Friday, 23 August 1985 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 9 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Defence Security 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 indespensible to the effective conduct of ANZUS and any similar agreement, to wit: the reception of U.S. naval shipping (nuclear and non-nuclear) in Australian ports; the maintenance of the present U.S. nuclear installations in Australia; reasonable co-operation by Australia in U.S. missile testing programmes. Your petitioners, therefore, pray the Senate, in Parliament assembled, that you will give this matter your earnest consideration. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator MacGibbon (from 13 citizens). To 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. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Harradine (from 30 citizens). To the Honourable President of the Senate and the senators in 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 pray that the concessional rate of duty on old cars and parts be maintained. by Senator MacGibbon (from 55 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we the undersigned have great concern for the future development and research of the IVF programme and express that we are against ``Senator Harradine's Bill'' Human Embryo Experimental Bill 1985. The Bill threatens the provisions as a treatment for infertility because it defines as `prohibited experimentation': 1. Any manipulation of a relevant human embryo; 2. Any procedure undertaken on or involving the use of a relevant human embryo; 3. The creating of a relevant human embryo in anticipation that the development of the full human potential of the relevant human embryo will be interrupted or of using the embryo, or of having the embryo available for use, in any experimenting by virtue of sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be prohibited experimenting for the purposes of this Act; 4. Wilfully destroy a relevant human embryo; 5. Wilfully allow a relevant human embryo to die. by Senator Peter Baume (from 200 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled; the Petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth. That your petitioners do not support the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1985. A. `Section 5 (1) for the purposes of this Act, but subject to sub-section (2), any experimenting that is undertaken on, or that involves the use of, a relevant human embryo before the embryo has been implanted in the womb of a woman, including, but without limiting the generality of the foregoing- (a) any manipulation of a relevant human embryo; (b) any procedure undertaken on, or involving the use of, a relevant human embryo; (c) any dissection of a relevant human embryo; and (d) any process by way of testing reactions to a drug involving the use of a relevant human embryo, before the embryo has been so implanted, is prohibited experimenting. (2) Any experimenting referred to in sub-section (1) is not prohibited experimenting for the purposes of this Act if it is undertaken primarily for a benefit consistent with the development of the relevant human embryo's full human potential.'' Section 5 (2) above appears to be a saving clause to allow manipulation, procedures, and drug use during Invitro Fertilisation procedures. If this is the intent, then our objection to Section 5 (1) is withdrawn. B. `Section 5 (3) The creating of a relevant human embryo in anticipation that the development of the full human potential of the relevant human embryo will be interrupted, or of using the embryo, or of having the embryo available for use, in any experimenting, manipulation, or procedure that is prohibited experimenting by virtue of sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be prohibited experimenting for the purposes of this Act.' C. `Section 6 (8) A person shall not, in a Territory, and a corporation or an authority of the Commonwealth shall not, (a) wilfully destroy a relevant human embryo; or (b) wilfully allow a relevant human embryo to die. Penalty: $20,000 or, in the case of a natural person, imprisonment for 4 years.' Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will: Vote against the `Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1985'. Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Devlin (from 345 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 the Technical and Further Education Participation and Equity Programme established as the centre-piece for national youth policy, addresses the educational, social and employment needs of twenty-two thousand unemployed Australian youth. The intended fifty per cent funding cuts will directly effect at least ten thousand already disadvantaged young people, denying them access to further education and potential employment. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: (1) That the decision to cut the Participation and Equity Programme funding be reversed. (2) That the Technical and Further Education Participation and Equity Programme be guaranteed funding for 1987, and beyond. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Giles (from 483 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 will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 33 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 Brownhill (from 2,504 citizens), Sir John Carrick (from 4,193 citizens), Crichton-Browne (from 300 citizens), Cooney (from 1,064 citizens), Crowley (from 698 citizens), Giles (from 35 citizens), Harradine (from 1,662 citizens), Messner (from 63 citizens) and Puplick (from 2,869 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the proposed cuts in funding for early childhood education and care services in the mini-budget disregards the developmental needs of young children in their formative years and adversely affects employment prospects for women. The cuts should be reversed immediately. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Crowley (from 489 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: `No cuts for kids' We deplore the proposed cut-back of funding for pre-school and child care in the mini-budget as the proposal adversely affects young families, women's employment prospects and children's development in their most formative years. We urge you to reverse proposals for cuts in children's services. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Messner (from 272 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 unecessary suffering on nursing home patients. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Crowley (from 254 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 21 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 126 citizens) and Sanders (from 121 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 140 citizens). To the Honourable, the President and the members of the Senate assembled: The petition of the undersigned respectfully shows that to pose a broadly-based consumption tax would mean a proportionately greater burden on low income groups and increase poverty stricken victims already existing within Australia. Petition against the proposed issue of indirect consumption taxation. by Senator Cooney (from 14 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 Australia-U.S.' electronic communication facilities in the Watsonia Army Barracks. by Senators Cooney (from 180 citizens) and Zakharov (from 90 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled. We the undersigned citizens of Australia respectively 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 Tigray and Eritrea; 2. five million of the seven million starving in Ethiopia live in the above two provinces; 3. aid can, and has been, successfully sent directly to the peoples of Tigray 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 its foreign aid away from the Ethiopian government towards the peoples of Tigray and Eritrea. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Cooney (from 108 citizens). To the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows: 1. That the functions of local government involve assessing local demand for services and either providing, or facilitating the provision of, those services; 2. That a transfer of responsibility for the provision of services from one level of government to another must be accompanied by a corresponding transfer of funds; 3. That local government in Victoria is becoming increasingly involved in the planning and provision of human services in particular; 4. That the level of services currently provided by or through local government cannot be maintained, and certainly cannot be increased, if the funds made available to local government through the personal income tax-sharing arrangements are not maintained at the present level; 5. That we are totally opposed to any reduction in the percentage of personal income tax allocated to local government. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the funding of local government without the consent of representatives of local government. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Cooney (from nine citizens). To the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. 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. Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Cooney (from 603 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 deplore the discriminatory tax proposals as outlined in the Government's `White Paper' and the Government's preferred option on proposed new and widened tax proposals as so outlined, namely: Capital Gains Tax Hidden Death Tax described as ``Capital Gains Tax after death'' Gift Tax Increased Company Tax Employer taxes on employees' employment benefits All such taxes will discriminate against and inhibit progress, growth and employment throughout the nation. They will attack hardworking people who have built up their assets; they will discourage thrift; they will inhibit development; they will treat unfairly all who plan for the future; they will cause trouble and expense in arriving at the value of their assets; they will discourage industry and punish achievement. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should reject these tax proposals. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Boswell (from 25 citizens) and Brownhill (from 48 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the confinement of laying hens in battery cages is cruel and unnecessary and totally ignores the welfare of the birds. The aviary system of egg production approved by R.S.P.C.A. allows the birds to exercise, socialise, lay eggs in nests and move quite freely. Offers protection from the elements and predators, permits excellent disease and parasite control and enables easy supervision. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled should: Request the Government to introduce a Bill to phase out the battery method of egg production within five years and where appropriate offer tax deductible incentives to producers to do so. And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 32 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate of the Australian Parliament in Canberra assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth- That currently pharmaceutical companies are not automatically liable for damage or death caused by their products and individuals attempting to obtain just compensation from these companies are disadvantaged by having to take legal action against multinational corporations. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray- 1. Appropriate legislation be formulated so that pharmaceutical companies are made automatically liable for damage or death caused by their products which will obviate the need for the adversary system in law. 2. Appropriate legislation be formulated to ensure open enquiry in cases of medical incompetence or negligence leading to death or injury. 3. Appropriate legislation be formulated to allow relatives or ``next friends'' access to medical records in cases of injury or death resulting from medical incompetence or negligence. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator McKiernan (from 42 citizens). To the Honourable President and the members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That the proposed new Customs House building in Fremantle will accomodate 630 Commonwealth Government employees from seven Departments and will service many Fremantle residents; and that both staff and clients of the Departments housed in the new building will have need of childcare facilities. 2. That the non inclusion of childcare facilities in the plans for the new building is contrary to the spirit of the Government's own affirmative action policy which recognises that the absence of adequate childcare facilities prevents many women from realizing their full potential in the workplace, and makes a mockery of the Government's policy of urging private employers to provide workbased childcare for their employees. 3. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Government should act promptly to ensure that childcare facilities are included in the plans for the proposed new Customs House building. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Giles (from 73 citizens). To the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That we, the students of Ginninderra High School, and many others are very concerned about the staff cuts. We are concerned because if we lose teachers our level of education will suffer. Your petitioners humbly pray that no reduction be made to teaching personnel except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 127 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the Senate the government's stated intention to hand over to the Multijulu community ownership of Ayers Rock and Uluru National Park, which have until now belonged to all the people of Australia. We believe that Ayers Rock and the park are the natural heritage of Australia and should be retained by the crown on behalf of all living and future generations of Australians. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Senate oppose any action that would give ownership of these national treasures to any single group in the community. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Kilgariff (from 7,036 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned members of the Flynn Primary School community shows that there has been no increase in general education funding in the Australian Capital Territory since 1975. Despite this, the Government has announced its intention of reducing funds for Australian Capital Territory education by $54m, to be effected by a reduction in staff levels next year which will result in a loss of 115 actual positions. The members of the Flynn Primary School community deplore the announced cuts in education funding for the Australian Capital Territory. The community considers that education should be considered as an investment in the future of Australia, rather than an expenditure. Your petitioners therefore call on the Senate, in Parliament assembled, to oppose the proposed staff reduction and ensure that current staffing levels are maintained or improved. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Ryan (from 229 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Canberra in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: (a) The current agreements between certain Australian sporting governing bodies and certain television networks result in a totally inadequate coverage of nationally significant sporting events thus depriving Australian citizens of adequate opportunity to view those events. (b) Certain Australian television networks are deliberately entering into agreements with sporting bodies to obtain exclusive television rights to certain sporting events which are clearly and unmistakenly timetabled in such a way that it is impossible to show both. This practice means that sections of the Australian population are being deprived of opportunities to view these events owing to the totally selfish and mercenary activities of those television networks. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Parliament in its wisdom will take immediate action to legislate to prevent both of the above practices from occurring. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Boswell (from 20 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned shows: A concern for the continuing spread of pornographic material, especially video tapes, within the Australian community. Your petitioners request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should seek to have re-enacted the previous laws which banned the entry into Australia and the sale of hardcore pornography and violence in video and publication form. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Parer (from 113 citizens). Petitions received. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —by leave-I present the following petition from 1,520 petitioners, seeking a law to prohibit human embryo experimentation. This petition is not in accordance with Standing Orders. We, the undersigned, wish to see a law introduced to prohibit any experimentation on frozen embryos from any In Vitro Fertilization Programme as we believe human life begins at conception and therefore deserves to be treated with dignity and respect. Petition received. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate notes with concern- (a) the rise of union sponsored superannuation schemes such as the Building Union Superannuation scheme, which are merely vehicles used to obtain deferred wage increases outside the Wages Accord rather than genuine attempts at retirement saving; (b) the fact that such schemes are built upon a rights-based concept of welfare, with the age pension continuing to be the main source of income support rather than a safety net for those who have been unable to practice self-provision during their working lives; and (c) that the spread of such schemes has far reaching implications for future taxpayers and governments as well as future recipients of age pensions; and condemns the Hawke Government for its fiscal and moral irresponsibility in not attempting to discourage the spread of the alleged superannuation schemes. Senator MASON(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) deplores and renounces the statements of the Prime Minister inferring that the people of East Timor are Indonesian citizens when no act of supervised self-determination has been permitted there; (b) regards the Indonesian occupation of East Timor as an act of unjustified conquest of a neighbouring state to which Indonesia has no historic, cultural or ethnic claim; and (c) urges the Government to promote in the United Nations and to specify in all public statements it might make the requirement for Indonesia to permit an act of self-determination in East Timor. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) calls on the Federal Government to acknowledge the precarious position of the sugar industry; (b) notes the fact that if the sugar industry collapses tens of thousands of Queenslanders will lose their jobs, and many small towns which rely on the industry for their survival will collapse; and (c) acknowledges the reality that lending institutions will lose confidence in the industry unless prompt action is taken to ensure the future of the industry by State and Federal governments. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes that the proposed cutback in resources allocated to the Australian Capital Territory education system will severely disadvantage students in educational institutions in the ACT at a time when the Government claims to be concerned about increasing participation and equity in education; (b) notes that the proposed cutbacks are not accompanied with any proposed reduction in functions required to be performed by the ACT education system; and (c) notes that proposed cutbacks in the A.C.T. are symptomatic of the general reduction in real funding to Government schools as detailed in Budget Paper No. 1, including a reduction after allowing for inflation of 3.4 per cent in grants to the States and the Northern Territory for Government schools; of 4.8 per cent in grants for joint programs; of 47 per cent for the participation and equity program; and of 58 per cent for pre-schools; and (d) requests that the proposed cuts to education not be implemented in 1985. Senator JONES(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate, noting that the Australian Budget handed down on August 20 1985 by the Federal Treasurer Paul Keating has won widespread community support from the business community, groups responsible for the training and employment of youth, financial interests, the building industry, the trade union movement, a wide section of employer organisations, and even from the former Liberal Treasurer Mr John Howard- (a) congratulates the Hawke Federal Australian Labor Party Government for its outstanding economic achievements since its first election to office in 1983; (b) further congratulates the Treasurer for reducing the financial deficit to $4.9 billion; and (c) notes with satisfaction the continuing drop in unemployment, and the ever increasing job creation rate brought about by progressive and humane policies, initiated and carried out by the Hawke Government. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That, pursuant to paragraph (1) of standing order 36AA, a Standing Committee on Transport and Communications be appointed to operate under that Standing Order. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: (1) That the Particulars of Proposed Expenditure for the Service of the year ending on 30 June 1986 in Relation to the Parliamentary Departments, the Particulars of Proposed Expenditure for the Service of the year ending on 30 June 1986 and the Particulars of Certain Proposed Expenditure in Respect of the year ending on 30 June 1986 be referred to Estimates Committees for examination and report. (2) That expenditure under the Advance to the Minister for Finance for the year ended 30 June 1985 be referred to Estimates Committees for examination and report prior to its consideration in Committee of the Whole. (3) That the Committees consider Proposed Expenditure and Departmental Expenditure under the Advance to the Minister for Finance in the Estimates Committee groupings agreed to by Resolution of the Senate of 22 February 1985. (4) That the Committees report to the Senate on or before Friday, 11 October 1985. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That, unless otherwise ordered, the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till Tuesday, 10 September 1985 at 2 p.m. Debate resumed from 20 August, on motion by Senator Walsh: That the Senate take note of the statement and papers. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(9.13) —The Senate this morning has the opportunity to commence debate on the Budget put down in the House of Representatives earlier this week. Debate on this Budget is a little more difficult than usual because the Government has departed from normal practice and, in a sense, has reduced the central importance of the Budget in the economic affairs of the nation. Last night the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Andrew Peacock, correctly described it as half a Budget. It is a bit hard to tell whether this has been done by design or simply bad management. The omission of the taxation aspects of the Budget has probably been caused by the Government's confusion and dis- array in the wake of the disastrous taxation summit. We have seen the extraordinary gyrations in the Government's tax plans and from the statements of Ministers. It is clear that even now some final decisions are yet to be made. It remains the hope of the Opposition that some of the potentially destructive elements in the remnants of the Government's tax package might be cast aside even at this late hour. Given the Government's hope that a good part of the economic growth that it predicts will be based on increased private sector activity, it is absurd to persist with the introduction of taxes on capital gains and the so-called gains incurred on death, and effectively to load business with additional on-costs through the unprincipled way in which taxes on fringe benefits are to be imposed on employers. The Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, is one of the many people in Australia who have acknowledged the problems of on-costs for industry. Yet, effectively, the Government is proposing further to add to those costs. That must be damaging to Australian employers, and, hence, to the prospects of employees and further employment. I will turn to the question of taxation later but for the moment I simply observe that in one sense the Opposition welcomes the fact that the tax proposals do not form part of the Budget. It will be hard for the Government to claim that all its financial measures should be treated as a whole when the Government itself has destroyed the wholeness of the Budget and chosen to introduce its tax proposals as separate measures. It remains a matter of conjecture whether the Government has divided the process in three-into the May statement, the August Budget and the September statement on tax that we have been promised-because of administrative confusion, or whether it has intentionally set out to confuse the issues and to make the process seem less painful. Before commencing to analyse what I see as the main points of the Budget and the weaknesses of those points, I want to remind the Senate that the significant difficulties facing the Government are largely of the Government's own creation. All of the trumpeting we have heard about the relatively low rate of growth of government expenditure in this Budget cannot hide the fact that the continuing high deficit which underpins our high interest rates and the need for continuing high taxes is the product of the Government's profligacy in its first two Budgets-profligacy which has been maintained, if slightly ameliorated, in this Budget. The result is that after two years of economic growth the Government says the deficit will be $4.9 billion-$5.3 billion if it succeeds in obtaining discounting of wage increases for the devaluation-induced increases in the cost of living. I remind the Senate that the highest Fraser deficit in dollar terms was in the midst of a recession and amounted to $4.5 billion. Labor has a higher money deficit at a time when it trumpets our prosperity. In each of the first two Hawke Budgets expenditure rose an average of close to 7 per cent in real terms and that massive growth in government expenditure, our public debt and in the cost of servicing that debt are all legacies of the administrative of the world's greatest Treasurer (Mr Keating). The facts are that the take from pay as you earn tax has increased by 29 per cent in just two years; three-quarters of a million Australians will be paying more tax this year because of the movement into higher tax brackets; home buyers are hit with the highest real interest rates in at least 50 years; the national debt has increased by almost $17 billion under Labor and the level of government spending and the deficit this year have been exceeded only twice before in Australia's history and that, of course, was in the previous two Hawke Budgets. Even if the Government succeeds in holding outlays to the reduced level predicted in the Budget the average rate of growth in government expenditure over the three Hawke Budgets will still be more than double that of the seven Fraser Budgets. Let me now turn to what has been seen as the key factor in whether this Budget has any real chance of success; that is the future of wages following the biggest devaluation of the Australian dollar in 30 years. The Government concedes that it is central to its strategy that it is able to handle the effects of this devaluation. The Treasurer has put the issue clearly in the Budget Speech. He stated: If the initial and full price effects of the depreciation were to be transmitted to wages via indexation decisions, our cost increases would noticeably exceed those of our major competitors for years to come. Our competitive edge would be lost. Our chances of improving our share of local and world markets would be diminished. We would be throwing away any prospect of sustaining the growth rates required to get unemployment down. That is why, temporarily, we must modify our normal support for full wage indexation. Those are not the words of a Liberal, those are the words of the Treasurer. We would accept those words as being an accurate description of Australia's position. What the Treasurer at last said in the Budget is what we have been saying and, indeed, what is self-evident. If there is any common purpose in this Parliament it would be our desire to improve our world market share to sustain economic growth and to see more Australians in employment. What the Treasurer has said very clearly in the Budget Speech is that we will not achieve those common objectives unless there is discounting of wages for the inflation caused by the devaluation. The words used in the Budget about discounting are not nearly as clear as the words that I have just read from the Treasurer's Budget Speech on the issue which faces Australia. But in questions in this place and in the other place we have been told that full discounting is, in fact, the policy of the Government. That is a very welcome clarification about a point which is not clear in the Budget document itself. But even so there is doubt about what the Government is doing because of a possible early catch-up policy. Senator Walsh's statements over the past two days and the attitude of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, which was reported today, gives very little cause for optimism. This Budget represents the real test of the prices and incomes accord. We are about to find out whether the accord will permit the necessary flexibility which will enable Australia to reap the benefits of the devaluation. If, as the ACTU asserts, the accord must deliver full cost of living increases, including those which are attributed to the depreciation of the Australian dollar, any advantage in depreciation will be lost and we will head for an inflationary spiral and more unemployment. This is not scare tactics; these are the frightening words from the Opposition; this is utterly consistent with what has been said by Mr Keating on behalf of the Government. Yet this is one of the central uncertainties of this Budget. If the Government is unsuccessful in obtaining the discounting to which it says it is committed, the accord will be shown to be a sham and it will be shown to exist for the benefit of those who have jobs to the detriment of those who do not. It will be shown to be a selfish one-sided agreement which cannot deliver the results which are sought by all shades of politics in this chamber. Of course, it is not just the accord which will be shown to be a sham; so will the Budget be shown to be a sham. The growth concentrated in the private sector which is hoped for is likely to prove ephemeral. In this speech I want to touch on one other aspect of the devaluation. The Treasurer in this and other statements he has made appeared to be taking the credit for depreciation and for placing Australia in such an excellent position for strong economic growth. It seems to be a matter of pride to members of the Australian Labor Party that the Australian currency has depreciated by about 20 per cent in the course of this year. I want to make it quite clear that as far as the Opposition is concerned there is no kudos in depreciation. The depreciation of the Australian dollar was inevitable and was a result of our deteriorating competitive position, as is reflected in our massive current account deficit-a record $10 billion in the year to June 1985. I do not believe and the Opposition does not believe that the Treasurer can claim distinction for placing Australia in this situation of potentially improved competitiveness. He can take the blame for the plummeting of the dollar caused by too high wages and a loose money policy deliberately designed to lower interest rates during last year's election campaign. He can take the blame for the massive increase in government expenditure which underpins our high deficits and high taxation. We are in the same situation; we are in the same economic strait-jacket as we have been in for the past decade. Inflexible wages destroy our ability to compete internationally and we have merely a slight change in the setting. We now have a flexible exchange rate that adjusts immediately according to how overseas markets judge our worth. Earlier this year they told us we were not worth very much at all. That is not a matter for which the Treasurer should claim credit. That is not a matter which should be a source of pride for the Government or for Australia; it is an admission of failure. It is a result of failure. The major factors which emerge from this incomplete Budget all demonstrate weakness in the Government's fundamental approach. There is the belated concession that discounting wage rises for consumer price index changes caused by the devaluation is central to our getting any benefits from devaluation. The recognition is belated; the outcome remains uncertain. Honourable senators in this place will remember the failure of the Leader of the Government in this place, Senator Button, to acknowledge over many periods of questioning in the Senate during the autumn sittings the realities which are now clearly acknowledged in the Budget. In the Budget there is the reduction of the deficit from $6.75 billion to $4.9 billion. We now come to what is probably the most significant psychological success of the Budget. Indeed, that success may in part be because it is probably the only major feature of the Budget which was not leaked. On closer examination it appears a rather doubtful quantity. I will return to that later. There is a new youth program, so praised in this place by Senator Button over the last few days, which attempts to come to grips with Australia's major social problem-high youth unemployment-but which approaches that problem in a convoluted and, we believe, ineffective way. It will further complicate our economic system. It will add to tax burdens and it will only clumsily deal with the fundamental problem described in the Budget as-I will quote again Mr Keating's words-`the need to explore ways of reducing the costs to employers in engaging young people'. Further, there is much lower growth in government expenditure than there was in the first two Hawke Budgets. The Opposition welcomes that, of course, and I have already referred to that. However, this Budget still leaves Australia with one of the highest levels of government expenditure in its history. It leaves Australia with the the continuing problem of spending more than the Government raises in taxes in a system where taxes are universally regarded as being too high. That problem has not been solved by this Budget. The problem remains under this Budget. There is continued economic growth, which is forecast at 4.5 per cent, with the private sector taking over from government. That proposition is also welcomed by the Opposition. However, it is a rather problematical proposition, given the recent history of private capital expenditure and the doubts which there must be in the minds of consumers because of the numerous areas of uncertainty of the present Budget. Then there is the continuance of the numerous problems of high marginal tax rates for so many Australians, with another three-quarters of a million taxpayers set to move into higher tax brackets during this financial year. On Wednesday, the day following the Budget, the following headline appeared in the Australian Financial Review: `Keating Budgets on Hope'. Any examination of the features of the Budget which I have referred to shows that that headline is easily justified. Each of the high profile aspects of the Budget I have mentioned produces areas of doubt and uncertaintly. In fact, the Government has been unable to deliver a firm position on wages. If we turn to its statement on monetary policy, which is the only other means of controlling inflationary pressures, we find the same vagueness. If wages are not discounted, if the Government fails to persuade the ACTU and the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission of the need to discount wages, if the Government cannot hold the line in that vital area, it would need to implement a tight money policy to ensure that inflationary pressures were not permitted to get out of hand. In simple terms, inflationary pressures would be choked off through a contraction in economic activity. The Government has failed to give an assurance in the Budget that it would use monetary policy as a counter to any breakout in wages. It has failed to reassure lenders and business in general. In the view of the Opposition, this vagueness is directly attributable to the sway of the ACTU over the Government. Quite clearly, in this matter as in others, the Government did not wish to anger the unions by advertising a policy stance that would lead to higher interest rates, a solution that is anathema to big government spenders and damaging in any event to many aspects of Australian life. So the Government is placed in something of a dilemma. It has at last embraced the possibility of a more sensible approach to a wages policy but, given the risks of the failure of that policy, it is constrained in dealing with the other arm of policy-monetary policy. It is constrained by its relationship with the trade unions. How else could the Government deal with the problem of the restoration of business confidence or prevent further falls in the value of the Australian dollar? The only way remaining was to slash the Budget deficit, thereby reducing the public sector borrowing requirement and, hopefully, relieving pressure on interest rates. All this is done to restore confidence in the Government's ability responsibly to manage the economy, despite having both hands-its wages policy hand and its money supply hand-tied behind its back by the ACTU. At first blush, the reduction in the deficit appears to be a most commendable effort. There has been a reduction of $1.8 billion from $6.75 billion to $4.9 billion. The Opposition has been urging the Government to reduce the deficit, which is part of the ongoing economic problem of Australia. However, an examination of the deficit figure suggests that all is not quite as it appeared when that $4.9 billion figure was produced on Budget night. For a start, the deficit figure assumes that wages will not be discounted for devaluation price increases. If wages are discounted-that is the Government's objective-the deficit will increase by $350m due to lower taxation receipts. That is, on the Government's measure, there would be a deficit of around $5.3 billion. However, whether the figure is $4.9 billion or $5.3 billion, the figure achieved is an artificial guide to the future financing problems of the Government. That is so because the figure has been lowered artificially by a number of one-off transactions within the Budget. Because the Reserve Bank had holdings of foreign currency, the dramatic depreciation of the Australian dollar resulted in windfall extra profits of about $800m over last year. That is a very handy addition to government revenue. It is an addition which, of course, makes a reduction of that size in the deficit which is put forward under this Budget. I would have thought that any prudent government would not be budgeting for the same sort of windfall gain next year but, I suppose, given the record of the Government, it may be able to achieve a similar profit next year by driving the dollar down by another 20 per cent. One would hope that a stable dollar would ensure that the item would not be available to the Government in the next Budget. Without that item there would be a significantly higher deficit. There are also one-off sales which bring in about another $200m which, in turn, would produce an even higher deficit. If one takes that into account one finds that the deficit figure potentially-in a sense the structural deficit-would be something in excess of $6 billion. The other distorting factor in the accounts which have been put forward is that the Government's new expenditure programs are for part year only and their full effect will add further to the financing difficulties of the Government in the next financial year. I think it is important that we make common cause where common cause can be made. The Opposition welcomes the fact that some part of the deficit reduction was achieved by reductions in expenditure indicated by the Forward Estimates, but it was not nearly as great a reduction as was supposedly achieved by the May mini-Budget statement. We can all recall that the Treasurer in the other place and the Minister for Finance in this place brought forward a statement in May which announced cuts of around $1.2 billion off the Forward Estimates for 1985-86. In this Budget new policies increased expenditure by $716m against total savings which increased in the region of $1.2 to $1.4 billion. In other words, between the May statement and the Budget the Government found $0.2 billion more in savings but it added over $700m in new additional expenditure. That leaves a net decrease against the original Forward Estimates of $764m. As we predicted, add-ons have substantially reduced the impact of the Government's May cuts. The full year effect of those add-ons will, in fact, exceed the total of the May savings. In effect, for next year there have not been cuts but increases. Mr Terry McCrann, the business editor of the Age newspaper, put it in this way: There you have it. By next year Tuesday's new spending proposals will have overwhelmed the cuts of May. Despite the May exercise, government continues to grow. Continued economic growth is important to this Budget. Indeed, it is vital to this Budget and to its estimates of both expenditure and income. If the growth forecast is wrong, it will affect such diverse elements as social security outlays, tax revenues and, of course, the size of the deficit. Non-farm gross domestic product is estimated to increase by some 5 per cent in real terms while GDP will increase by around 4 1/2 per cent. As I have already said, the improved profitability that prompts increases in output and employment pivots on a reduction in real wages and prevention of the one-off price increase becoming entrenched in the inflation rate. This aspect of the Budget remains uncertain. As of today it is very uncertain, given the apparent intransigence of the ACTU. The major contributors to growth under the Government's projections are said to be private sector investment and consumption and export growth. Yet private sector investment in plant and equipment has been sluggish with recent figures suggesting a real decline, no doubt due to historically high interest rates and uncertainty about wages and taxation. It is hard to credit the confidence that there will be strength in consumption and fixed business investment. Recent history does not suggest that that is the case. Other factors leading to uncertainty are the prospects of punitive taxation changes, which will reduce the private sector's profitability, and continued difficulties in the rural sector, which may serve in time to remind the Government of its early good fortune in the breaking of the drought. In the early years of this Government the lift in the rural sector was an important factor in the general recovery. I do not think it is yet clear the extent to which crushing difficulties which face much of the rural sector will impact on the economy generally. At this stage I do not think I should do more than mention two remaining matters of considerable importance-family taxation and the Government's youth allowance. The aspect of the taxation system which will probably cause most concern to the people of Australia is the likelihood that nearly half a million of them are poised to move from the 30 per cent marginal tax bracket into the 46 per cent bracket, with another quarter of a million or so set to move into the 60 per cent marginal tax bracket. Given the Government's collapse on the shift of part of the taxation burden to indirect tax and the new plateau of Commonwealth expenditure which the Hawke Government has achieved, room for real reform seems limited. To explain the Opposition's reservations about the Government's assistance for unemployed youth, it is necessary only to refer to the Treasurer's own words. At last we find that the Government has `recognised the need to explore ways of reducing the cost to employers of engaging young people'. It is the first timid admission that, in reality, we are facing a problem, an important element of which is that it is simply unprofitable to employ many untrained, inexperienced young workers. It is this first timid admission that indicates that the Government is aware of the basic problem. We then turn to the Government's solution which is to produce yet another subsidy scheme augmented by yet another approach to a new education and training program. Of course the Opposition supports the objective of the Government. The Opposition will co-operate in trying to ensure that this major problem is dealt with satisfactorily. But the reality is that the problem will never be solved by more job subsidies. We must face up to the need to explore ways of reducing the cost to employers of engaging young people and the need to explore ways which proceed down paths other than the offering of further wage subsidies to employers. That is bureaucratic; that, of necessity, is limited; that, of necessity, is a further distortion of