agencies should take seriously the production of their annual reports. They should allocate sufficient resources to this activity to ensure that annual reports of a high standard are produced as soon as possible after the end of the reporting period. Although the standard of most annual reports remains inadequate in many respects, the Committee's work suggests that there has been some improvement in recent years. This has been due in no small measure to the activities of bodies such as the Australian Institute of Management and the Royal Australian Institute of Public Administration. The work of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations has also been influential. Finally, I should pay tribute to those officers within the reporting agencies who have been directly responsible for the improvements in reporting. No doubt standards of reporting will continue to improve. To encourage this trend, the Standing Committee on Education and the Arts will continue to monitor the standards of annual reporting of those government agencies whose reports are referred to it. The Committee intends in future to report at least annually on the standards of presentaition and timely submission of annual reports. I commend the report to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator McIntosh) adjourned. Debate resumed from 20 August, on motion by Senator Archer: That the Senate take note of the report. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(5.31) —I wish to take this opportunity to discuss briefly some of the conclusions in the Senate Standing Committee on Industry and Trade second report into the closer economic relations trade agreement between Australia and New Zealand. At the outset, let me say that the New Zealanders have developed a far more effective negotiating style. As a result, the New Zealanders have been rewarded for their efforts under the CER trade agreement. On the other hand, in the lead-up to and since the commencement of the agreement, Australians have taken a rather indifferent approach to CER. Unfortunately, for many industries and regions, this has meant that CER has only become an issue after certain New Zealand products have begun to have an impact on the Australian market. This has led to a rather negative and at times adverse reaction by Australians to CER. This only highlights the fact that had Australia spent a little more time and effort and generated more community interest and discussion during the lead-up to CER, it is quite possible a number of problems and concerns that are being raised may have been avoided or at least minimised. We cannot turn back the clock, but what Australia now has to do is to win back some of the lost ground and ensure that the agreement does precisely what it was meant to do. The four main objectives under the CER trade agreement are: To strengthen the broader relationship between Australia and New Zealand; to develop closer economic relations between member States through a mutually beneficial expansion of free trade between New Zealand and Australia; to eliminate barriers to trade between Australia and New Zealand in a gradual and progressive manner under an agreed timetable and with a minimum of disruption; and to develop trade between Australia and New Zealand under conditions of fair competition. The nature and intent of the agreement are quite clear. However, in practice, the Committee believes that some of these objectives are not being met. The apparent eagerness by both parties to replace the ailing New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement with a more comprehensive trade agreement resulted in the implementation of CER with a large number of modified arrangements as well as a number of deferrals. This decision has caused, and will continue to cause, a misallocation of resources and this has placed added burdens on those sectors which are already operating in a completely free trade environment. CER lacks a plan or strategy for the future development of industries and regions in both countries. In particular, no mechanisms are in place to evaluate whether or not the objectives are being achieved. It appears that both governments have opted to wait to see how trade develops and, at the same time, both are hoping that there will be very few transitional problems at either an industry or regional level. The Committee, however, sees the need to have in place clearer guidelines which incorporate general industry and regional outcomes. If both parties are predicting significant benefits from CER, it would seem logical to ask where these benefits will occur. Australia and New Zealand have begun a process of freeing up trade across the Tasman at a time when the rest of the world is still putting in place more obstacles to trade. Even though both Australia and New Zealand are members of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the Committee finds it most disturbing that the long term success of CER could be severely jeopardised by the inability of GATT to enforce its rules on some of the more powerful member nations. The Committee is not convinced that CER as it presently exists is providing a climate of certainty from the point of business investment on both sides of the Tasman. On the contrary, the Committee believes that one of the most fundamental uncertainties surrounding the future success and direction of CER is just how far and how quickly New Zealand will proceed with the dismantling of its global import licensing system and whether or not this system will be replaced with a new system of tariffs. The Committee would therefore have expected consideration of the following: An assessment of whether or not CER would provide the right sorts of market signals to ensure the expansion of both countries' efficient and low cost industries; a full documentation of the types and levels of assistance that will still be in place in both countries after the staged removal of tariffs, quantitative restrictions and export incentives; and the commissioning of a number of impact studies for the various industry sectors in order to gain a clear, but not necessarily precise, picture of the likely areas of expansion and contraction. Turning specifically to some of the shortcomings under CER, the Committee believes firstly that the safeguard provisions as they presently exist offer very little recourse to any party who may be suffering geniune hardship and injury arising from CER. Secondly, anti-dumping and countervailing inquiries continue to be lengthy, the determination of normal value and injury still causes concern and the additional consultative processes that have been built into CER appear to exacerbate matters further. Thirdly, other safeguard provisions, namely articles 17 and 22, are very vague and ineffective and therefore appear to offer very little comfort to anyone who wishes to pursue a genuine grievance. Fourthly, other articles under CER covering such aspects as intermediate goods, rules of origin, et cetera are reactive rather than trying to eliminate the source of the problem. Since the commencement of CER, exchange rates have fluctuated, both suddenly and widely. From 1980 to the beginning of this year, New Zealand's real exchange rate has fallen relative to Australia's, thus enhancing its competitive position. In the past few months the pendulum has swung the other way. The July 1984 20 per cent devaluation of the New Zealand dollar caused a great deal of concern in Australia because this action made many goods in Australia virtually uncompetitive overnight. The adoption of floating exchange rate policies by both governments has certainly removed the possibility of any further major one-off currency realignments. However, it is difficult to say whether or not the continual daily adjustments to each currency will be less disruptive to trade compared with earlier exchange rate policies of both countries. In particular, because our exchange rates are largely determined by factors exogenous to CER, trans-Tasman trade is likely to be disrupted from time to time. Finally, whilst it may seem that the Committee is being highly critical of many aspects of the CER agreement, it nevertheless believes that if both countries want to fulfil the CER objectives, it would appear that more active consideration must be given to the issues raised in the Committee's second report and, hopefully, that these matters will be resolved as soon as possible and not be put to one side until the 1988 review. I commend the report to the Senate. I would like to take the opportunity to express my gratitude to the many people who have made a deep contribution to the preparation of the report and the job that is ahead of us, particularly Mr Peter Keele, the Secretary of the Committee, and the Committee staff. The preparation of the report has been a great effort. We have had complete co-operation from people from both sides of the Tasman who are highly desirous of getting the CER agreement working as it was intended to work. Debate (on motion by Senator McIntosh) adjourned. Debate resumed from 20 August, on motion by Senator Georges: That the Senate take note of the report. Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(5.40) —I am pleased that the Senate will have an opportunity to have a brief debate on this matter. I trust that some facility will be given to others to participate, having in mind that we have some time left- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There are 43 minutes left for this debate, Senator. Senator GEORGES —We are fortunate that we do not have three minutes. I just indicate that to those who have an interest in entering into the debate. The report entitled `Export of Live Sheep from Australia' is the first of a series of reports on particular aspects of the inquiry of the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare into the question of animal welfare in Australia. This report was approved by the original four members of the Committee prior to the retirement from the Senate of Senators Jack Evans, Jean Hearn and Doug Scott after 30 June this year. I wish to pay tribute to the dedication of these three senators to the task of finalising this unanimous report prior to their retirement. At this stage I would like also to acknowledge the work of the Secretary of the Committee, Mr Paul Barsdell, his assistant, Jim Warner, and Louise Hildyard and Leone Peake and the other staff members of the Committee in producing this first report of the Committee. In recent years, the live sheep export trade has been criticised strongly by animal welfare and veterinary organisations and has been beset with serious industrial problems. After preliminary public hearings in May 1984, the Committee decided to give priority to the examination of the animal welfare issues associated with the live sheep export trade. It is also accorded priority to kangaroo management. The keeping of whales and dolphins in captivity was added to that priority list later in that year. The Committee received written submissions and took oral evidence from Federal and State Government authorities, the industry, animal welfare organisations and other people. It also visited two live sheep carriers and four export feedlots to gain some first hand experience of the trade. The first three chapters of the report are introductory. The next seven examine the welfare aspects of each stage of the export trade. This is followed by four chapters on economic factors and a general chapter on research. The final chapter states the Committee's main conclusions and deals with the general administration of the trade. This report, together with the submissions and the evidence taken, represents a very clear analysis of the trade and is worthy of study by those who are interested in the trade as it exists and in its future. At the front of the report is a restatement of the general conclusions drawn by the Committee in chapter 16. This is followed by a list of recommendations made by the Committee, with the relevant paragraph number alongside each. I shall now comment briefly on the main conclusions and recommendations contained in the report. The Committee reached the conclusion that, on purely animal welfare grounds, there is enough evidence to stop the trade. As stated in the report, the trade is, in many respects, inimical to good animal welfare, and it is not in the interests of the animal to be transported to the Middle East for slaughter. The Committee acknowledged that animal welfare aspects could not be divorced from economic and other factors. All these factors were considered by the Committee. The Committee went on to say in the report: After consideration of all factors, the Committee acknowledges the reality of the situation that any short-term cessation or disruption to the trade would cause considerable dislocation both in Australia and in the Middle East. Consequently, the Committee agrees that the trade will continue for some years and insists that significant improvements be made to animal welfare in many areas of the trade as recommended in this report. The implementation of reforms will help to reduce but not eliminate stress, suffering and risk during transportation of sheep to the Middle East. Therefore a long-term solution must be sought. The substitution of the refrigerated sheepmeat trade for the live export trade offers such a solution. The Federal Government should promote and encourage the expansion of the refrigerated sheepmeat trade to the Middle East and other countries, with the aim of eventually substituting it for the live sheep trade. The Committee received serious criticisms of the administration of the live sheep export trade. It became clear that: Animal health and welfare was often overridden by economic expediency; standards of inspection varied considerably among the States; the Australian Agricultural Health and Quarantine Service, formerly the Australian Bureau of Animal Health, was unable to give enough attention to the supervision and co-ordination of inspections conducted on its behalf by State veterinary quarantine officers; and the legislative basis of the inspection service was tenuous. The Committee did not believe that self-regulation has worked or will work without adequate regulatory supervision. It has therefore recommended that Federal legislation be enacted to give the Australian Agricultural Health and Quarantine Service more powers to supervise the health and welfare of export sheep from the time of receival at an export feedlot to loading on board a carrier. The Committee also supported the continuation of the existing arrangement whereby the State veterinary officers act for the Federal Government. The Committee recommended that export feedlots be licensed by State governments based on standards to be drawn up by the Australian Agricultural Health and Quarantine Service, in consultation with the State departments of agriculture and the Australian Livestock Exporters Association. I have one or two comments to make and my time is running out. Therefore, I seek leave to incorporate the rest of the statement in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- There are a number of other recommendations made in the report which deal with specific aspects of feedlots. One such recommendation relates to the adequate provision of shelter at feedlots. There was an appalling dust problem during the Committee's visit to the levels feedlot north of Adelaide in March this year. The weather conditions were extraordinary at the time but the Committee noted that little attention had been paid to the provision of shelter. Last week, between 500 and 1000 goats and sheep died in a cold snap in the same feedlot. Obviously, something needs to be done about the provision of shelter at that feedlot and probably at others. Towards the end of the public hearings, the Australian Agricultural Health and Quarantine Service gave details of a pilot program of government veterinarians accompanying 20 to 30 per cent of shipments of live sheep to the Middle East. This program will not only provide much essential information for research but it will also enable the number of sheep mortalities onboard carriers to be verified by an independent person. The Committee strongly supported this program and recommended that the Service give high priority to its implementation. A number of recommendations were directed at the need for research. Until recently, little research had been conducted into problems encountered within the trade. Most of that research has been carried out by individual companies and not published. Even now, the amount of research is totally inadequate, and more funds need to be channelled into research projects in specific areas of the trade. The Committee found a lack of statistics on sheep mortalities in the trade. Those which were available were regarded, even by government authorities, as being unreliable. Recommendations have been made in relation to the keeping and analysis of statistics. The Committee will monitor during the rest of the inquiry the action taken by the Federal and State governments and the industry in relation to the Committee's recommendations. Later this year, the Committee will present to the Senate a report on whales and dolphins in captivity and then one on kangaroos. Once these two reports have been presented, the Committee will examine animal experimentation and other areas of the inquiry. I commend the report to the Senate. Senator GEORGES —The reason I incorporated the statement was to give me an opportunity to make one or two comments concerning the reporting of the Committee's report by the media. Because of the desire of the industry to have a report put down as soon as possible, with the authority of the Senate, it was released last week. As I said yesterday, the conclusions and recommendations appear to have been Delphic in their style. I have never seen such a varied reporting of conclusions and recommendations by the media. I have a list of the reports and each one varies. My concern is that there has been misrepresentation of a question asked and an answer given by me at a Press conference. It was reported as if it appeared that the recommendation of the Committee was that the trade be phased out in five to seven years. I was asked the question: `If it were to be phased out, how long would that take?' I indicated that if that decision were made, or words to that effect, it would take five to seven years. That was reported as a recommendation of the Committee in one of the newspapers. That report led to a considerable number of protests, one of which came from the National Farmers Federation. The Federation wrote a letter, which it issued publicly before it reached me, in which Mr Ian McLachlan, the President of the National Farmers Federation, made certain caustic comments about my lack of responsibility. Since the Committee will need to deal and consult with the National Farmers Federation regarding a number of references that it still has before it, I hope that this will not prejudice the work of the Committee or the understanding of the National Farmers Federation of the care that the Committee will take with all its references. I apologise to former Senator Scott who may have been similarly misled by this misreporting. For that reason I say to him that my position is the position of the report. My position is the position of the statement made to the Senate. It would be wise for people to look at the report itself and the statement which has been made and draw their conclusions from those, not from any Press statement concerning the report. Mr Acting Deputy President, I thank you for your courtesy in allowing me to say a few extra words beyond my time. I commend the report to the Senate. I advise all honourable senators and those interested in the industry to read it carefully and thoroughly and perhaps come to the same conclusions as we did. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales)(5.50) —I think the explanation given by Senator Georges is accepted by me. But I would like to make a few points about about the live sheep export trade because it is of such importance to Australia as over seven million sheep are sold annually and it brings something like $200m of income from overseas. I think the worry, dismay and concern of the people in that industry that were caused by the misreporting, as the honourable senator has just told us it was, should be noted. This is important not only to the committee system of the Senate, which I think works admirably and which is of such importance to the people of Australia; it is equally important how statements which are put in the Press are interpreted by people in that live sheep export trade. I think journalists must be aware of the economic consequences of their over-zealous desires and at times the lack of alternative angles for a story. That aspect worries me. Because of the concern this matter caused Senator Scott, who was a member of the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare, I will quote from the Press release he put out on 15 August which stated: . . . today he very much regretted the confusion brought about by the Chairman of the Committee, Senator George Georges, when he expressed a personal view on the phasing out and specified time interval of the live sheep export trade. `Such a determination was not the Committee's,' former Senator Scott said. `On the contrary, the Committee observed the very significant progress in the research, development and facility of the trade, acknowledged its very great economic significance and saw no way in which it should be aboloished in the foreseeable future. `The Committee agreed that if alternative markets ultimately were found, of equal or greater value to the Australian sheep industry and all those who depend on it, then of course a change of emphasis may appear. `It is regrettable that such distortion was created from a personal opinion of the Chairman, and not an opinion endorsed by the Committee as a whole.' As I said, I accept Senator Georges's statement that what he said was completely misrepresented by the Press. The point about the report to which I would like to refer is the fact that the Committee said that maybe at a future time we could sell chilled mutton to the Middle East. Of course, this is not really the desire of the people in the Middle East who buy that mutton. If that happened I think that trade would fall away dramatically. Religious personal preferences currently preclude that happening. Therefore, I think we must ensure that we have as efficient and humane a trade as possible. I was not a part of this Committee, but I believe that the people who served on it have come up with a finding, on behalf of the live sheep export trade, that is suitable to all people within that trade. I have already said that industry changes should be made in some areas and those changes are actually happening at the moment in relation to the handling, feeding and housing of sheep. But, of course, this does not preclude the improvements that will be made in the future because of this report to the Senate. I say again that I hope that in the future reports which are given to the Senate do not cause as much worry and dismay to the people in an industry which is being investigated, as the misreporting of this report caused earlier in the piece. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(5.54) —I, too, am gratified to receive Senator Georges's assurance that the live sheep trade will not be terminated. Senator Georges —Wait a minute! Don't take it too far. Senator BOSWELL —I have a Press release which says: `End to live sheep trade report'. Senator Georges —How about reading the report and the statement? Senator BOSWELL —I accept your assurance but- Senator Georges —But don't take it too far. Read the conclusions of the report. Senator BOSWELL —It certainly did cause a great deal of concern to the primary producers, particularly the wool producers of this country. I ask Senator Georges to put out his Press release on paper next time he feels inclined to issue a Press release. This industry is terribly important to all wool producers of Australia. The industry produces $208m. This is a way in which the producers can use their sheep which are no longer able to produce the sort of wool that is required for Australian export. Australian primary producers produce 40 per cent of our overseas exports and are facing a great deal of hardship at the moment. Of course, Australian primary producers need all the help they can get to encourage export trade and the promotion of export dollars which can reduce our deficit. Senator Georges's report stated that we should be seeking refrigerated mutton sales in the Middle East. Whilst I agree with him that we should be not only seeking the sales in the Middle East but also promoting primary industry sales all over the world, the facts remain that the market forces state that people in the Middle East want live sheep. That is what they are prepared to buy and that is the only way we can meet the demands of the market. I commend the report. It contained a lot of very worthwhile recommendations. I have been talking to the rural industry people and to the national farmers and they commend the report as being very responsible. It is just unfortunate that the headline did come out of the statement Senator Georges made. I think everyone in the Senate at some time has been in a similar position as that which Senator Georges was in when he made a statement on the run and it was interpreted entirely differently. One of the recommendations in the report is that the waterside workers be trained. I wonder whether it would be a worthwhile retirement career for Senator Georges when his term ends after three years. He might take up that proposal with his trade union connections and train waterside workers in the handling of live sheep exports. He could perhaps do that after the three or six years in which he has learnt animal husbandry as he has travelled around Australia. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(5.58) —I wish to remind the Senate that the report of the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare, which examined the export of live sheep from Australia, acknowledged that any short term cessation of or disruption to the trade to the Middle East would cause considerable dislocation in both Australia and the Middle East. Consequently, I was pleased that the Committee agreed that the trade would continue for some years. Most people would agree that many problems which are still associated with the welfare of animals really need to be addressed. The export of live sheep has become a very important component of our wool and sheep industry and has made a significant contribution to the Australian economy over the last decade. I think the Committee recognised this when it said that animal welfare issues could not be divorced from economic considerations. The live sheep export industry is very important to my State of Tasmania. So the unfortunate suggestion which resulted from media interpretation did cause many rural producers to run into some sort of panic, and rightly so. The rural industry, not only in Tasmania but also throughout Australia, is in a very depressed state at present, having to contend with numerous external forces which are virtually beyond its control. These include the dumping of surplus primary products on world markets at heavily discounted prices by the European Economic Community; the massive subsidies which are paid to European primary producers, which have enabled them to capture some of our traditional markets; the downturn in the consumption of red meat; and the rising farm costs which are the direct result of increasing government charges, taxes and tariffs. Any further attempt to destroy the viability of our rural industries, therefore, will be vigorously attacked, certainly by the farming sector. According to report, the gross value of the live sheep export trade is about $217m a year. Without a doubt, this is a significant contribution to Australia's export earnings. Furthermore, the export of six million to seven million sheep has helped to raise sheep prices and has greatly increased productivity. The 1983 report by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics suggests that the average price, for example, received by farmers per sheep may have risen by as much as 20 per cent as a result of the live sheep export trade. As a consequence of the need for a considerable increase in the number of breeding ewes as a percentage of total sheep numbers, the live sheep export trade has contributed to an overall increase in the number of animals born each year and there has been an obvious shift from wool production to meat production. The value of the live sheep export trade can be seen not only in terms of earnings for the rural producers. The benefits from income received flow through to other sectors of the economy, particularly people who supply the producers and who depend on their custom. In spite of the growth in the trade over the last few years there has been a visible downturn in profitability, due mainly to increased competition and price cutting attempts by Middle East importers. The live sheep export trade, like most Australian industries, must become more competitive on overseas markets. This can be achieved only by improving the quality of the product. I feel confident that if the Committee's recommendations relating to animal welfare are carried out the product that eventually reaches the market in the Middle East will be able to withstand the competition which is now coming from meat from the EEC and New Zealand. I commend the report to the Senate. Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(6.03) —in reply-Mr Acting Deputy President- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator MacGibbon) —Senator Georges, I take it you are exercising the right of reply. Senator GEORGES —Yes. The reason I do this is that the methods we now use in the Senate to table reports limit the ability of the person tabling the report and those who follow to engage in a careful debate, not a garbled debate, on very important subjects. I believe that the Standing Orders Committee ought to take a look at what has happened and try to allocate more time for the presentation of these reports which have taken so much time and investigation to produce. For that reason I am taking advantage of replying briefly to what has been said whereas I could have done that, perhaps, at a later stage. I think it is necessary to make it perfectly clear that the report of the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare concludes that on animal welfare grounds there is sufficient evidence that the live sheep export trade should be stopped immediately. Those grounds will persist and the industry should very carefully look at the fact that the pressures that have been applied in the past will not go away. Any major disaster at sea in this trade would lead to an increase of pressure to stop the trade, with more justification, perhaps, than there has been in the past. Some comments I made-incidentally, I say to Senator Boswell that I did not make those comments on the run-were reported in the Press. The best report of those comments came not in the Australian which contained a misreport, possibly not by the reporter himself but by the sub-editor who threw a very large subject into about three or four paragraphs, but from the Daily Commercial News which is a valuable journal to commerce, especially rural commerce. It contained the most balanced report of what happened. I used terms such as the trade being fragile. I also said that on the basis of my experience the nature of the trade was changing. It is fairly obvious that Senator Boswell and Senator Brownhill are not aware of the changing nature of the trade. Perhaps they will not be aware, until they fully read the report, of who controls the trade, who can make the decisions that could alter the trade and who can, perhaps, make the decisions that could bring the trade to an end no matter what we want. There is a changing nature to the requirements of the Middle East towards younger sheep and the dependence of the wool industry upon this export trade might be, to use the word again, tenuous. We said in the report that certain aspects of this trade ought to be carefully examined. The industry, if it fails to do so, does so at its own peril. For instance, on religious grounds-how important are these religious grounds is indicated by the fact that Iran was so quickly able to