the labour market and that action will not prove to be as effective as the Opposition believes is required. At the very minimum the Government should be suppporting the sort of experimentation which is now being promoted in Western Australia, under the auspices of the State Industrial Commission, to allow employers to offer work at lower rates. The Government is admitting the case for a training wage but it is acting in a way which will ensure large administrative costs and limited accessibility. The long term costs will be high and the results are unlikely to meet the hopes and expectations that we all have. It is common ground between the Opposition and the Government that we wish to see high rates of growth and a reduction in unemployment. It is only in this way that we will eradicate the evil of unemployment and the individual and community problems which flow from it. The Opposition believes that Australia needs a different formula to that which is being imposed by this Government and of which this Budget is part. We believe that the Government must show more determination in its pursuit of the benefits of devaluation. It has moved some of the way we have demanded but it still shows little sign of being able to carry its supposed partner in the accord-the trade union movement. It will have to do more to reduce the costly burdens of government which have made it the producer of Australia's three highest spending Budgets. I repeat that there has been much trumpeting of the relatively low rate of growth in government expenditure under this Government, but the Hawke Government, in its three Budgets, has produced Australia's three highest spending Budgets. The Government will have to be prepared to face the reality that we need fundamental changes in many of our institutions, not least in the trade union movement, and in the way the labour market works in Australia. The Senate had a wonderful reminder of the difficulties in the way of doing that in the pathetic defence of the status quo in the debate on the Mudginberri dispute in the Senate just a few days ago. That debate was a sign of how little this Government has learned. Mudginberri encapsulates so much of what is wrong under this Government. At Mudginberri, a consensual quest for efficiency-a quest which is joined by employer and employee alike-a real opportunity which has been provided to compete in a very competitive world is being snuffed out in defence of a system under which many honourable senators opposite, those former trade union officials and industrial lawyers, have grown fat to the detriment of Australia. The Opposition has very generously supported the reforms that the Government has made in the financial markets of Australia. We would be just as ready to support similar bravery in the equally essential, indeed more essential, labour markets. We believe that the Government has to face up to the real problems of marginal tax rates and we offer our policies as a means of assisting some pay as you earn taxpayers to achieve a greater measure of tax justice. In our policies we urge that early assistance be given and concentrated on families because they have not fared well in the redistribution processes of tax and social security in recent years. We urge the Government to follow our policies in the tax area by not imposing new taxes on the business sector at a time when continuing business recovery is essential for the Government to meet its own objectives. The fact is that there are things which can easily be done now by the Government which would significantly improve the prospects of continued economic growth and hence the improvement in the employment situation and the prosperity of all Australians. It is a pity to see a government which has been prepared to be courageous in one narrow area of policy failing in its nerve in so many others. This Budget, or part Budget, is like all others, something of a curate's egg. The pity of it is that so many of the negatives in the Budget are so unnecessary. On behalf of the Opposition, I move: Leave out all words after `that', insert- `The Senate condemns the Budget because- (a) it is only half a Budget which fails to outline any approach to the urgent problem of tax reform and tax relief; (b) it fails to remove the threat of new taxes on investment and jobs, such as a capital gains tax which will include death duties and gift taxes; (c) it condemns 750,000 Australians to higher marginal tax brackets during the year; (d) it fails to remove the fundamental problems facing the Australian economy, particularly high inflation, the lack of international competitiveness and the need for further cuts in government spending; (e) it fails to provide clear direction on the Government's approach to discounting wage indexation for the effects of depreciation of the dollar,so potentially destroying its employment benefit; (f) it fails to move towards the deregulation of labour markets required to give all Australians a chance for a job; and (g) it burdens Australia with the threat of continued high interest rates which hurt not only home buyers but hit business investment and jobs.' We do not commend the Budget; we have moved this amendment and we ask the Government to make the reforms which are essential for Australia to reach and achieve its potential. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(9.43) —The first thing that has to be said about the Government's Budget is that it is a Budget of which Malcolm Fraser would have been proud. The Liberal Party of Australia has always liked small deficits and a tight money policy. We now have the spectacle of the Australian Labor Party agreeing with it. Effectively in this country we have no Opposition in the true sense of the word; we have the Government and the Liberal Party-the official Opposition-with identical attitudes to the economic management of this country. It is left to the Australian Democrats to put an alternative point of view and I intend to put it right now. I want to make it clear that when I am talking about deficits I am not talking about our balance of trade. That is a separate and very serious issue, an issue about which I will be talking at some length later. I am talking about deficits which are essentially a measure of the amount of money in circulation in the domestic economy. Of course overseas investors always like a tight money policy; they like low deficits because that makes money scarce and it tends to keep interest rates up. It is significant that the advocates of low deficits and tight money policy tend, by and large, to come from the United States of America. It is interesting that the United States recovery has been fueled by some of the greatest deficits that it has ever seen. The advocates of a tight money policy, finding no response in the United States, come to Australia to spread the gospel and I am afraid they have received very ready acceptance from business, the Government and the Opposition. The underlying assumptions of this Budget are that there will be an 8 per cent rate of inflation and a 4 1/2 per cent growth in gross domestic product. We agree that there will be an 8 per cent inflation rate, so that assumption is in order. We do not agree that there will be a 4 1/2 per cent growth in the GDP. As Senator Chaney said, this Budget is based on hope and in that respect we are in complete agreement. The facts of the matter are that the Government has assumed an 8 per cent inflation rate. Increases in expenditure of 8 per cent will mean a zero increase in real terms. I have not seen any comment in the media drawing the public's attention to this very important fact. If we look at the Budget expenditure in real terms, we find that the first casualty is the social welfare area, where in real terms the amount of money allocated to that vitally important sector of the economy has been reduced by one per cent. The Brotherhood of St Laurence, Father Alex and other people in the welfare area have been going up and down this country painting the most appalling pictures of poverty in areas of depression throughout the country. They have said that they need at least $1.5 billion to raise 2 million Australians above the poverty line, including 750,000 children who are living below the poverty line. In this Budget we have a one per cent cut in social welfare in real terms. Housing is a very important area. It has been reduced in real terms by 2.8 per cent, and there has been a massive reduction in transport. Those of us who have to struggle daily with the traffic jams in the major cities will find it hard to understand why there is a massive reduction in services such as transport. In the income tax area there has been a lot of talk about the burden of income tax on the pay as you earn taxpayer. This Budget shows a 5 per cent increase in real terms in income tax on the PAYE taxpayer. We find that all Australians will pay another 12.8 per cent in sales tax, presumably made up of 8 per cent inflation and 4 1/2 per cent growth. The fact of the matter is that the Budget is balanced by increasing the revenue from sales tax by 12.8 per cent. Education is surely a very important area, particularly as the Government's youth employment scheme relies heavily on the educational sector to train our young people. There has been a growth of only 1.4 per cent in expenditure on education, but this year there will be a massive increase in the burden on youth training. Let me turn to the deficit in some detail. The Government and the Opposition both have applauded this Budget because it has reduced the deficit to a figure that is substantially below last year's, a figure below $5 billion. It was generally expected, even by its advocates, that a small deficit would be about $5.5 billion. In fact, it has turned out to be below $5 billion. That, in effect, is taking $2.5 billion out of circulation in the domestic economy. That is the only way to look at a deficit-it is the amount of money that is going into or coming out of circulation in the economy. Let us look at what deficits have done over the period of years from 1975 to 1983. I talk about deficits as a percentage of gross domestic product because there is no other way to look at them to get a comparison in real money terms. We find that in 1975 the deficit was 4.9 per cent of GDP and the inflation rate was 12.9 per cent, so we had a serious problem. In 1976 the Fraser Government started the squeeze. It got the deficit down to 3.3 per cent, but inflation was still up at 13.9 per cent. In 1977 we had a stay-put Budget, more or less. The deficit was 3.7 per cent of GDP and the inflation rate came down slightly to 9.5 per cent. In 1978 the deficit was 3.8 per cent and the inflation rate was still 8.2 per cent. The squeeze really started in 1979 when we had three years of massive reductions in the deficit. In 1979 the deficit was only 1.8 per cent of the gross domestic product-that was great stuff. It was squeezing inflation out of the system. What did we find in 1979? We found that inflation went up to 10.1 per cent. The Government said: `Let us have a bit more of the same medicine. Let us squeeze a bit harder'. The deficit fell from 1.8 per cent to 0.8 per cent of GDP. That was one of the lowest deficits in Australia's history. What happened to the inflation rate? It stayed the same at 9.4 per cent. The Government said: `We will squeeze a little harder and forget about unemployment. We will forget about everything. We just have to get inflation out of the system. We will not worry about people, we will get inflation out of the system'. The Government brought the deficit down to 0.4 per cent of GDP. However, what was the inflation rate? Inflation was 10.4 per cent. For three solid, hard, tough years the Government put all the pressure that it could possibly put on the Australian people to squeeze inflation out of the system. But it had no success at all, because inflation was increasing. We then had the disaster year of 1982. Something had to be done so up went the deficit. The Government said: `We have to put more money into circulation because there is massive unemployment'. The deficit rose to 2.8 per cent, although the Government did not predict that the deficit would be 2.8 per cent of GDP. The deficit reached that level because the Government had to meet commitments. The rate of inflation was about the same at 11.4 per cent. The Hawke Labor Government brought down its first Budget in 1983 with a deficit of 4.3 per cent of GDP. Inflation dropped to 6.9 per cent. In the last Budget the deficit dropped to 3.3 per cent and the inflation rate fell to 6.3 per cent. I put it to the Senate that in this country we have been through the experience of tight money to get inflation down. Nobody looking at these figures dispassionately could say that that approach to economic management has worked. It has not worked in the United States because today the United States is fueling its economy by massive deficits. Money has to be put into circulation if the problem of unemployment is to be solved. Unemployment is the critical issue in the world today. I turn now to the Australian Democrat's proposal for income tax reform. It seems we have to wait until September to see whether in fact the Government will reform marginal rates of income tax. I stress the importance of doing just that. I instance the case of a tradesman, for example a toolmaker, who earns $17,500 a year and who is on a marginal rate of taxation of 30 per cent. If that toolmaker works a little overtime and earns another $2,000 a year he will suddenly find himself on a marginal tax rate of 46 per cent. I am talking about a tradesman, a toolmaker. I could also be talking about a schoolteacher or a secretary because I am talking about the average Australian who is the backbone of this country. Such a person would be on a marginal tax rate of 46 per cent. Twenty years ago that rate of taxation was designed to attack the millionaire. This Budget still has not addressed the marginal rate of taxation. This is in spite of the Taxation Summit. The Australian Democrats have looked at this issue very carefully. They have put a proposal which has not got a lot of attention in the media so I will put the proposal again so it is on the record. We say that the tax threshold should be increased to $5,200 a year. We believe that no tax should be paid up to that point so that people can earn $100 a week before paying tax. After that point the tax rate should be 20 per cent of salaries up to say $10,000 a year. From a salary level of $10,000 a year to $40,000 a year we see no reason why the marginal tax rate should not be increased in a straight line by one per cent for every $1,000 increase in income. At a salary of $40,000 a year the marginal tax rate should be 50 per cent. We believe that should be the maximum marginal rate of taxation with no increase above that level of income. We have costed this taxation proposal very carefully. It certainly is within the realms of a responsible Budget. In fact, we produced the alternative Budget which showed how that rate of taxation could have been readily financed in this year's Budget. I turn now to the second fundamental assumption of the Budget, that there will be a 4.5 per cent growth in GDP. A 4 per cent growth may have been achievable if we had had a Budget that was reasonably stimulatory in terms of the private sector. The Government is relying on substantial expansion in the private sector, but I believe that such an assumption is not justified by the facts. Last year's Budget relied on a heavy increase in business investment that did not eventuate and since it did not eventuate last year we see no reason for the Government assuming that it will eventuate this year with the constrictions imposed by this Budget. We have heard a lot about how much of a stimulus the devaluation of the Australian dollar will be to the economy, but so far devaluation has not led to any discernible increase in domestic demand. I believe that a 4 1/2 per cent growth in GDP is an assumption based on hope and not on reality. Also, the economic slump in the United States of America undoubtedly will have a depressing effect on the Australian economy. I refer now to our balance of trade position. I began by drawing a distinction between the deficit and our balance of trade. For the last five years Australia has been living well beyond its means and that is a situation that cannot continue. If it does, this country will go broke. We will lose our independence. Currently 30 per cent of our exports go to service debt payments on money that has been borrowed over the last five years. That is a serious matter. If we take away Egypt and South Africa from the African continent-a continent that is generally considered to be backward-black Africa spends 31 per cent of its exports on paying for its foreign debts, so on that measure Australia is doing very little better than black Africa. What should the Government have done about this? The first point is that total State and Federal government overseas purchases amount to some $20 billion. If 25 per cent of those purchases could be made in Australia, from Australian industry, at least $1.5 billion would be taken off our precious earned foreign exchange. Secondly, we have to look on this balance of trade problem as being critical and we have to address it as we would address any other emergency-for example, as we addressed the problems of building defence equipment during the war. We put the economy on to a war footing and said that we would build our own defence equipment. Money was directed to those factories necessary for defence. The Government has to ask itself what industries give this country the best potential for earning export dollars. That criterion alone should be the one used by the Government to direct public funds. Funds should be made available for expanding those local industries that have an export earning potential which will provide the quickest return. We cannot look to our mining industries or to our farming industries for any dramatic improvement in our foreign exchange earnings because unfortunately they are tied to world commodity prices and all the predictions seem to indicate that world commodity prices are unlikely to increase. It has been said before but needs to be said again that it is a great pity that the effort of the tax summit has essentially been ignored in this Budget. As one who sat through the four days of the Taxation Summit I thought it was a success. It allowed enormous pent up fury about taxation to be vented. It was very clear that there would be no community support for the ill-fated option C. But on the last day of the summit the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) gave alternative guidelines which, to my amazement, were agreed to by every important community group represented at that Taxation Summit. He got agreement. Yet there has been no attempt to incorporate those principles in this Budget. We are now faced with assessing a Budget which, presumably, will be out of date when and if the Government announces its tax reform in September. It seems to be a very ill-fated strategy. We could now be debating tax reform and a new Budget at the same time. As it is, we are debating a Budget which presumably will be outdated in September and we will have to start all over again. Finally, I turn to the youth training scheme which is incorporated in this Budget and to the problem of youth unemployment. About 20 per cent of our young people are unemployed. This is an amazing indictment of Australia. We are prepared to sit back and let 20 per cent of our young people remain unemployed-allow them to go to school, work hard, get qualifications, then go out into the work place and be knocked back up to 40 times as unwanted citizens. This youth unemployment problem is not new. It was very apparent during the last year of the Fraser Government and it has been apparent in the two years of the Hawke Government. I cannot see that the approach that the Government has incorporated in the Budget will do anything at all. It essentially provides for more training. What is the use of training young people when with their new hard-earned skills they go around the market-place to look for a job and no job is available? The only fundamental solution to youth unemployment is to share out the available work. Senator Ryan —What about economic growth? Senator SIDDONS —We need economic growth. We will not get it in this Budget. We need it to solve permanently the unemployment problem but we cannot wait for economic growth to solve youth unemployment. That has to be solved today, not in six months, 12 months or two years time when the economy may or may not pick up. In the meantime we are destroying the lives of thousands of young people in our community. We are telling them to go out, knock on doors, get knocked back, be told that they cannot get a job and to get the message that they are outcasts in society. Nothing is being done. There is only one way to solve the problem quickly and that is to share the available work-permanent part time work. There is nothing worse for young people than to go into industry, work hard for two or three months and then, at the end of that time, look over a precipice; they are out of work again. If they get a job in industry it should be on a permanent basis. Later, I intend to put to the Senate a scheme that would allow all young people to be offered at least permanent part time work. It is a very simple approach. It means simply that we have to prevail upon industry, before it employs anybody else, to make one work station available to be worked on a permanent part time basis for at least one half day or one day a week for four or eight young people instead of just one. If that were done by all employers of labour in this country the youth unemployment problem would be solved overnight. At least every young person would be able to get permanent part time work. My experience in this area is that a large number of young people are discounted by our society for a whole variety of reasons. Some of them cannot read or write, so they have no hope. The first thing that happens to them when they go to a personnel officer is that they are asked to write down their name and address. They cannot, so they have no hope of applying for jobs in the normal way. Many people, who have been abused by society in many ways-by their parents, by being knocked back for employment so many times and so forth-have all kinds of hangups about life in general. That shows when they apply for work, so they do not have much chance of getting a job. Young women who are perhaps very fat or very unpleasant to look at generally do not have much luck in getting jobs. If we had this roster system going, if we shared the amount of work available in the community immediately, these young people who are at the bottom of the heap and have very little chance of getting employment would become a permanent part of the work force. They would be able to experience the camaraderie of the shop floor and see that people working in an enterprise, doing something worth while, get a certain amount of satisfaction out of that contribution, that effort. In my experience this is the best way-in fact, the only way-to remotivate young people. However the Government decides to do it, my criticism of this Budget is that it is more of the same. It provides for more training with no guarantee that the youth unemployment problem will be solved in any meaningful way. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard the table from which I quoted earlier. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Table 2 BUDGET DEFICITS AND INFLATION RATES 1975-76 Actual 1976-77 Actual 1977-78 Actual 1978-79 Actual 1979-80 Actual 1980-81 Actual 1981-82 Actual 1982-83 Actual 1983-84 Actual 1984-85 Estimate $m $m $m $m $m $m $m $m $m $m Receipts... 18,264 21,374 23,405 25,534 29,603 34,988 40,785 44,462 48,610 57,098 Outlays... 21,831 24,093 26,717 28,991 31,637 36,098 41,305 48,935 56,570 63,828 Total deficit... 3,567 2,719 3,311 3,457 2,034 1,109 548 4,473 7,961 6,730 Domestic Deficit... 2,855 1,844 2,339 2,237 567 +447 +920 2,482 5,471 3,862 Overseas Deficit... 712 875 972 1,220 1,467 1,556 -1,468 1,991 2,490 2,868 Deficit as % of GDP... 4.9 3.3 3.7 3.4 1.8 0.8 0.4 2.8 4.3 3.3 Inflation Rate %... 12.9 13.9 9.5 8.2 10.1 9.4 10.4 11.5 6.9 6.3 Money Supply Increase %... 14.4 11.0 8.0 11.8 12.3 12.5 11.1 10.3 12.7 13.1 Senator SIDDONS —I conclude by saying that I have endeavoured to put forward an alternative approach for economic management on behalf of the Australian Democrats. We believe that the two massive problems facing our economy are unemployment-particularly youth unemployment but unemployment generally-and our balance of trade. We see no evidence in this Budget that either of those two massive problems has been satisfactorily addressed. As such, we are bitterly disappointed in what the Government has done. We stand for an economic approach which says that there has to be sufficient money in circulation to utilise our resources fully. The only resources that really matter, of course, are our human resources, and they are being pitifully squandered at the moment. We cannot see the justification for a Budget of this stringency when we still have such a high unemployment rate. We believe that somebody has to put forward an alternative approach. We are doing it. We believe that somebody must look further than the headlines and the opinions of overseas investors and the propaganda that is spread. The Democrats stand for an independent Australia, an Australia that can be proud of what it is doing, stand on its own feet, go its own way, work out its own destiny and can become an example to the rest of the world. Debate (on motion by Senator Robertson) adjourned. Debate resumed from 22 August, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(10.12) —The Opposition will support the Building Industry Bill, and indeed will aid its expedition. It is not without some obvious reluctance in the Government that this Bill has come to fruition today. Certainly even in this last week we have seen considerable confusion in Government factions and in the Caucus of the Australian Labor Party in determining the attitude to the legislation to outlaw the Builders Labourers Federation. I understand that the Caucus passed by only the slimmest margin the motion supporting this Government legislation. Senator Ryan —How would you know what goes on? Senator MESSNER —One has only to look at Victoria to understand the pressures that exist in that State between factions, obviously demonstrating a lack of support and will in the ALP to address itself to this legislation. But more of that later. There is no doubt that the BLF in its activities over the last 10 to 15 years has shown the unacceptable side of unionism for all Australians to see. All the worst aspects of unionism have been clearly shown to Australians. I refer to flagrant disregard for arrangements, contempt of courts, industrial blackmail and coercion, thuggery, victimisation of individual union members. It has given unionism the worst name that it could possibly have earned under any other circumstances. These points do not have to be made by the Opposition in debate. They have been made quite clearly by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) in his second reading speech when he dealt with the kinds of actions that have occurred in the last few years as perpetrated by the leadership and the members of the BLF. It is not as if those objectives have been clothed with some kind of legitimacy aimed at attempting to bring about some kind of industrial reform. Many of the activities carried out by the union have been of a political nature, obviously with political objectives in mind. I was pleased to see that the Minister in his second reading speech drew attention to that particular matter. He said: The record shows that from this time the union has had scant regard to these undertakings. It has, on a multitude of occasions, engaged in the kind of conduct it repudiated before the Court, and its industrial record contains numerous examples of harmful demarcation disputes, broken concrete pours, violent conflicts with police and fellow unionists and disruptive campaigns over non-industrial issues. We all know the political colour of the leadership of the BLF, its pro-communist leadership and its obvious attempt to get involved in political activity outside the industrial regime. Clearly, that is at the heart of the activities of this union over the last few years. I refer to the Winneke Royal Commission into the Activities of the Australian Building Construction Employees and Builders Labourers Federation, which reported to the Government on 27 May 1982. I quote from page 280 of that report, which again demonstrates the problems in dealing with the BLF in the last few years: Not only has it ridden roughshod over the obligations imposed upon it by the Conciliation and Arbitration Act but it has paid scant respect to the duties imposed upon it by the general law of the land, civil and criminal alike. Under the pretext of `promoting the interests of its members, this organisation has, with frequency, resorted to tactics of violence, intimidation and victimisation. Further in this report it is demonstrated quite clearly how the unions set about achieving those ends through deliberate actions. Let me quote from a chapter on page 333 dealing with industrial techniques adopted in the field by the Federation. These remarks were attributed to a Mr Steve Black, the New South Wales Branch Secretary, in his bulletin to members of September 1979. Under the heading of `Guerrilla Tactics' Black wrote: The tactics used to get the overaward payments and better conditions are `guerrilla tactics'-the use of bans and lightning stoppages to disrupt the boss on the job. These tactics include: lightning strikes, work to rule, banning of parts or sections of jobs, one day and one week bans on concrete, stopping of concrete before a pour begins, breaking of concrete pours, bans on mobile cranes, bans on the lifting of certain materials by cranes or hoist, bans on truck deliveries, bans on unloading trucks, sending trucks away, overtime bans, safety bans, bans on the removal of scaffolding. These tactics and others are designed to hit the boss in the pocket. Rather than costing B.L.'s wages in lengthy strikes, the boss loses the money when the bans are used. This is a policy of `the most harm to the boss the least harm to ourselves'. That is the kind of tactic employed by the BLF to obtain objectives which this Government, through its Minister, has now admitted are not merely industrial actions designed to improve the standards of living of the workers of the union but obviously have other objectives-political obviously being among them. I will briefly run through the history of the BLF in the last 10 to 12 years. It should be remembered that the BLF was first deregistered as a union in 1974. However, it was reinstated in 1976 and became a registered union once again on the specific undertaking given by the then Secretary-and perhaps he is still the present Secretary-Mr Norman Gallagher, that in fact the union would abide by orders of the court and abide with the law. Those undertakings were broken time after time as the union continued on its merry way of employing the industrial tactics that I have outlined. It was at the Fraser Government's initiative in February 1981 that deregistration proceedings were again instituted in the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. That being a long-winded procedure, it proceeded up until the time of the election of the Hawke Labor Government, which immediately upon coming to office in March 1983 stopped those proceedings. The reasons given at that time were that the problems of the building industry had to be cured by discussion and by other kinds of debates and initiatives, presumably by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations getting together with the unions and the employers and bringing about some kind of resolution. Two and a half years after those talks the Government has finally realised that it has to put its shoulder to the wheel and face up to its responsibilities. We are not going to say that we told it so, but it is clearly part of this Government's failure to come to grips with the real problems in this country that it has not recognised that it should have continued that action 2 1/2 years ago rather than letting the water flow under the bridge as it has, bringing about more economic difficulty, more economic cost to the country and, of course, disruption to the lives of individuals in the meantime. That is the failure of this Government and it can be traced right back to 1981 when Mr Hawke, who was then the official spokesman for the Labor Opposition on industrial relations-he had not yet ascended to his great position of power as Leader of the Party-debated this issue on television on 18 February 1981 with the then Industrial Affairs Minister, Mr Andrew Peacock, the now Leader of the Opposition. I shall quote from that Nationwide transcript. When Mr Peacock was challenged in that debate about how the dispute should be handled, he replied as follows: Now on the point of talk, there has been a great deal of talk and there's been a great deal of talk by Mr Gallagher producing hit-lists or his spokesmen as well against Government projects, against State and Federal Government projects and if there was an opportunity to talk and bear in mind that Bob- that is, Mr Hawke- tonight in his introduction was not prepared to hold a brief for the builders labourers and I don't blame him, he can't condone their action. But if there was a question of solving their behaviour by discussion he had every opportunity when he was President of the ACTU to try and draw them into line. I do not see that he has succeeded. There is the point: From 1969 to 1980, when he became the honourable member for Wills, the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, and all the talking in the world with the Builders Labourers Federation came to nought. Surely that was lesson enough for the Prime Minister and for this Government to take action, and to resume the action initiated by the Fraser Government in 1981 to deregister the BLF. But no; upon coming to government in 1983 he returned to the talkfest, seeking some kind of consensus with a bunch of ratbag criminals who run the BLF. So it is that he again has let the country down by not taking action at the time he should have. The Prime Minister can retrieve the situation. Let us look at the dispute now at Mudginberri, a most important dispute that goes to the core of industrial affairs in this country. An arrangement between employees and an employer in the interests of economy, in the interests of jobs and in the interests of exports and efficiency in this country in the production of new meat products for which there is a demonstrable market overseas is being stopped by the action of a trade union. That trade union's membership, of course, comprises people employed by the Commonwealth Government. The meat inspectors picketing on Commonwealth land at Kakadu are Commonwealth employees who are stopping an efficient industry from proceeding and creating more wealth for all Australians to enjoy. That dispute, more than any other, demonstrates the weakness of this Government and is really a sidelight to the dispute going on with the BLF. But now what can we expect from the Prime Minister on this? Is he going to talk about Mudginberri for another 2 1/2 years before he takes action? There will be another industry down the drain and more economic cost to the country, just as we have witnessed over the action that has not been taken in timely fashion by this Government in respect of the BLF. Let us just turn very briefly to this legislation. The legislation provides the Minister with enormous and various powers to take action to deal with the Builders Labourers Federation. We do not deny that those powers should be vested in the Minister. But I think we should realise that they are very powerful indeed. They provide almost draconian and certainly dictatorial powers to the Minister to choose whatever line he seeks to take to deal with the BLF. We do not say, in the circumstances of this dispute, this problem with the BLF, that that should not be done. As we have said, we support the legislation. But I must say that I am somewhat bemused that the Government sees fit to obtain the passage of legislation such as this which has at its core the solution of the economic problems of this nation. Presumably the Government is acting in what it perceives to be the best interests of the public, yet a matter of weeks ago the Government introduced into this House legislation to override legislation passed by the State Government of Queensland which sought exactly the same kind of conclusion by ensuring that electricity supplies were guaranteed to the people of Queensland. There is an exact parallel here. This Government saw fit to challenge, for political purposes, the Premier of Queensland and the action of the Queensland Government. Yet it does exactly the same thing in respect of the Builders Labourers Federation and claims it to its credit. How can the Government reconcile those viewpoints? It cannot, because the action taken against Queensland was for purely political purposes. We know that and we have had those debates in the Senate over the last several weeks. We have demonstrated clearly from this side of the House how pusillanimous the Government's action was at that time when it tried to bring about some kind of political change in Queensland that was not in the interests of either the electricity workers or the people of Queensland generally. Senator Georges —Come on! You don't know much about it at all, do you? Senator MESSNER —I am just pointing out the hypocrisy of Senator Georges's Party. He understands those points; I know he does, because he is one of the few on that side who are honest. The last point I want to make in this respect is in regard to the BLF itself. We can recall that not long ago, during this period of talk that the Prime Minister is supposed to have been undertaking with the union, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations being seen publicly to be advocating to the building unions, of which the BLF is one, the seeking of wage settlements outside the accord, not in the form of ordinary wage increases but in the form of some kind of superannuation. He advocated that they should obtain contributions from employers, to which employees would not contribute, to the establishment of funds, which really amounted to deferred wages and not superannuation. The object was clear: It was the circumvention of the award to try to buy off the unions from future action, to establish what is now known as the BUSS, or the builders unions superannuation scheme. The whole thing is a fraud, but that is another argument again. The point is that until very recent times-at least within the last 12 months-the Minister has been advocating that kind of action by unions in circumvention of the wages accord with the ACTU. That is how much respect this Government has for its own arrangements with the ACTU. That is how much respect this Government has for the affairs of the people. That is how much respect it has for the economy of the country. Of course, it has no respect at all, as demonstrated in the half-Budget introduced this week. We see before us then a government confused and divided by its own factions, struggling to hold on to some kind of credibility in the area of industrial affairs. Everybody knows that in the end it is the ACTU which calls the tune. Here we see some token effort by this Government to introduce legislation to attack that union which represents the most unacceptable side of trade unionism. We support the legislation, but we fear what else this Government can do, will do or will fail to do in the future, because when the crunch comes it will be its union masters who will decide how it will behave. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(10.30) —The Australian Democrats support the Government's move to deregister the Builders Labourers Federation. Over a long period the actions of this union have been totally irresponsible and have done great damage to the building industry. Time and again the BLF has ruthlessly pursued its own interests by any means possible with complete disregard for the effects of the resulting disruption on the rest of the community. Senator Messner instanced some of the tactics that have been applied by this union such as calling a strike in the middle of a large concrete pour, which means that jackhammers have had to be brought in the next day to chip away hundreds of tonnes of concrete. The BLF has also engaged in tactics such as Norm Gallagher's guaranteeing that if crane drivers joined the BLF he would triple their wages within 12 months. They joined and he did, by holding every building site in the country to ransom. Initially the Government was planning to move promptly against the BLF. Now the plan is to send the matter to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission for judgment. Should the Commission decide that the behaviour of the BLF warrants deregistration, the Government will act. I accept this course of action but with very strong reservations. I have no quarrel with bringing in the Commission to act as an umpire. Indeed, it would be a very dangerous precedent for the Government to deregister a union without bringing in an impartial body. To do otherwise would amount to the Government acting as prosecution, judge and jury. This is not something that anyone with a commitment to justice would be pleased to see. If this were done, it could well encourage conservative governments to act against unions for reasons of purely political expediency. The Liberal and National parties have a long record of making political mileage out of union bashing and we would not like to see this practice encouraged. I have a nagging suspicion that the Government is attempting to put any action against the BLF on the backburner by sending the case to the Arbitration Commission. Since the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) first announced what action would be taken against the BLF there has been considerable disquiet within factions of the Australian Labor Party and the union movement generally. It would be a travesty of justice if the Government allowed feuding in its own ranks to prevent action being taken against this rogue union. The first step in the direction of a backdown would be an attempt to drag out proceedings in the Commission. The next step could well be the dropping of the case altogether after public interest has dissipated. I do not think it is unreasonable for the Australian Democrats to ask the Government whether it can give us any indication as to the anticipated length of the reference to the Commission in this case. Perhaps Senator Ryan would like to take notice of that question. We believe that the Government must show that it is serious about taking the BLF to task by ensuring that the Arbitration Commission proceedings take place as quickly as possible. The ground work done between 1981 and 1984 in the previous deregistration case should, wherever possible, be used by the Commission to speed up proceedings. The Government must act upon the findings of the Commission and not be swayed by good behaviour arguments of the BLF. When the chips are down the BLF can behave itself, only to revert to its old ways when the opportunity presents itself. It is not only the Government that must maintain its backbone on this issue. Employers have a bad record in this area too and the history of deregulation of the BLF bears this out. The last deregulation case against the BLF was commenced by the Fraser Government in 1981 due largely to complaints by employers about the actions of the BLF. The case dragged on until 1983 when the Federal Government pulled out and it was finally abandoned altogether in 1984 when the employers pulled out. The reason the last case was so protracted was largely the ambivalence of the employer bodies. The employers made a big noise for action to be taken. However, when it came to actually supporting the case, giving evidence and perhaps antagonising the unions, they became weak-kneed. They wanted the Government to do their dirty work. Senator Walters —What absolute rubbish. Senator SIDDONS —I am afraid that the record bears this out. The dropping of the case by the Hawke Government in 1983 was largely due to the lack of support by the employers. If the employers now believe there is a strong case against the BLF they must come forward and give absolute backing to the Government. The trade union movement is also open to charges of hypocrisy after its on again-off again support of deregistration proceedings. The BLF has acted very badly towards other unions in the past. Members have been poached, demarcation conflicts have flared and violence has been used against members of other unions. The Australian Council of Trade Unions has been highly critical at times of the BLF but it has been unwilling to take any action against it. I am afraid that the unions want it both ways. They want to reap the benefits of BLF-won conditions in terms of flow-ons and industry norms but they do not want to take action against any injury to their members by BLF tactics. The Government, to its credit, is not proposing to conduct its own kangaroo court. It is taking this matter to the umpire for a dispassionate and independent judgment. Therefore, those unions with real grievances against the BLF should also support the case and not merely adopt a knee-jerk reaction that `the