bring the live sheep trade to an end-we received evidence from the Federation of Islamic councils in Australia. It is responsible for the supervision of the slaughter of sheep in Australia for the Middle East. It receives a benefit from that. From its point of view it would be better if all the sheep were slaughtered in Australia. It is its view, on religious grounds, that the treatment of sheep and the way they are handled is not acceptable on animal welfare grounds. The Federation may have a vested interest in that it receives a return for every sheep slaughtered in Australia. I think the figure given to us was that the benefit to it for all sheep slaughtered in Australia for one year is $400,000. It is quite possible that it believes that to have more sheep slaughtered in Australia rather than transported live overseas would be to its benefit. It would be. There is no doubt that the Federation could bring influence to change religious attitudes overseas. Those attitudes are changing. Therefore, we should look very carefully at this industry and at the suggestion of the Committee. The Committee recommends on animal welfare grounds that the live sheep trade be phased out and substituted by refrigerated trade. If we look at this recommendation, not on animal welfare grounds but on economic grounds, we see that it is in the best interests of industry. It could diversify refrigerated trade away from the volatile Middle East. Senator Boswell —But they do not want it. Senator GEORGES —One thing we can be certain of is that those who control the industry in the Middle East will not want it because they own the ships, by and large, but when the problems, such as drought, in Africa and in other countries that surround the Middle east start to disappear the greatest volume of live sheep supplied to the Middle East will come from those countries. It is quite possible that unless we anticipate this the trade could cease, not on animal welfare grounds but on economic grounds. I am saying to those who represent the rural industry that they should read the full report. They should read the recommendations on the basis that they are sound and responsible. Had they been made on purely animal welfare grounds we could have said: `The trade should stop. You sort it out'. We took the responsible course of going through the matter. We understood that trade was likely for a number of years in spite of whatever happened. We then looked at how best we could protect the interests of animals. I repeat, I hope that the comments made by the President of the National Farmers Federation were made from the hip. If I correctly recall the gentleman's attitude on other issues, he is inclined to fire from the hip. He has a sort of hip reaction to all politicians, particularly National Party politicians and, especially Mr Sinclair. Honourable senators should look at his comments. Senator Brownhill —He gave Bob a few serves today. Senator GEORGES —He has possibly given Bob a few serves. He gave me a serve in a letter which I have here. I put it to one side and did not answer it angrily. Today I took the opportunity of trying to correct him. The National Farmers Federation and the Animal Welfare Committee will be in close communication over the next two or three years when we come to investigate animal husbandry practices and examine intensive farming practices. It will be necessary to have the NFF's full co-operation and understanding and I am sure that we will get it. I am sure the new Committee will endeavour to bring down balanced reports, as we have to this point, no matter what the pressures happen to be from either side of the debate. Honourable senators must realise that the Committee comes to conclusions and makes recommendations; it does not make the laws. That is somebody else's responsibility. However, a report of this magnitude, coming to these conclusions and recommendations, cannot be ignored by government. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 20 August, on motion by Senator Colston: That the Senate take note of the report. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 20 August, on motion by Senator Archer: That the Senate take note of the report. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That notwithstanding anything contained in the Sessional Orders further consideration of Committee reports pursuant to Sessional Orders be not further proceeded with this day. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —On behalf of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, I present a report on proposals for variations of the plan of the layout of the City of Canberra and its environs dated August 1985, the eighty-fifth edition. I also table minutes of proceedings and the transcript of evidence. I seek leave to make a statement relating to the report. Leave granted. Senator REID —The report on the eighty-fifth series of variations to the city plan covers five variations and recommends the approval of works valued at $55.1m. The Committee in considering these proposed variations took evidence from 22 witnesses appearing as individuals and representing 8 organisations, including the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly. The Committee recommends approval of the five variations contained in this series. Variation 1 proposes the deletion from the city plan of an existing access road and parking area. This will enable the area to be included in the site for the third secondary college in Belconnen. The estimated cost of the college at May 1985 prices is $12m. The Committee approves the variation and notes that criticism made by the Canberra College of Advanced Education concerning inadequate consultation between the National Capital Development Commission and the college regarding the site has now been remedied. With regard to variation 2, the Committee is concerned about traffic flows and accident figures at the Bowen Drive-Brisbane Avenue intersection. Therefore, approval is given on the basis that the National Capital Development Commission and the Department of Territories satisfy themselves that proper arrangements are made for the intersection, taking into account both present and anticipated traffic flows and accident rates. The Committee has long recognised the need for adequate retail services in Tuggeranong and approves variation 3, which relates to the Tuggeranong Town Centre project. Although the National Capital Development Commission has assured the Committee that adequate anti-pollution safeguards will be installed, the Committee has some concern about potential pollution hazards affecting the Murrumbidgee River as a result of pressures associated with the construction of the Town Centre. The Committee recommends that the Department of Territories, in the initial stages of development of the project, institute effective monitoring procedures to prevent pollution of the Murrumbidgee River and that funds be made available for this purpose. The Committee is also conscious of the level of expenditure involved in the construction of the Town Centre and is aware that recovered costs will be absorbed in Consolidated Revenue and may not directly benefit residents of the Australian Capital Territory. Therefore, consideration should be given to making costs associated with the second stage of the project part of the development package for private developers without delaying the development timetable. The Committee approves variations 4 and 5, which provide for the addition to the city plan of access roads to enable the development of housing and special development areas on the north-western and eastern side of the proposed Lake Tuggeranong, associated with the development of the Tuggeranong Town Centre. There is a need for that Town Centre and for a third college at Belconnen. They have now been approved I remind the Senate that last night in the Budget certain funding was made available for each of those projects and I welcome it. I hope that each of them is able to proceed without any of the interruptions and problems that have been associated with some of our developments in recent times. They are necessary for the community in each of those areas. Senator COLSTON(Queensland) —On behalf of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts, I present the third report dated August 1985 on the examination of annual reports, together with the transcript of evidence. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(6.18) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. On behalf of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts, I table the third report arising from the Committee's examination of annual reports. Two reports on annual reports have already been presented this year. The first dealt with the timeliness of reporting, the second with the content of annual reports. This report deals with children's television standards which are determined and enforced by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal under the relevant provisions of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942. In May 1985, following legal action taken by Herald-Sun TV Pty Ltd and others against the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, the High Court of Australia invalidated those parts of the children's television standards which required pre-classification of children's programs. The Government has announced its intention to amend the Broadcasting and Television Act to restore the Tribunal's powers of pre-assessment. These amendments are due to come before the Parliament early in the Budget sittings. The Committee decided that its views on the need for regulation of children's television should be made available to the Senate before the proposed amendments are debated. For this reason, the report I table today has concentrated solely on children's television standards. Other aspects of children's television will be the subject of a further report which I hope to table later during these sittings. The report has been produced in-house so that the Committee's tight timetable could be met. Bound copies of the report should be available soon. I should take this opportunity to record my appreciation of the efforts of the Senate reproduction section which produced this report so quickly. The Standing Committee on Education and the Arts has had a long-standing interest in children's television. This is its third report on the subject. In 1978 the Committee tabled its first report `The Impact of Television on the Development and Learning Behaviour of Children'. In 1981 a second report entitled `Children and Television Revisited' was tabled. The children's television standards which are the subject of this third report took effect on 1 July 1984. The standards continued some existing requirements in relation to children's or C programs, including the setting aside of the 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. time slot Monday to Friday for these programs. The standards also introduced some important new requirements, including a quota of eight hours first release Australian children's drama, a 50 per cent Australian content requirement and limitations on repeats and back-to-back scheduling of programs. The most controversial requirement, which was in the standards prior to 1 July 1984, was that representative samples of children's programs had to be pre-classified by the Tribunal. It was this reqruirement which was challenged in the courts by commercial television licensees. During the Committee's public hearings, the commercial television licensees argued that a requirement for pre-classification of programs by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal amounted to censorship. The licensees argued that they have the resources and incentive to undertake their own classification of C programs. They pointed out that they already classify all other programs. The licensees also stated that they did not take issue with the concept of C programs or with the C time slot. Their only objection was to pre-classification. Witnesses from the Australian Children's Television Foundation and the Australian Council for Children's Films and Television, on the other hand, argued for pre-assessment, stating that this procedure was vital for the future of children's television. The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal denied that pre-classification amounted to censorship. According to the Tribunal, the aim of pre-assessment was to classify a pool of suitable programs from which licensees could select those which best met their needs. Licensees were not required to screen particular C programs. I do not intend in this statement to canvass all the arguments put to the Committee. These may be found in the report. I shall merely say that on the basis of the available evidence, the Committee recommends that the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 should be amended so that the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal has the clear power to regulate in the field of children's television, including the power to pre-assess C programs. This power of pre-assessment, however, should be restricted solely to C programs. I commend the report to the Senate and seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations I present the report dated June 1985 on the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust, together with the transcript of the evidence. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator COATES(Tasmania)(6.24) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. This report on the administration of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust brings to an end three years of inquiries into the SFIT affairs, its investments and office practices, and its administration. It has been a difficult inquiry dealing with very complex issues and personal relations. It is the Committee's second report on this matter. Our first report was made in November 1983 following problems in the Trust which were brought to the attention of the Committee by the Auditor-Generals' report of 1980-81. The issues developed from there. There appeared to be no improvement in the administration of the Trust and there was a break-down in the relations between the Chairman and the investment manager, a conflict which ultimately intruded into the SFIT's primary role of efficient and prudent investment. I should emphasise that more than $2 billion of contributors funds was involved. Ultimately, a very serious report was made by the Auditor-General to the then Minister for Finance. The Committee's report deals with these issues. It deals with the Auditor-General's reports on the Trust's annual reports. It deals with the Government's action as a result of the Auditor-General's special report, the inquiry by MrMonaghan, the joint working party on the Monaghan report and the inquiry by Mr Agafonoff into the staffing situation. In this report we deal in some detail with the investment policies and practices of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust and, in particular, with its investment in resource projects. As was to be expected, we deal with the appointment of Mr Hammond as Chairman of the Trust, the working relations in the Trust and the break-down of those relations between the Chairman and the chief investment manager. We deal also with the role of the Department of Finance and its response to the problems in the office of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust. We also deal briefly with the Trust's more recent annual report, for 1983-84, and we discuss the lessons that can be learned from this whole sorry issue so that those lessons can be applied to statutory authorities generally. I draw the attention of the Senate and of all those interested to the 28 findings and recommendations covering all these issues to which I have referred and which we summarise in chapter 10 of the report. I will not take the time of the Senate to read out those findings and recommendations. It would be invidious to try to select some of them because they are all important. I would like to thank the staff and members of the Finance and Government Operations Committee, including former members of the Committee, for their work on this very difficult and complex inquiry. I thank all those who gave evidence to the Committee. I remind the Senate that substantial amendments to the Superannuation Act which alter the structure, powers and duties of the SFIT were introduced into the Senate during the last session and that the Committee reported on those amendments in the light of its knowledge of the SFIT, and having considered carefully the reports to the Minister on the SFIT by Mr Monaghan, the joint working party and Mr Agafonoff. The Committee's report on the amending Bill is annexed to this report which I have tabled. I draw attention to the Committee's statement that it believes that the Bill satisfactorily provides for much needed changes to the administration of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust. Finally, I would like to emphasise that the contributors to the superannuation fund administered by the SFIT have a right to expect that the administration of the trust will be conducted with the highest degree of professionalism and probity. The very unfortunate breakdown in the administration of the SFIT which has been examined by the Committee has now been resolved after exhaustive and thorough examination. Subject to the positive improvement in the SFIT's management that I have referred to, the Committee believes that both contributors and the private investment sector can be confident in the future of the administration of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust. I commend the Committee's report to the Senate and seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator JONES(Queensland) —On behalf of the Senate Standing Committee on Science, Technology and the Environment I present a report dated August 1985 on the examination of annual reports referred to the Committee, together with the transcript of evidence. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator JONES(Queensland)(6.32) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. Pursuant to Sessional Orders, the Senate Standing Committee on Science, Technology and the Environment receives for consideration and inquiry some forty annual reports from Governnt departments and other bodies each year. The question of how to deal most appropriately with this flood of information has posed difficulties for all the Committees since it became a regular practice of the Senate in 1976. The Committee on Science, Technology and the Environment has been most diligent in attempting to meet the requirements of the Senate under the terms of the resolution on annual reports, having reported on examination of annual reports in March 1978, June 1978, March 1979, May 1982 and November 1983. Over the period covered by this series of reports, this Committee has attempted to develop a method of carrying out its duty of scrutinising annual reports in the most appropriate way. I dealt with the topic at some length in my tabling statement on the report on the preservation of the Abbot's Booby on Christmas Island in November 1983. In earlier years, a common approach by standing committees was to examine briefly all the annual reports referred to them. These examinations tended to concentrate on the style, format and contents of the reports under review. Sometimes a summary of the problems raised by the reporting bodies was included. In its May 1982 report, the Committee criticised this approach as being shallow and superficial, and as not contributing substantially to the oversight by Parliament of the operations of the Executive. Following its May 1982 report, the Committee resolved that it would continue the approach of limiting its detailed examination of annual reports to particular matters mentioned in a small number of selected reports. As a further contribution to the question of dealing with reports, this Committee invited a submission from the Royal Australian Institute of Public Administration. On 27 May 1985 the Committee heard evidence from Mr Norman Fisher of the Australian Capital Territory division of the Institute. The transcript of his evidence may prove helpful to committees considering the appropriate treatment of annual reports under Sessional Orders. The Institute's evidence covered two broad areas: Current arrangements for presenting annual reports, and Parliamentary use of the reports. In relation to current arrangements, the Institute is critical of the lack of timeliness of reports, a matter also considered by the recent first report of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts on examination of annual reports. The problem of timeliness is exacerbated where the date of publication of reports is unclear or uncertain. The Institute suggests that, if Ministers or senior public servants had to explain delays, there would be fewer delays, and the Senate Committee considering any late report would gain some understanding of the difficulties involved by the department or authority concerned in preparing it. Mr Fisher also commented on guidelines for the production of annual reports. There are different guidelines for departments and authorities. The Government's guidelines for Departmental annual reports issued in 1982 were criticised on the following grounds: They are voluntary; they are so modest in the standards imposed they could possibly encourage departments to relax their reporting efforts; they are not subject to any follow-up action; and they are not subject to any process of regular review and revision. The guidelines for reports by statutory authorities are more authoritative and specific. These were a substantive response to a 1982 inquiry by the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations into Commonwealth Statutory Authorities. In order to encourage the use of annual reports as a tool of Departmental accountability, the Royal Australian Institute for Public Administration conducts an annual award scheme for annual reports. The Institute issues its own guidelines, which are based on the view that the fundamental task of reports is to report on departmental management. These guidelines are revised each year. Following its judges' assessment of annual reports, the Institute organises a workshop on the production of annual reports. The 1985 workshop attracted nearly fifty participants. The Institute suggested that another possible area of improvement in current arrangements for annual reports could be some standardisation, particularly in relation to information on staffing and finance. It noted that there are already some standards for financial reporting in the Budget documents and in the supplementary information provided to Senate Estimates committees. The Institute also had suggestions for the development of parliamentary use of annual reports. It noted that even where departments and authorities had provided annual reports to the Parliament in time for consideration in Senate Estimates hearings, such use was rare. Estimates committees make much greater use of supplementary notes on departmental estimates, thus conveying the impression to departments and agencies that annual reports were of less importance. The Institute recognises that other parliamentary committees may possibly draw on annual reports in their inquiries. The Royal Australian Institute of Public Administration submission suggested the following developments for more effective parliamentary scrutiny of annual reports, and through them, of the generating department or agency: Either setting an earlier deadline, or impressing on departments the need to meet the December deadline by publishing the dates at which reports were provided and published; the Parliament could, perhaps through the Senate committees, require departments or authorities to provide explanations for delays in reporting; the Department of Finance specifications for explanatory notes on Estimates could require some cross referencing to annual reports; Senate committees could institute a limited but regular review early each calender year, of departmental management and performance, drawing on respective annual reports. Some simple rules for the selection of those to be reviewed each year could be considered; one possible selection criterion could be to deal with departmental reports each year and select annual reports from authorities less frequently; and it may be more effective if committees concentrated their attention on each agency's reporting of performance, as the Senate Estimates committees have focused on financial issues. The Institute's submission concluded that, although annual reports had improved considerably in recent years, better parliamentary procedures and practice could result in them becoming a major instrument in improving the accountability of departments and authorities to the Parliament. The Institute paid tribute to heightened parliamentary interest in annual reports and considered that this factor, together with its own award scheme, had brought about improvements in recent years. This Committee found the Institute's evidence both informative and helpful. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator TATE(Tasmania) —I present the ninth report of 1985 of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills concerning the Ashmore and Cartier Islands Acceptance Amendment Bill 1985; the Broadcasting and Television Amendment (Tribunals Powers) Bill 1985; the Communications Legislation Amendment Bill 1985 and the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment Bill 1985. I also lay on the table the Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 8, dated 21 August 1985. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator MISSEN(Victoria) —by leave-I table the report of the Parliamentary Amnesty Group activities for the recess period. I seek leave to make a statement in regard to that report. Leave granted. Senator MISSEN —In the report, which deals mainly with the mission which I made to Sri Lanka and Madras and the meeting in Rome of the Emergency Committee on Sri Lanka, I refer to the statement in the report that I had had no reply to a letter which I wrote to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) on 31 July 1985. In fact I received a reply in my office today. I bring this to the notice of the Senate. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(6.43) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. As one who has had a close association with the Parliamentary Amnesty Group for several years I would like to take a few moments briefly to commend its cause and its work to honourable senators. I do not know how many honourable senators heard a recent Australian Broadcasting Corporation Science Show report on torture. I found it very unpleasant but very educational listening because it did not concentrate so much on the horrors of torture but on the way it has been institutionalised. Of course, the horrors have always existed. They are bad enough. But the way in which so many governments now have torturers as organised public servants just doing another job, from which they cosily return every night to home and family, is a tendency of the modern world which it is most necessary to combat. It is the primary function of Amnesty International to try to serve the interests of political prisoners. However, increasingly, it has had to tackle the problem of torture applied, as a political process, as a means of intimidating whole populations. Certainly, in order to resist the organisation of torture-that is my point-another organisation is necessary. To that organisation all people of goodwill must make some input. To a considerable extent Amnesty provides that. For that reason I commend the work of the Parliamentary group to all honourable senators, especially new senators, and ask them to join us if at all interested. Senator Missen's report of his mission to Sri Lanka as President of the Parliamentary Amnesty Group is important reading. That is the document which he has introduced. I commend it to all honourable senators. His points that there must be a restoration of enforceable civil liberties in Sri Lanka and, hopefully, a return to the leadership of moderate Tamil opinion ought to be underlined. Beyond that, I should mention briefly some other points he makes in the report. He mentions that there must be access, at present denied, to the International Red Cross to these areas with their regular occurrence of death and violence. He suggests it may well be necessary for an international peace-keeping force to go there in spite of the fact that the Sri Lanka Government might be offended. I agree with Senator Missen on these points. I ask honourable senators to think about those points not only because of the situation in Sri Lanka but also because population and resources pressures must increase racial violence in many parts of the world. Of course, we can if we wish ignore such things. However, if there is any influence that we can bring to bear as a nation, as a government or as individuals I believe we should exert that. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Message received from the House of Represenatives acquainting the Senate that the House of Representatives had made new amendments as an alternative to the amendments to which the Senate had disagreed, in respect of which it desires the reconsideration of the Senate. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That the consideration of the message in Committee of the Whole be an Order of the Day for the next day of sitting. The PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that I have received a letter from the Leader of the Australian Democrats advising that Senator Siddons wishes to be discharged from further attendance on the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare and nominating Senator Sanders to be a member of the Committee in his place. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans)-by leave -agreed to: That Senator Siddons be discharged from further attendance on the Select Committee on Animal Welfare and that Senator Sanders, having duly been nominated in accordance with the resolutions of the Senate establishing the Select Committee, be appointed a member of that Committee. The PRESIDENT —Pursuant to standing order 28A I lay on the table my warrant appointing Senators Bjelke-Petersen, Coleman, Colston, Elstob, Haines, Jessop, Jones, MacGibbon, Tate and Townley to act as Temporary Chairmen of Committees when the Deputy President is absent. The warrant appointing senators to be temporary Chairmen of Committees dated 22 February 1985 and amended on 16 May 1985 is revoked. The following papers were tabled: Christmas Island Act-Ordinance 1985-No. 5-Endangered Species (Repeal). Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act-Ordinance 1985-No. 1-Endangered Species (Repeal). Coral Sea Islands Act-Ordinance 1985-No. 1-Endangered Species (Repeal). Defence Act- Declaration under Regulation 49 (Statutory Rules 1985 No. 88) of certain defence practice areas, dated 5 July 1985 (Gazette No. S 289, 25 July 1985). Determinations 1985-No. 51-Intermediate Term Duty Living Allowance and others. Fisheries Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 194. Nursing Homes Assistance Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 192. Overseas Telecommunications Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 193. Public Service Act- Determinations 1985-Nos 60, 62, 64. Presiding Officers' Determination 1985-No. 4. Radiocommunications Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 195. Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Ordinances 1985- No. 33-House of Assembly (Amendment) (No. 2). No. 36-Business Franchise (Tobacco and Petroleum Products) (Amendment). Telecommunications Act-By-laws- Telecommunications (Charging Zones and Charging Districts) Amendment No. 58. Telecommunications (Community Calls) Amendment No. 40. Proclamations by His Excellency the Governor-General notifying that His Excellency had proclaimed the following Acts and sections of Acts to come into operation on the dates specified: Radiocommunications Act 1983-20 August 1985. Paragraphs 11 (1) (a) and (c), sections 23 and 37 and sub-sections 65 (15), (16), (17) and (18)-27 August 1985 (Gazette No. S 322, 19 August 1985). Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No. 1) 1985-Amendments of the Trade Union Training Authority Act 1975, made by the Act-19 August 1985 (Gazette No. S 320, 16 August 1985).