Government is merely union bashing'. This is a critical matter. I believe that the case against the BLF is overwhelming. The BLF has used its industrial strength to further its own ends at the expense of the community. Let us have a brief look at the history of this case. In 1982 the Winneke Royal Commission into the Activities of the Australian Building Construction Employees and Builders Labourers Federation painted a very black picture of the operations of the BLF. Bribes and secret commissions were said to be commonplace. Interest free loans were given to BLF officials. Corruption, it seems, is not limited to the better known members of the BLF. The Loy Yang dispute was a long and costly affair for the Victorian Government and Victorian taxpayers. The provision of a new power station for the Victorian State Electricity Commission cost far more than was originally estimated and took longer than planned, in part due to the disruptive tactics of the BLF. The BLF pursued a log of claims in the Loy Yang dispute with crippling bans on the five main contractors working on the site. Things became so bad in fact that the contractors withdrew from the site and no work was carried out from April to December 1980. The dispute was not resolved until the State Government made a `hardship' payment to the labourers stood down even though it was widely accepted that the BLF had arranged for work elsewhere for those on strike. The taxpayers had to foot the bill for the strike over some years at Loy Yang which was caused by the BLF. Not all BLF tactics have been directed towards employers. The 1983 scissor lift dispute is a prime example of BLF violence against other unionists. Scissor lifts were introduced on building sites in the early 1980s. Because they replaced scaffolding in some circumstances-and this was a BLF preserve-the BLF wanted to control them. Tradesmen objected, claiming that they were the ones who used them and therefore they should operate them as tools of their trade. The dispute which followed was exceedingly bloody and resulted in the BLF being disaffiliated from the Victorian Trades Hall Council, no less. In this case unions took action against the BLF, yet they are ambivalent about the Government doing the same thing. The dispute over the building of the light towers at the Melbourne Cricket Ground last year was just another example of BLF aggression towards other unions. The Arbitration Commission awarded that work to the Federated Ironworkers Association of Australia. The BLF claimed that it should do the work and imposed pickets which caused considerable disruption and expense. May's V. C. Transport Pty Ltd, the company which moved the steel sections from the fabrication plant to the site, eventually went broke due to BLF bans. The union has constantly flouted wage guidelines and gone for pay increases outside the normal channels. Endless pledges of good behaviour have been broken as soon as the opportunity presented itself. Last year, following a period of industrial unrest in the building industry, the industry's code of conduct agreement was restored and peace prevailed for a very short time. This agreement has been broken 100 times by the BLF since it was introduced. From all the evidence which is readily available it seems obvious to me that the case against the BLF is irrefutable. I urge that proceedings in the Arbitration Commission be carried on as quickly as possible. It is also vital that the responsibility for carrying on the case is not left solely to the Government. All interested parties must stand up and be counted. This Bill, as Senator Messner said, clearly gives the Government the opportunity to act, not to act or to act in part. I am afraid that the monkey is very squarely on the shoulders of the Government at this point. The responsibility, once this legislation is passed, will be entirely the Government's. Other members of the other interested parties in the community should stand up and support the Government but in the final analysis it is the Government that has to take the initiative. We hope it does. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales)(10.43) —I support the Building Industry Bill strongly and with some passion. The Builders Labourers Federation, by its own actions, placed itself long ago outside of the wider labour movement. The actions of the BLF have gone far beyond the scope of normal industrial behaviour. Its continued use of guerrilla tactics, thuggery, violence and intimidation against ordinary union members as well as employers can no longer be tolerated. The years of violence must end. The union movement has shown in recent times, as well as in times past, its own abhorrence of the tactics used by the BLF. It is fully aware that the BLF has placed in jeopardy the hard fought conditions of the broader union movement. It is fully aware that the BLF has put at risk the whole of the arbitration and conciliation system. It has become sadly aware of just how anti-worker the BLF has become. If a person is not a member of the BLF and he works on a construction site, certainly in the cities of Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra, he is in big trouble. But even if he is in the BLF and he dares to speak out and disagree, he is in the same sort of strife. The Labor Council of New South Wales recently passed a resolution condemning the industrial record of the BLF. It called on the union movement to cease from assisting the BLF in any attempt to deregister it. The New South Wales Labor Council has had a long history of dealing with the BLF. We have to go back only 11 years to 1974 to see just how the BLF can perform. On one ordinary meeting night-a Thursday night-at the Labor Council, as the delegates were debating the normal course of business suddenly the doors flew open and in came the first wave of BLF thugs. In the first few minutes of that assault they showed just what sort of people they are. Old Jack Ryan, at the time the Assistant Secretary of the Federated Rubber and Allied Workers Union of Australia, a veteran with a wooden leg, was the first to be attacked. A chair was smashed over his head. That is the sort of people we are dealing with. How anyone can defend that as reasonable union behaviour I do not know. It has taken many people in the New South Wales Labor Council a long time to come to a final decision about the BLF. They have had to weigh up their feelings for the history of our movement and for the right of workers to band together to get better conditions against a continuing record of criminal and violent behaviour. The decision was taken only after many delegates wrestled with their conscience. But 11 years on, the resolution condemning the BLF passed at a meeting attended by 200 delegates to the New South Wales Labor Council, was opposed by only a few dissidents in the back row. The whole of the labour movement was united against the BLF. Those union delegates, of course, have had plenty of experience of, shall we say, on the job training, of learning just what the BLF can be like. The union movement has had enough of that thuggery that has been waged against other unions as well as the 35,000 members of the BLF, but particularly the percentage of the BLF that works in the cities of Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra. The Australian Council of Trade Unions executive on Monday carried a 700-word resolution which clearly distanced itself from the BLF. The ACTU resolved not to provide collective protection to the BLF if the union, in turn, created the extreme circumstances where other unions were not prepared to accept its legitimacy. Cliff Dolan, in a public statement, said: The ACTU cannot and will not give unequivocal support to the BLF and its activities. The ACTU is not prepared to act as a guarantor to the BLF commitments in view of the questions raised as to their compliance to these agreements. For the union movement to take such a stand against one of its own indicates how strong and deep the feeling runs. The BLF has been a threat to our movement's reputation as well as being a threat to the physical safety of ordinary workers. The BLF has belied the trust that the Government, the union movement, the employers and the community have placed in it. Once again it asks for one more chance. It tells us that this time it will behave. It tells us that this time it will be responsible. If we are going to judge on past experience, the BLF has had its chance. Every time it has given the undertakings to be responsible it has lied. We can go back to 7 October 1976 and the re-registration undertakings given to the Industrial Registrar. Norm Gallagher, in speaking to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, said: I can further submit that the Commission can properly and confidently assume that the policy of this Federation is to resort to conciliation and arbitration through the Commission rather than direct action in breach of the Act or in breach of awards of the Commission. Let us have a look at the history of the BLF since that time to see whether Mr Gallagher and his cohorts kept the undertaking. In September 1981 the Fraser Government lodged a deregistration application with the Federal Court of Australia. In April 1982 the BLF imposed bans upon Victorian builders involved in the deregistration case. In April 1983, after looking at another year of industrial anarchy, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, convened a meeting with building industry employers and union representatives to seek alternatives to deregistration. The Government was to give the BLF one of its many chances. An agreement was reached between the Government, the BLF, the Master Builders Association, the ACTU and the Federation of Construction Contractors. In May 1983, in response to this, the BLF agreed to a moratorium on industrial and punitive action. In October 1983 the BLF gave an undertaking to the Commission that it would not seek further claims outside the national wage increase, so as presumably, at some stage of the game, to get that increase. In February 1984, the BLF placed bans on sites, particularly the State Bank site in Sydney, as part of a campaign to get an extra $9 a week which was in clear breach of the undertaking given to the Commission. Prior to that, in December 1983, the Government had gone to the Federal Court to seek leave to withdraw from deregistration proceedings. So the Government had given the BLF several chances over that period. It had tried again and again. Throughout 1984 activity in the BLF ran riot and got out of control. I refer to events at the Alcan site at Granville in April and the Melbourne Cricket Ground site in May. In September 1984 the BLF invaded the Australian Workers Union offices in Melbourne. In October 1984 the campaign started at the police centre site in Sydney which, along with the Qantas Building and a few others, was a classic example of BLF unreasonableness, violence and guerrilla tactics. On 12 October 1984, a mass meeting of unions condemned the BLF's conduct. In October 1984, in response to this, the Premier of New South Wales, Neville Wran, announced the establishment of a police task force to look into allegations against the BLF and announced the deregistration of that union in New South Wales. BLF work bans continued on sites in Sydney and Victoria. On 2 January 1985 the New South Wales Government gazetted its decision to proceed with deregistration against the BLF. Let us look at what the BLF undertook in December 1983 when it reached an agreement with the Government and the various other bodies. It said that it `recognised that such registration creates duties and responsibilities in registered organisations . . . to utilise the means provided by the Act for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes'. The record that I have just outlined indicates how much force the BLF gave to the undertaking. It was, of course, like all of its other undertakings-just one more lie to get just one more chance to continue with its activities. On 30 January 1985 the New South Wales Labor Council called on BLF members to ignore work bans and, failing that, directed other unions to complete work without BLF personnel. I refer to the police centre site in Sydney. The typical BLF picket line was crossed day after day by members of trade unions that were not always united in their aims and political views but were united in their desire not to be stood over by a rogue union. On 5 July Neville Wran called upon the Commonwealth and the ACTU to deregister the BLF. On 8 July 1985 the Victorian Government under John Cain announced that it would take action. On 23 July the Cabinet, meeting in Canberra, approved the concept of legislation on de- registration, I again quote from the Press release of Ralph Willis of that day: The actions of the BLF had gone far beyond the bounds of normal industrial behaviour. Their guerrilla tactics and use of thuggery, violence and intimidation have had a disastrous impact not only on building employers but also on fellow workers in the industry. The BLF's behaviour poses a threat to the continued existence of the union movement. If we look at some individual cases of how the BLF has acted against other workers on building sites and how it has performed, we will start to get a real idea of the sort of union that it has become. The first and I think the most relevant case to look at is the Sydney police centre site. We must acknowledge at least one success for the BLF on the police centre site and on a number of others. The BLF was successful in having a benevolent Almighty arrangement for the rate of industrial accidents to zoom up rapidly whenever an official from another union came on to the police centre site and a number of other sites. If a union official visited the site to service his members you could bet your life that an accident would occur. Unfortunately, for some of those officials, it was indeed their lives that they were betting. During the worst part of the dispute, over the last Christmas-New Year period, an official of the Building Workers Industrial Union of Australia walked on site and a concrete bag happened to fall off the top of the building and miss him by inches. Not content with accidents and not prepared to rely on the Almighty, when the dispute was at its worst BLF members went to the upper floors of the site and threw bags of concrete and lumps of steel at those workers working down below. It was a miracle that on that occasion no one was killed, but plenty of people were injured. As workers from the BWIU, the plumbers union and other unions crossed the picket line, they were kicked and bashed. Anyone who attempted to go across the picket line, even though it was a picket line not recognised by the ACTU or by the New South Wales Labor Council, was subjected to that form of assault and thuggery. It got worse. The BLF then resorted to what had been hitherto, as far as I was concerned, a practice anathema to all members of the labour movement. It began a practice of taking photographs of everyone who crossed the picket line so that it could threaten further action against them and their families. The registration numbers of their cars were noted. Photographs were taken every day as any new person dared to walk across the line on his way to work. The cars of union officials were regularly subjected to damage and attack. Hundreds of dollars worth of damage was caused to quite a number of the cars of officials, particularly of the BWIU. Union officials and their families were subjected to threatening phone calls in the dead of night. Besides those tactics unsanctioned work bans were then put on other sites right across Australia. Over 40 sites were affected in New South Wales and over 50 major building sites were affected in Victoria. I refer to the incident which took place at the Criterion Hotel in Sydney, which is not, one would say, the normal work place or a place where the war would be carried on. A few officials of the Plumbers and Gasfitters Employees Union of Australia had the temerity to gather there after work for a few drinks. They were soon interrupted by a crowd of BLF heavies and they too were bashed as they had a drink at the bar. Once again the BLF went outside the normal confines of reasonable industrial behaviour and engaged in further criminal activity. The action of its members against fellow unionists is now regularly carried on away from the building site. If the BLF is going to get you it will get you anywhere. That is what it tells workers every day of the week-that is, any worker who dares to disagree. The Theme Park in the outer western suburbs of Sydney is another good example. It is a large amusement centre site on which over 800 workers from Sydney's western suburbs are employed for the construction stage. The BLF closed that site for 19 days because the tradesmen had the gall to remove a `Free Norm' sign from the site. Before the site was closed the BLF illegally removed parts of the scaffolding to prevent any of the other workers from going to upper levels. While the dispute proceeded anyone who attempted to work beneath the scaffolding was simply pelted with concrete and steel to make sure he left the job. That tactic has been used again and again. In recent times the off-the-site tactic I find most abhorrent is in relation to money grabbing or money grubbing, depending upon one's point of view, and again in absolute breach of normal union principles. I refer to the use of debt collectors to hunt down people who have left the industry. A quaint rule in the BLF is that an employee must notify the union in writing that he has left the industry. The employer cannot do it. Obviously, in an industry such as the building industry that is difficult. It has a very large number of people from ethnic communities working in it who do not read or write English. These people are subjected to this law which is applied to everybody else. If they leave the industry and go on to other employment debt collectors are sent to hunt them down, summonses are issued and it is insisted that they pay back union dues, even if they can prove that they have not worked in the industry for the period involved. That sort of practice is just not on in pretty well all Australian unions. At least the accidents in the Greater Union site in George Street, Sydney, were different from the ones at the police centre site; it was not concrete bags that continually fell but lumps of steel. Again, a BWIU official had to jump out of the way as steel came crashing down. In another incident a BLF member-he had been engaged in a number of assaults and intimidation against other members-brought a rifle on to the site. When he was asked why he needed to bring a rifle on to the site he replied, quite simply: `I am going shooting on the weekend. It is for that'. That is not a bad answer. We could all accept it except for the fact that it was Monday morning. The weekend was a long way away and this man wanted to have a gun on the site for the whole week. A BLF organiser called at the College of Advanced Education, Campbelltown, and ordered a stop work meeting on what his own members regarded as a very minor issue. The BLF members on the site defied the organiser's order. They regarded it as a trumped up dispute and kept working. I think they will probably rue that day. The organiser returned with a few of his comrades and proceeded to wreak havoc on the site. The bricklayers' levels and tools were destroyed, electricity to the cement mixer was cut off, mortar was spilt all over the site and all those working on it were chased off. The real problem, is of course, that one cannot expect ordinary rank and file members of the BLF to come forward and give evidence when they are subjected to this sort of intimidation. The workers on this site and the other sites that I have just mentioned all fear for their safety; they have all feared for it more than once. These incidents occur again and again. One cannot expect them to solve the problem; the problem will have to be solved by combined government and trade union action. If one talks to the officials of other unions one realises that that is the only way the problem can be solved and hopefully it will be by this Bill. There are numerous other incidents of BLF violence against small builders on small sites. They occur all the time; they are commonplace in Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra. Builders have little choice but to bow to the BLF and retrench whoever it tells them they have to retrench. Builders are subjected to foundations being destroyed whenever it is discovered that they have someone on-site of whom the BLF does not approve. Builders have to bear that cost, a cost that has grown over time. Therefore, by introducing this legislation the Government is calling for an immediate hearing in the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission so that it can make its own independent determination on whether or not all of these well documented incidents have occurred. If the Commission decides that they have occurred, the Minister and the Government can take action and the union can be deregistered. The legislation sets out a number of criteria which will be an appropriate test of whether the Federation has behaved as a responsible organisation registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act and in a way which is consistent with the objectives of the industrial relations system. I have no doubt that the BLF cannot pass such a test. If it fails it, what is essential in this dispute over the coming months will be support for whatever the Government does, not just from the community but from employers. I am heartened by the gallup poll published this week on the front page of the Melbourne Herald which suggested that 69 per cent of people support the Government's moves to deregulate the BLF, only 18 per cent are opposed and a further 13 per cent have no opinion. But more than just that sort of community feeling and community support we need to know that employers will, on this occasion, resist intimidation, resist being stood over and stand up to the BLF. Too often over time employers and developers have been prepared to do separate sweet-heart deals with the BLF against the interests of the industry as a whole. As Ralph Willis said, employers have adopted industrial relations practices which have facilitated the success of the BLF's tactics. This time employers must remain firm in their resolve. They must create a suitable industrial environment, a code of behaviour in the industry, a code of behaviour the other unions and themselves will stick to. I remind honourable senators that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has called on building employers to do this. He warned that the Government would take action against employers, such as refusing them government contracts, if they continued to co-operate with the BLF if it was deregistered. Many times the New South Wales ALP administrative committee, of which I am a member, debated whether the BLF should be deregistered. In New South Wales the BLF has not been affiliated with the Party for the last five or six years. It sought reaffiliation only this year. As a result of a decision of the Party's National Executive, the New South Wales branch of the Party was forced to accept the union. I think all honourable senators would know that the New South Wales Administrative Committee is made up of some strong minded people who do not always agree. Yet on this occasion in a long resolution concerning the BLF its decision was unanimous. All of the groups within my Party who are represented on that Committee came to a unanimous decision. The wording of the resolution of the New South Wales ALP Administrative Committee is strong. It stated that as a consequence of the actions of the BLF: . . . the NSW ALP is of the view that all sections of the labour movement should reject and condemn the philosophies and practices of the BLF which involve violence and intimidation. To do otherwise casts a shadow over the entire labour movement. There is ample room in the Australian political and industrial environment for legitimate trade union activity. There is no room however for intimidation and thuggery. It can be seen from all of the incidents I have outlined in my speech that the BLF is no ordinary union and that is why extraordinary action is required. BLF leadership-at least in New South Wales, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory-does not draw its inspiration for its industrial and political activity from the traditional heroes of the labour movement. It does not draw its inspiration from the Tolpuddle Martyrs, Keir Hardie, Ernie Bevin, Peter Lalor or Jim Healy but rather from people such as Beck and Jimmy Hoffa. It uses the tactics and techniques of New York muggers. It is the duty of the Government and the whole of the labour movement-indeed it is the duty of our community-to ensure that this blight on the movement is done away with and that ordinary workers can get about their work without fear of their person, without fear of intimidation and without fear of assault. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.10) —The speech made by Senator Richardson was the biggest indictment of the Australian Labor Party I have ever heard. Why did we not hear such a speech in 1981 when we moved for deregistration of the Builders Labourers Federation? Nothing has changed since then. I think that speech was the biggest indictment of the Labor Party ever in the Senate. It is important that we go through the history-as most honourable senators have done-of the BLF. I will start with 17 February 1981, a day on which a speech such as Senator Richardson's should have been made by members of the Labor Party. On that day Mr Fraser announced a decision to commence deregistration proceedings against the BLF. On 18 February, one day later, Mr Hawke said `No, don't do it. Let us sit down and talk.' Senator Richardson's description of the BLF today told us nothing new about that union. Such behaviour by the BLF has been going on for years. What action did the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the then Leader of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, take at that time? He did absolutely nothing. He did not sit down and talk with the BLF. He did not make the ACTU haul the BLF into line. At that stage he said that we should all sit down and talk. On 5 March 1981 the industry employers joined with the Fraser Government. The Age newpaper reported: A national meeting of building industry employers has decided to back the Federal Government's application to deregister the Builders Labourers' Federation. The National Industrial Construction Council decided yesterday to provide the Government with information to help . . . the Federal Court. At that stage, Mr Peacock, who was the Industrial Relations Minister, was reported by the Age as saying that he hoped the decision would: `nail for all time the lie that employers will not support the Government in its deregistration application'. But it did not. The Government is still talking the silly rot that the employers did not assist. On 14 April it was reported in the Canberra Times that: The department and other government departments have been swamped by industry response in support of the deregistration. Later that year it was maintained that 488 claims against the BLF had been made by the industry. However, in the debate today we have been told that the employers did not support the Government. What utter rubbish! What rot! On 26 September 1981 deregistration proceedings were started. Meanwhile of course the Winneke Royal Commission was inquiring into the activities of the BLF. The Winneke inquiry into Activities of the Australian Building Construction Employees and Builders Labourers Federation reported in 1982. I will read a short excerpt from that report which said of the BLF that: It has paid scant respect to the duties imposed upon it by the general laws of the land, civil and criminal alike. Under the pretext of `promoting the interests of its members' this organisation has, with frequency, resorted to tactics of violence, intimidation and victimisation. Resort by the victims of these tactics to the ordinary processes of the law has been met with recrimination and . . . arrogant assertion- The Commission reported that the Secretary of the New South Wales branch of the union had stated in an official publication: `builders labourers in Sydney have won some big victories recently through the use of `guerilla tactics'- The union official had said that these would continue. The BLF publication is reported as further stating: `The union does not tolerate any police interference in industrial matters.' Indeed, it says much the same things that Senator Richardson has said today. All those things were known in May 1982. On 8 November 1982 the Full Bench of the Federal Court commenced hearings of a joint application-I stress joint application-by the Federal Government and the employers of the building industry. We know that in February 1983 Norm Gallagher was jailed for contempt of court. On 5 March the Hawke Government came to power. On 21 March, just under a fortnight later, Mr Hawke applied for an adjournment of proceedings on the deregistration application. He said that they would talk. The parties talked and talked. Many promises were made. As honourable senators will remember, we had an economic summit. Norm Gallagher was released from jail to attend the summit. That shows the sort of Government we have in power at the moment. During this time the talks continued. By 12 December 1983 so many promises had been made by the BLF and so much talking had been done that the Labor Party, under Mr Hawke, withdrew from the deregistration proceedings. Senator Siddons has said that employers did not assist the Fraser Government with the deregistration of the BLF. That is not true because whilst the Labor Government withdrew from deregistration proceedings in December 1983 the employers did not withdraw until 18 July 1984. The employers had been dumped by the Government and snowed by the Government and the ACTU telling them that the BLF would abide by all the promises it had made. What followed all that promising and all that talking? I will quote from the speech of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), who put the matter pretty clearly when he said of the BLF: Its use of tactics such as breaking concrete pours, reckless application of work bans, resort to walk-offs or `homers', and claims for payment for time on strike, has made industrial relations in the industry a nightmare. Its resort to industrial blackmail, thuggery, violence and intimidation has added a further ugly dimension to its activities. According to the Minister all that activity followed the talks and the promises. We know that following July 1984 and all the promises Norm Gallagher finally was jailed for four years and that the BLF continues to make problems. These were the grounds the Minister used for deregistration. What were the grounds we used for deregistration? We used exactly the same grounds; there is no difference. We had done this five years earlier. The cost to the industry in that intervening five years has been thousands of millions of dollars. In that time this Government has stood by and allowed that to occur. Indeed, it encouraged that unrest to occur by its withdrawal from the deregistration proceedings we had in motion. Mr Hawke said that the reason he did not continue with the initial deregistration and why we were wrong in instigating the proceedings was that the ACTU and other unions would not support them. What are the ACTU's comments now? The executive will not support the Labor Government in its deregistration moves. Cliff Dolan makes it clear that that is against its policy. What is the reason for Mr Hawke going ahead with the deregistration proceedings? I can say only that we were fortunate to have a by-election coming up in Nunawading in Victoria. Mr Hawke and Mr Cain both knew from the polls of which Senator Richardson spoke today that the community was behind deregistration. So they moved, in a political manner only, to deregister that union. Mr Hawke has now backed off again. He has decided that because he does not have the support of the ACTU he will allow another group to take the action that the Government should be taking, He has given the BLF another chance. The Labor Party will not agree that that is the result of this legislation. If it does not agree perhaps the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations could say why the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission exists if it does not have the right to allow the BLF to retain its registration. Why are we putting through this legislation? Senator Siddons said that the Government has bowed out and given the responsibility to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. No action at all would have been taken if there had not been that crucial by-election in Victoria. Mr Halfpenny, a good Labor Party member, is demanding an inquiry into the gaoling of Norm Gallagher and opposing the deregistration of the BLF. While we support this Bill we believe that it is the Government's responsibility to act to protect the population against everything which Senator Richardson claimed was happening. It was a very good speech. It pointed out just what the union has been up to. But it is the Government's responsibility to protect the population against those sorts of tactics and the Government will not accept that responsibility. Once again, the Government has backed off because the ACTU will not support it, which has proved that the ACTU has so much power over this Government that it is not willing to accept its responsibilities. It has backed off and given the responsibility to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. It has said: `If you find that the builders labourers should remain registered we will abide by that decision and we will not move to deregister them'. It seems to me to be absolutely inconceivable that the people of Australia would accept that. They showed in the Victorian by-election just last week that they want a government to govern properly. Yet the Cain Government is now being called to bow to the likes of Mr Halfpenny. The left wing of the Labor movement wants an inquiry into why Norm Gallagher has been gaoled and is moving against deregistration. I suppose that we are left with exactly what we expect from all Labor governments, that they will kowtow to those who supply the money, to those who call the tune-unelected representatives-and bow to a non-elected group once again which is saying: `Back off. Do not make the decision. We will appeal to the Arbitration Commission on behalf of the unions'. Indeed, that is the action that the ACTU intends to take. Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(11.25) —It is fairly obvious that someone ought to intrude some opposition to the Building Industry Bill and I will do so. We have heard strong speeches in support of the Bill and no criticism of it except to say that it does not go far enough. Perhaps the speech that I am about to make should not be made. But it is certain that the speech made by Senator Richardson ought not to have been made because the problems of the trade union movement are problems which it should settle. Government intrusion in the form of this Bill will not improve the situation. My view is that the legislation will exacerbate the problem and create more industrial disputation and confrontation. My view is that it will be challenged continually and by that means it will be made ineffective. The problem with this Bill is that once introduced it will never by repealed. It is directed against one organisation. One could question whether it can be so directed. Nevertheless, it is. It would take only a slight change for it to be directed against other organisations. This Government will never be able to withdraw the legislation, having in mind the numbers in the Senate. It is fairly obvious that the legislation that has been presented does not seek to achieve a purpose and then go out of existence. I would like to be convinced otherwise. It is here to stay. It creates a procedure which can be used by a government hostile to the labour movement-the trade union movement. It can be used by that government to even greater effect. These words of caution ought to be introduced into this debate because there is a movement to conservatism in this country, to extreme right wing politics. Senator Messner —Showing up the Labor Party all right. Senator GEORGES —Yes. Look at what is happening in Queensland. It will seek not only to deregister a union but completely to deregulate the whole of the trade union movement. That is the purpose that the Opposition would have in mind, if it ever came to government, to dismember completely the trade union movement. My view is that this legislation dismembers the BLF and creates a precedent that others will follow. Senator Messner —You do not think that these are unique circumstances? Senator GEORGES —The circumstances are unique. They need to be corrected. The circumstances were going through changes that would achieve that end. In this sort of situation we need to have patience. Honourable senators may say that sufficient patience has been exercised as far as the BLF is concerned but this legislation and the attempt by government to intrude are destructive not only of the trade union movement but also of the commissions which supervise and adjudicate. Senator Walters —What about-- Senator GEORGES —That is my view of it. Senator Walters has her view and it seems to have sympathetic responses on this side of the House. That alone ought to raise a very big question. Senator Sheil —Are you going to cross the floor? Senator GEORGES —Is the honourable senator going to call for a division? Senator Messner —We are supporting the Bill. Senator GEORGES —Of course; everyone appears to be supporting the Bill. Senator Withers —Have your name recorded against it. Senator GEORGES —Perhaps I need another. Senator Walters —No. You can call for a division. Senator Messner —Senator Vallentine may help you out. Perhaps you could argue-- Senator GEORGES —I ask honourable senators not to divert me because I want to say some words in support of the BLF. I can only do so because of my own experience with the union; that is, my experience with it in Queensland. Senator Button —Very good. Senator GEORGES —It is exceptionally good. Vince Dobinson's leadership of the BLF in Queensland, and that of his Executive, has been exemplary. The Queensland branch has good relations with a variety of other unions in Queensland and the employer organisations have no extremely critical comments to make beyond the normal opposition they have to all trade unions in their endeavour to better their conditions. What we need to do-the Bill endeavours to recognise this but it will not be able to achieve it-is to separate the Builders Labourers Federation in Queensland because of its good record. Men like Vince Dobinson within the builders labourers organisation, not only in Queensland but also in other States, could lead to the change that some honourable senators seek to precipitate but will not succeed in achieving. Changes are taking place. Leaders in the BLF have been brought to account for certain acts. Gradually the environment in which the BLF operates and the way in which it operates are changing. They ought to be allowed to change. One could now ask: Why is the situation in Queensland different from that in New South Wales and Victoria? Senator Withers —Your moderating influence. Senator GEORGES —I suggest that the problem exists within the trade union movement itself and that it should be looking to itself without exposing itself in public as it has done today, correcting the problems in spite of the provocation and the extreme harassment which its member unions face. One would need to look at the leadership of the trade union movement in both New South Wales and Victoria and, one might also say, the political leadership in New South Wales and Victoria. Senator Button —It might be better than in Queensland. Senator GEORGES —I point out to Senator Button that Queensland has certain problems which are unique and which are not suffered in New South Wales or Victoria. We have a one-party system in Queensland which is loaded towards the National Party and which we cannot break. We are not likely to get any assistance from Canberra with legislation of this sort, for instance, in trying to correct the situation in Queensland. Perhaps legislation enabling the Government to intrude into the affairs of corporate structures and institutions could be introduced to give us at least the chance of having responsible government in Queensland. I am suggesting that there should be one vote, one value, in other words, give some groups the voting strength they do not have at present and perhaps take it away from certain people in the rural areas who have too heavy a vote. I undertook merely to make some short comments on this Bill. I am not the only one who has reservations; there are others less able to speak their minds. It is not a matter of courage; it is just that I am in such a position that retribution does not come as quickly as it would come to others. Sometimes the wrath of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) can be terrible to behold and some may take more note of it than others. I just say that it is very difficult for some of us to be party to deregistering a union. Some of us are perhaps too old to change. Perhaps our background, which set us on the path into this place, was a working class background. Many of the members of the Builders Labourers Federation were born into economic and intellectual poverty. Many of them do not escape. They have only their physical labour to supply. They contribute to the building of structures that lead to the accumulation of great wealth. They seek to participate in that wealth and the leadership has used over-extreme methods to improve their condition. But it should be understandable that those who work physically and who receive the least in our community should strive to improve their conditions, especially in such a rip-off society as ours. Doctors were able to apply similar methods and to survive, and they continue to survive. Others can demand as much as $1,000 a day for their effort. Just recently we saw the example of the panel of computer advisers for one of the parliamentary committees. The return demanded-I say demanded because they are in an almost closed shop situation by virtue of their skill-was $480 to $1,000 a day. There are people who rip off the Medicare system to such an extent that they can buy football teams at $4.5m. Can honourable senators see why there is such pressure for those below to improve their condition? That is what the Builders Labourers Federation endeavours to do. In Queensland it has done it responsibly but in New South Wales and Victoria there have been some doubts concerning this. But when we bring down legislation of this sort, which will cut across all the endeavours of responsible people to achieve better results, I believe we are going to extremes. I have voiced my opposition and I have taken the time that I indicated I would take. I rest on the points that I have made. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(11.39) —I thank honourable senators for their support of the Building Industry Bill. In replying on behalf of the Government I certainly do not want to get into that world of sociological schmaltz about which Senator Georges has just been speaking, which sees builders labourers as unique victims of a system who have to respond in a particular way. Of course, that sort of argument does not stand up. He says that the builders labourers in Queensland, whom I suppose he would see as similar victims of the system, do not behave in the same way as builders labourers in New South Wales or Victoria, which has been the subject of discussion in the course of debate in the Senate. Of course, as Senator Georges said, there are all sorts of pressures in a society like this for people to improve their conditions. But the vast majority of members of the trade union movement in Australia do not see it necessary to improve conditions by the same methods as the builders labourers have taken. Much has been said in this debate about the Building Industry Bill as well as publicly about the Builders Labourers Federation. I do not want in any sense to get into the rat race of moral outrage against the BLF-outrage which has been expressed for all sorts of different reasons and motivations in pursuing deregistration of the union. The Government's motivations and reasons for bringing this legislation into the Parliament are quite simple. They are that in an industrial sense the BLF has behaved quite irresponsibly. It has resorted to tactics which are not acceptable to Australian society as a whole or to the work force and the trade union movement as a whole. It has failed to honour agreements and undertakings it has made. For those reasons the Government takes the view that this legislation should be introduced so that the question of deregistration of the BLF can be dealt with by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. I do not want to go into the history of this matter. Some of the things which have been said are correct. Senator Walters embarked on a description of what she would call a model course in how to deregister an organisation like the BLF. I remind honourable senators of the model course that was adopted by the Fraser Government. In February 1981 it announced and made a decision to deregister the BLF. In November 1982, nearly two years later, that Government commenced proceedings to deregister the Federation. Throughout those proceedings there was not much consultation with the industry. Indeed, throughout those proceedings, which went on and on, there was little community support for the process which was being engaged in. First, there was no trade union support, and, secondly, it is clear that there was not by any means unanimous employer support. Certainly there were no means of ensuring that employers would not cave into the builders labourers at the slightest whiff of pressure. There was a mass of evidence to the contrary. There was a bad history in terms of deregistration proceedings taken against the BLF by the Fraser Government. It was a mess-up from beginning to end. As has been said, it is true that the present Government tried over a period of 18 months to two years to bring the BLF within the framework of the industrial arbitration system and the norms of union and industrial behaviour. Numerous attempts were made to do that and failed. There was a dishonouring of agreements and undertakings given by the BLF to both the Government and the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. In that context ultimately the Government determined the present course of action. It arose from that history of a previously failed attempt to deregister the BLF and, secondly, a course of conduct in relation to the present Government and the current conciliation and arbitration system. Senator Walters asked the rhetorical question: Why take it to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission? Senator Walters —You can't think of a reason? Senator BUTTON —I am sorry, I have trouble with my eyes sometimes. The honourable senator should not persecute the half blind. I am just trying to read my notes of what she said. Senator MacGibbon —Have you seen Max Gillies lately? Senator BUTTON —Mr Deputy President, I seek the protection of the Chair from the vulgarians opposite. After all, there are young people present in the gallery. Whatever the habits of Opposition senators might be, there is no need to try to inflict them on me. What Senator Walters said was that the Government had backed off and given responsibility to the Arbitration Commission. Of course, that is absolutely correct. Senator Walters was not in the chamber when I was describing what a mess her Government, the Fraser Government, had made of trying to deregister the BLF in the past. This Government does not intend to get into the same mess. This Government is seeking from the Commission a declaration which would be the basis of deregistration. That is an appropriate procedure to follow. Senator MacGibbon —Are you going to clean up the ETU in Queensland as well? Senator BUTTON —I would not think we need worry about that, with a zealot like Senator MacGibbon there. One would think that would happen anyway. Senator Walters —Could you give us an estimate of how much it has cost the industry in the last five years since you withdrew proceedings-just an estimate of how much it has cost? Senator BUTTON —I cannot give that estimate. I can give figures of what it cost companies like the Grollo Brothers and Hersfield's and such companies. It cost them a packet, and it also cost Norm Gallagher a bit. In terms of the cost to industry, I do not know the answer. As Senator Walters herself said, this has been going on for years and years. The point is not so much the cost to industry, but the best method of tackling the problem. The Government supported by Senator Walters totally failed. One can talk about the cost to the community of doctors, politicians and builders labourers and everyone can make a little speech on those issues. The question is how to deal with the problem. That was something Senator Walters did not address her attention to. It is all very well to beat one's chest here and talk about cost and things of that sort, but the question is to find a solution to these problems. That is what this legislation is basically about. There has been a bad history of the matter in terms of the BLF's conduct over a period as well as in respect of governments and arbitration commission attempts to deal with the problem. The solution proposed by the present Government is to seek the deregistration of the BLF after appropriate hearings before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Senator Walters brought a lot of other issues into the debate. She said that it is the Governments responsibility to protect the population against BLF tactics. In fact, it is not the Government's responsibility. It is largely the responsibility of state governments. All those matters can be discussed in this context of emotional angst but are not particularly relevant to the legislation before the Senate. I do not think that in the course of the debate any particular points of substance were made by the Opposition. For that reason I do not propose to go into detailed comments made by particular honourable senators. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, we are grateful that, for whatever reasons or bizarre motivations, honourable senators support this legislation. I wish the legislation a speedy passage and commend it to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Debate resumed from 21 August, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bills be now read a second time. upon which Senator Peter Baume had moved by way of amendment: 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'. (Quorum formed) Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory)(11.53) —I rise to support the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 1985 and the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill 1985 and to reject the amendment. I was not going to participate in the debate. It seemed to me that the Bills were straightforward and were only continuing work that had been in progress for some time. The Uluru Bill recognises ownership and spiritual significance and the Conservation Bill sets up the machinery for the national park. I have been drawn into the debate because of some of the statements which have been made in both Houses. I have at this stage read the speeches from both Houses that are in Hansard so far. I am very gratified to say that the quality remains in the Senate. It is very pleasing to see that this is the case. I do not know why this should be, but it is probably because there is so little time in the other place. Any adjudicator who was assessing the speeches of Senator Peter Baume and Senator Puplick would give them very high scores, particularly if he did not have any background knowledge of the situation. I do not think the speeches would stand up quite so well with those who do know something about the situation. I thought Senator Macklin aptly summed up the two speeches with this comment: They have raised what might be seen in one sense to be an ingenious argument but nevertheless trivial. I think that sums up the propositions that have been put in both places, very effectively in this place and less effectively in the other. Senator Macklin went on to demolish the basis of what he called the ingenious argument. Senator Reynolds called the arguments put forward by Senator Baume and Senator Puplick `opportunistic, cynical exercises to mislead the people of Australia'. My concern particularly is the change in attitude we have seen in both places, but more particularly in this place, over the 10 years that I have been a senator. On the matter of Aboriginal affairs, previously we had a bipartisan approach and speakers have quoted at great length speakers on both sides of the political spectrum and in both Houses showing the bipartisan approach which has been taken in the past. Honourable senators will recall that when the Opposition was in government for seven or eight years it called for a bipartisan approach and when the present Government was in opposition it co-operated. We acted, as I have said in this place on a number of occasions, as a true opposition. The present Opposition has not yet learnt this lesson. It must do so. I suggest that we will give Opposition members plenty of time in which to do so and they will be able to operate as a true opposition. The first lesson that needs to be learned is to stick with the principles which are enunciated so clearly by the leaders and by the various spokesmen. This is very hard to do, particularly if the principles happen to be a bit rubbery, like somebody's famous figures. The second lesson one must learn is that one must not manipulate facts to score points in what I call a fourth form debate. The issue before us is far too important for that sort of exercise. By fourth form debate, quite clearly, I am talking about an exercise that might be conducted by adolescents or people in a debating society who are out to exercise their skills of debate rather than trying to arrive at some solution. There is a great deal of evidence that neither of those lessons have been learnt. This is evident in the wording of the amendment. Senators on both sides of this place have served on the Joint Select Committee on Aboriginal Land Rights in the Northern Territory. In fact, the present Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney)-before he became one of the many Ministers for Aboriginal Affairs in the previous Government-led this Committee as a back bencher. One thing that came out very clearly was that the Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory agreed unanimously that land rights, sea rights and all of these connected issues had to remain with the Federal Government; they were not to be given to the Northern Territory Government. I will not dwell on the reasons why there was this want of trust in the Northern Territory Government. It embarrasses me because although the Government is not of my particular persuasion, it happens to be the Government of a Territory of which I am very proud. This want of trust came before the scandals of the present Government, a government which was headed by the present honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham) in the other place, caused it to be held in such poor esteem. I refer to the patronage of party supporters, the funny money which came from overseas for development, the casino scandal, the patronage of Ministers to assist in the acquisition of businesses, the politicisation of the Public Service and all of those other things. Before all of those scandals, the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory made it clear that they did not trust the Northern Territory Government and wanted all matters relating to Aboriginal affairs to be referred back to the Federal Government. I recall that the former Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, also showed a certain reluctance to trust the Northern Territory Government in the present issue under debate. Senators will recall many statements from a plethora of Ministers on this issue. Just to correct an impression from yesterday, there has been only one Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in the present Labor Government. There were quite a number in the previous Government. I have lost count as to how many there were. Those many Ministers supported the protection of sacred sites. They supported the granting of land rights. They were quite clear in their acceptance of the ownership of certain sacred and significant sites. Senator Baume, both when he was Minister and before he was Minister, lectured us on custodianship, managers, traditional owners, traditional users, people with rights to the land, people who could use the land and so on. There was a good understanding on the other side about the ownership and the relationship of land to people. This seems to be all forgotten in the statements which have been made up to date and in the amendment which has been put forward by the same Senator Baume. We now have a situation, we are told, where Uluru is `reverting to Australian ownership'. What an extraordinary statement: The Government is giving it away. I would have thought from the comments that Senator Baume made previously, forgetting the spurious and fourth form arguments he brought up yesterday, that the Government has not the power to give it away, regardless of to whom it was going to give it. Senator Reynolds painted a picture of the monolith being spirited away, like some transplanted Irish castle, to the United States. That made a mockery of the situation being presented by Senator Baume, which was completely ridiculous. After all, is it going to be like the Grand Canyon, the Victoria Falls, Mount Fuji, or the Rocky Mountains? They will remain there to be enjoyed by everyone who goes to see them, whether they be Australian tourists or overseas tourists. I rather feel that the almighty dollar has raised its head and, to put it in the vernacular, I think that some concern is being expressed on the other side of the chamber about who is going to get the lolly. Is it to be the Aboriginal people generally or specifically? Is it to be the 165,000 people of the Northern Territory? Is it to be the people of Australia in some way? Or is it to be some concession owner on the same principle that operates in another State of Australia, whether he be Japanese or from the United States? This peculiar situation can be demonstrated by a situation I remember in the Northern Territory. I went to a meeting at which someone complained bitterly that the Aboriginal people had locked the gate of a property and prevented him fishing in a particular area. The gate, of course, gave access through the station to that fishing area. He lectured me for about 15 minutes on why he should be allowed to pass through this area-because he was born in the Northern Territory, because he had fished there for many years, and so on. I waited until he had finished and then I said: `That land is not owned by Aboriginal people. It is owned by a Chinese gentleman'. The extraordinary response came back: `Oh, that is all right then'. I wonder whether that is the attitude which is developing on the other side of this chamber-it does not matter who gets it as long as the Aboriginal people do not get it. A second question which might raise its head is: Who will decide which areas can be opened up for inspection or can be photographed? The Opposition, in one of its contributions, tried to sell the situation of a little old lady not being allowed to take a sunset shot with her Kodak. Members of the Opposition did not dwell on the real situation of intrusion by the media. We all know that members of the media must get a story regardless of who is hurt or embarrassed or what false or fake incident is structured to enable them to do so. Is it any wonder that people are cautious. The word `people' raises the old and hoary chestnut we have heard yet again from both chambers-the white advisers. White advisers are becoming as common as reds under the bed. Of course, white advisers are assisting the Aboriginal people, just as they assist me. I have white advisers assisting me. I have an electorate assistant, an accountant, a doctor and a lawyer. All these white advisers help me to do those things which I cannot do myself. But no one pretends that that is because I have not the ability to make decisions in areas where I have some expertise. Let us lay this to rest once, and, I hope, for all time. Those Aboriginal people who are charged with decision making do it well. I might just raise this question: What percentage of the European population is involved in decision making? I remind the Senate that being white does not make anyone infallible. By the same token being black does not make anyone infallible. There is the same range of ability and the same range of intelligence in both groups. I wanted to make many other comments, but I understand that we are trying to achieve the passage of this legislation before lunch time. I leave it to my colleague the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) to make further comments on points raised by members of the Opposition. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(12.04) —The Senate is debating amendments to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act and to the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act, the purpose of which is to enable the Government to grant title to the Uluru area to the traditional owners. There has been extensive criticism of the legislation by members of the Opposition. I will comment on some of it, but much of it has been quite irrelevant. Much of the criticism stemming from the Opposition has concerned itself with predictions that are simply not based on any possible outcome of the legislation. The fundamental opposition to the Bills from the Liberal Party in particular and from the Opposition in general is quite incomprehensible to me because the arrangement that this legislation proposes for the Uluru area is exactly the same as the Liberal-National Party Government introduced in 1979 for the management of the Kakadu National Park. To its credit, in 1979 that Government made arrangements whereby the title of the Kakadu National Park area went to the traditional Aboriginal owners but the park was then leased back by its owners to the National Parks and Wildlife Service to be a national park. I might say in passing that it is the most splendid national park I have ever seen. Its management is excellent and incorporates efforts by Aboriginal traditional owners, some of whom work as rangers in the park, as well as by non-Aboriginal park rangers from the National Parks and Wildlife Service. That was a very successful arrangement, and we are now proposing to make the same arrangement for the Uluru area. In exactly the same way the title will go to a trust which represents the traditional owners and the park will be leased back to the National Parks and Wildlife Service to be a national park, probably of such splendour and interest that it will vie with the Kakadu National Park. It is very hard for me, trying to take a rational approach to the Opposition's position on this, to see any reason at all why the Opposition should be critical of these arrangements. Certainly there is no justification for the very melodramatic claims some Opposition senators have made about Australians losing this area, about Australians being denied access to it, about what was part of our natural heritage being controlled by very few people, and so on. There is absolutely no basis in our legislation for these criticisms and, therefore, I do not think they warrant a considered or lengthy reply. I would like to comment on some of the matters that Senator Peter Baume raised. He claimed that the Uluru claim has not been subjected to judicial process by the Aboriginal Land Commissioner. There may be something in that claim in a legal and technical sense, but it is important to remember that Mr Justice Toohey, the Aboriginal Land Commissioner, said: Both places (Uluru and Katatjuta) are of enormous significance, not only for the local desert groups immediately responsible for them, but for the claimants generally and for a wider range of Aboriginal people . . . There is an unreality in dealing with the claim area divorced from the National Park, not the least when considering the matter of traditional attachments. The attachment of all Aboriginal witnesses was obvious. . . . The advantages of a grant (i.e. exclusive of the Park) lie mainly in the recognition of traditional ownership for members of a tribal group engaged in trying to secure a wider recognition when the land of the greatest significance is not available to be claimed under the Act. It is quite clear that the decision put forward in this legislation is completely in keeping with Mr Justice Toohey's assessment of the significance of the land. As I said, there were extensive claims that the land is being taken from Australians, and I think that claim is really so absurd as not to warrant any lengthy response. However, a claim was also made by several Opposition senators that the title will be given to just one community, the Mutitjulu community. I would like to place on record that that claim is not right. What is happening is that an Uluru-Katatjuta land trust is being established to hold title on behalf of a much wider group identified by Mr Justice Toohey and other Aboriginals with traditional rights in the land. Senator Puplick made an issue of the fact that Mr Justice Toohey did not refer to Uluru in his 1983 report entitled `Seven Years On'. Of course, Mr Justice Toohey did not refer to that because his terms of reference called for him to deal with operational difficulties with the Act and it would have been improper of the judge to comment on such matters as Uluru. I would also like to point out that the agreements reached with Aboriginals in respect of the Uluru National Park provide 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 responsible Minister, one representative of the tourist industry nominated by the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and two representatives of the Northern Territory. So, it should be quite obvious to honourable senators that the Bill establishes co-operative management arrangements under which the Director of National Parks and Wildlife and the traditional owners will work in partnership with the advice of the tourist industry and the Northern Territory representatives on the board. There is no reason to believe that this will not lead to effective management of the park. Senator Peter Baume —Will the Director accept the majority decisions of the board? Senator RYAN —I will come back to that particular detail during the Committee stage. It is quite clear that it will be a well balanced board. It is one that will give a proper opportunity for all legitimate interests to be expressed. The ultimate authority over the park is not, as Senator Peter Baume claimed, with the Director of National Parks and Wildlife. It is in fact with the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment. After all, the ultimate authority for the administration of Commonwealth legislation is with Commonwealth Ministers. This is a fact of political and constitutional life with which Senator Baume is quite familiar. The lease-back arrangement is specifically designed to ensure that the Uluru National Park continues to be accessible to all Australians. The alternative arrangement proposed by some Opposition senators, namely, that the management should be by the Northern Territory Government, is quite illogical. After all, the Australian Government represents all Australians; the Northern Territory Government represents about 100,000 Australians, which is just a tiny percentage of the population. It is clearly illogical to suggest that we would have a structure for a more accessible and more appropriate national management of the park by handing it over to the tiny administration which represents a tiny number of people. I shall address in detail at the Committee stage the proper concerns that have been raised during the second reading debate. However, at this stage of the debate I would like to say that the legislation which is now before the Senate is within the spirit of our Government's land rights policy. It is clearly within the spirit and the act of the Liberal and National parties' land rights policy when they were in government. At least this was the case in 1979 when the then Government made exactly the same arrangements for the Kakadu National Park. The arrangements for the Kakadu National Park have been of benefit to all Australians and, I might add, to those international visitors who have been fortunate enough to visit that superb place. There is no reason to believe that the Uluru National Park will be any less a national treasure or any less an attraction for international tourists. In fact, given the substantive investment in the very high quality tourist facilities in the area, it wil probably outdo the Kakadu National Park in terms of attracting people from all over Australia and all over the world. What we are seeing is a very progressive and exciting move. I hope at this stage that the Opposition might rethink its position and respond positively to what, after all, is a further development of one of the good things that it set in train when it was in office. Question put: That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Peter Baume's amendment) be left out. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 34 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 8 —— Archer, B. R. Knowles, S. C. Baume, Peter MacGibbon, D. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Messner, A. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Parer, W. R. Brownhill, D. G. C. Puplick, C. J. G. Carrick, Sir John Rae, PeterCrichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Durack, P. D. Short, J. R. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Vanstone, A. E. Hill, R. Walters, M. S. Jessop, D. S. Watson, J. O. W. Kilgariff, B. F. Withers, R. G. Aulick, T. McClelland, DouglasChilds, B. K. McIntosh, G. D. Chipp, D. L. Macklin, M. J. Coates, J. Maguire, G. R. Cook, P. F. S. Mason, C. V. J. Cooney, B. Morris, J. Crowley, R. A. Ray, RobertDevlin, R. Reynolds, M. Elstob, R. C. Richardson, G. F. Evans, Gareth Robertson. E. A. (Teller)Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M. Georges, G. Sanders, N. K. 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. Townley, M. Black, J. R. Baume, Michael Coleman, R. N. Sheil, G. Sibraa, K. W. Chaney, F. M. Colston, M. A. Lewis, A. W. R. McKiernan, J. P. Collard, S. J. Button, J. N. Question so resolved in the negative. Question put: That the Bills be now read a second time. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McCelland) Ayes... 34 Noes... 26 Majority... 8 AYES Aulich, T. McClelland, Douglas Childs, B. K. McIntosh, G. D. Chipp, D. L. Macklin, M. J. Coates, J. Maguire, G. R. Cook, P. F. S. Mason, C. V. J. Cooney, B. Morris, J. Crowley, R. A. Ray, Robert Devlin, R. Reynolds, M. Elstob, R. C. Richardson, G. F. Evans, Gareth Robertson, E. A. (Teller) Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M. Georges, G. Sanders, N. K. 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. NOES Archer, B. R. Knowles, S. C. Baume, Peter Lewis, A. W. R. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Messner, A. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Parer, W. R. Brownhill, D. G. C. Puplick, C. J. G. Carrick, Sir John Rae, Peter Crichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E. (Teller) Durack, P. D. Short, J. R. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Vanstone, A. E. Hill, R. Walters, M. S. Jessop, D. S. Watson, J. O. W. Kilgariff, B. F. Withers, R. G. PAIRS Black, J. R. Baume, Michael Sibraa, K. W. MacGibbon, D. J. McKierran, J. P. Collard, S. J. Coleman, R. N. Townley, M. Colston, M. A. Sheil, G. Button, J. N. Chaney, F. M. Original question so resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time. Senator MISSEN(Victoria) —by leave-Mr President, I want to make a personal explanation. I missed the division on the question that the two Bills be read a second time. I want to explain that I had every intention of voting against those two Bills, as I indicated in my speech at the second reading stage, but due to a mishap I failed to get to the division. The Bills. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(12.25) —In relation to the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill, I move: Page 12, the Schedule, leave out the amendment of sub-section 7 (11A). The amendment in question relates to the designation of a region. The amendment to sub-section 7 (11A) would give the Commonwealth power to extend parks within the region which the Commonwealth has defined to include not only the Alligator Rivers region but also Uluru. Within that region the parks could be extended without any need for public notice being given. This provision would remove the public's right to make representations under section 11 in respect of such extensions or additions to existing parks and reserves or wildlife zones. We are concerned that as a result of this part of the Schedule the public would lose its right, first, to be informed by notice and, secondly, to make representations as it presently has the right to do. The effect of this part of the Schedule is to limit rights, which the public has at present, should a government wish to vary a park. The present scheme is that the Governor-General is empowered to declare by declaration an area to be a park, reserve or wilderness zone under the appropriate section of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act. However, before His Excellency can make such a proclamation-except after consideration by the Executive Council of a report by the Director of National Parks and Wildlife-the Director is obliged to give public notice of the nature of the report and of any recommendations therein. We are concerned that that requirement to give public notice should remain. The Director must also invite people to make representations on the report, giving not less than 60 days notice after the date of publication of notice of the Act. I refer honourable senators who may be interested to subsection 7 (12) (a) (i) and subsection 7 (12) (a) (ii) of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act. The effect of these amendments, which appear under the innocuous heading `Minor amendments of Principal Act' that appears in the Schedule of the Act which is being considered by the Committee, is to repeal sub-section 7 (11A) of the principal Act and substitute that with the proposed new sub-section which is before us. We are concerned that as a result of this we now know, first, that the word `region' which is used by the Government now includes together the Alligator Rivers region and Uluru as part of the same region, when it is clearly not a geographical region. It is clearly some notional region within which special rules will apply. That is the key to it-it is a region within which special rules will apply. There is nothing physical about that region including the Alligator Rivers region and Uluru. The net result of the proposed new sub-section 7 (11A) will be that the Commonwealth may add to existing parks and reserves any area within the region so defined. The Government will not have to give public notice and public comment will no longer be necessary. The Government will not have to give the 60 days notice and call for public comment. We have had no explanation as to why that limitation of existing rights of the public is either necessary or desirable. Presumably, the requirement for the Director to give notice was to ensure that the public was informed and advised of what was to happen. The requirement for the public to be able to make comment was a protection for the public. There is no real reason why, in the terms of this Act, which relates really to the granting to a particular group of title over Uluru and the Olgas, this amendment is necessary. There has been no explanation as to why it is desirable to limit the rights of the public in this area. It happens that this new sub-section may also have the effect of removing the rights of a group, say, the Northern Territory, to seek judicial review of a decision of the Commonwealth or of the Director. I merely observe that the political wheel turns; that it is inevitable that, some time not too far in the future, there will be a Liberal or National Party Minister administering the Act. In removing the rights of the public to be informed and to make submissions while a Labor Government is in power, one needs to consider the fact than when a Liberal or National Party Government is in power one may be concerned at what one has done to limit the rights of the public should one wish to vary or extend a national park. We cannot understand the merit of or the necessity for this amendment to the Schedule. I have moved my amendment. I invite the Minister to tell us why it is necessary for this amendment to the Act to have been made. As the Bill says, it is a minor amendment to the Act. Why is it necessary for this to be done? Why has it been necessary for the Government to move to make the giving of notice and the seeking of comment unnecesary? Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(12.32) —This amendment deals with one of the two substantial changes to the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 which were not raised in the second reading debate, which dealt largely with the question of Aboriginal land rights and of Uluru in particular. The National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill does two things which are of significance as far as the Opposition amendment is concerned. The first is that it removes the old definition of what was the region over which the Act applied and substitutes a new definition of region. Whereas previously the region was that prescribed under the Enviroment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Act 1978 and the areas of Mount Bundey, Goodparla, Gimbat and Eva Valley, to that is now added the Uluru area as described in the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. The second thing is that it removes the old regime about the way in which additions and variations to the parks within the region could be made. As Senator Peter Baume has said, it does so by pretending to be a minor amendment listed in the Schedule. The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, Mr Cohen, in the debate in the House of Representatives on 20 May 1985 said: He-- he was referring to Mr Connolly, the Opposition Shadow Minister- referred to sub-section 7 (11A) which, as he points out quite correctly, applies to Kakadu National Park as well as to the Uluru National Park. He went on to state in another part of his comment: The amendment would also enable land already in a park or reserve to be incorporated in another park or reserve without the need for public representations. This potential interchange between parks and areas within the region has considerable implications as far as the Parliament itself is concerned. Having adopted a plan of management for a particular park or reserve, we could find land in one particular park or reserve taken out and given a different definition and is no longer subject to the management plan which the Commonwealth Parliament approved. Land could be taken out of one area of management plan and added to another area of management plan. It seems to me quite extraordinary that that should be done under a cloak of secrecy. That is the effect of the new regime which the Bill substitutes as a result of the amendment to sub-section 7 (11A) proposed in the Schedule. This Government is getting a considerable record in terms of attempting to do various things covertly and by secret means. It has already made its own assaults upon the Freedom of Information Act and the ability of people to get information about what the Government is doing, either by proscribing things from the Act or by making increases in charges so that people cannot get access to the information. It is now taking away from the existing regime the right of the public to make comment about a particular variation in the arrangements for national parks in the Northern Territory region redefined by the amendment Bill. It seems extraordinary to me that a government which tries to pretend that it is in favour of information and consultation now introduces into an amending Bill a regime which allows changes and variations to be made and not be subject to the process of public scrutiny, public information and public discussion. It seems to me quite extraordinary that, given what the Government has sought to portray to the public about its commitment to open government, freedom of information and public consultation, it should now introduce, by way of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill, a derogation of the right of the public to be informed and to participate in discussions about changes within the region-changes not only in the management structure but also in the very definition of the national parks which are to be the subject of this legislation. I will not take up any more of the time of the Committee, but if honourable senators look at the extension of exactly what is prescribed in new sub-section 7 (11A), its impact upon Aboriginal land and its impact upon the seas surrounding the defined park areas, I think they will find that this is a major change, tarted up in terms of a minor amendment to a Schedule, which will have very deleterious effects not only on the management of the park system in the Northern Territory but also in terms of the public support and respect for the way in which park management plans are drawn up and the way in which the Parliament is entitled to approve or disapprove those park management plans when the region of the park itself is then subject to alteration without consultation with the public and without the approval of the Parliament. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(12.38) —Before I respond to the questions raised by Senator Peter Baume and Senator Puplick about sub-section 7 (11A) and the amendment, I would like to respond to a question that Senator Peter Baume raised by way of interjection during the completion of the second reading debate. He asked about the decision-making process of the Board. He asked specifically whether the Director would accept a majority decision or would be able to overrule the Board. The Director will not be able to overrule the Board. The Director, as a member of the Board, would normally accept majority decisions of the Board, but the Bill provides for all circumstances and so establishes procedures for resolving conflict between the Director and the Board. These procedures are likely to be used very rarely, if at all. The traditional Aboriginal owners have indicated support for these procedures and there is every reason to expect, particularly in the light of the excellent record of the relationship between the Director and the traditional owners in Kakadu, that operations of the Board will be conducted in a co-operative atmosphere and that decisions will be reached by consensus. The conflict resolution procedure was set out by the Minister in the second reading speech. I now move to the more complicated matter of our amendment to sub-section 7 (11A). The Fraser Government introduced the present sub-section 7 (11A) in 1978. The intention of that action was to implement a recommendation of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry that declaration of national park within the region should be exempt from public representation requirements. The justification was that considerable public discussion had already taken place during, and preceding, the inquiry. Recent legal advice has suggested that sub-section 7 (11A) could exempt from public comment proclamations not only creating parks within the region but also removing land from parks. This interpretation conflicts with the intention of the sub-section. The Government's amendment expresses the original intention of sub-section 7 (11A) by clearly providing that the exemption from public representations will not apply to proclamations whereby land would cease to be park or reserve. Furthermore, only land within the region could be made park or reserve without public representations as was the case under the Fraser Government's original sub-section 7 (11A). The amendment would also enable land already in a park or reserve to be incorporated in another park or reserve without the need for public representations. This provision would apply only where the status of land would not be changed by proclamation. Senator Puplick raised objections to this. For example, Kakadu stage 1 and stage 2 could be made one park under the Government's proposal for the purpose of having one plan of management. Senator Puplick raised concerns about the absence of a need for public representation should such a change take place. I point out to Senator Puplick that the plans of management for all parks including parks whose boundaries would be increased if this amendment were passed would be managed under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act. Therefore the plans would be made available for public comment and would be laid before both Houses of Parliament before being adopted. If the two parks were to be joined and there were to be a new plan of management, that would under the terms of the present National Parks and Wildlife Act, be made available for public comment and brought to this and the other place. I hope that answers Senator Puplick's concern. It is also important to point out that the provision under the Act which would enable parks within the region to be joined into one park would apply only when the status of the land would not be claimed by proclamation. In other words where there are already parks, two parks could be made into one park; thus the procedures which I have just set out would apply. Both Senator Peter Baume and Senator Puplick raised the matter of including Uluru in the definition of a region. This provides a simple means of extending to the Uluru National Park the existing provisions of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act relating to Aboriginal matters and Aboriginal land. Because Uluru is already a national park including it in the region would not significantly alter public participation procedures. The only effect this action would have on public participation in Uluru would be to remove the need for public representations on the inclusion of seven small enclaves in the park. However-I think this is an important point-public representations on this action, that is on the seven small enclaves, have already been invited and received. The seven enclaves amount to only 16 hectares out of the total area of Uluru National Park of 132,500 hectares. Extending the region to include Uluru as proposed in the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill would not allow any further extension of Uluru National Park without full public participation as presently required by the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act. The possibility of a judicial review of decisions arising from this position was raised by Senator Puplick. It was not clear from his question which decision he would wish to have a judicial review of. I point out to Senator Puplick that the only substantive change to park boundaries that this amendment would facilitate is the addition to Uluru National Park of the seven small enclaves that I have just referred to-that is the 16 hectares-about which public comment has already been sought. Principally, the amendment clarifies present section 7 (11A) which is vaguely worded. Amendment negatived. Consideration interrupted. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-I inform the Senate that the Deputy Prime Minister and Attorney-General, Mr Bowen, is leaving today for an official visit to Europe. He will return on 13 September. In his absence I will be acting as Vice-President of the Executive Council and the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Evans, will be Acting Attorney-General. Mr Duffy will represent Senator Evans in the House of Representatives. I further inform the Senate that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, will leave Australia tomorrow for Geneva. He will return on 30 August. Senator Evans will be also Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs during Mr Hayden's absence. The Minister for Defence, Mr Beazley, leaves tomorrow for an official visit to the United States of America and Canada. He returns on 10 September. The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism Mr John Brown, will be Acting Minister for Defence in Mr Beazley's absence. Senator DURACK —I refer the Acting Attorney-General to a passage in the statement which was tabled yesterday in the Senate by the Leader of the Government concerning the Government's legislative program for the Budget sitting. I refer in particular to that part of the statement concerning the Attorney-General's legislative program which states that the Attorney-General will be introducing a Bill of Rights package which will: . . . give effect in Australia to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. I ask the Acting Attorney-General whether this means that the Bowen version of the Bill of Rights will apply equally to the Federal and State laws throughout Australia. If not, in what way will the Bowen version of the Bill of Rights differ from the Bill which the Acting Attorney-General, in his then capacity as Attorney-General, drafted last year but refused to make public? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is the Government's intention to introduce a human rights legislation package, including an Australian Bill of Rights Bill, in this session. As to the contents of that Bill, Senator Durack simply will have to curb his racing hormones and wait and see. Senator ROBERTSON —Is the Leader of the Government in the Senate aware that the Leader of the Opposition has indicated in his Budget reply speech that a Liberal government would sell off government enterprises such as the Australian Industry Development Corporation, Medibank Private and the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation and would look to sell off the Commonwealth Bank, Trans Australia Airlines, Aussat Pty Ltd, the Australian National Line and all other government bodies? What are the major implications of such a move for the efficient operation of government? Senator Messner —Efficiency. Senator BUTTON —I hardly have to answer the question because Senator Messner has said that it means efficiency. Yes, I did see the Opposition Leader's Budget reply which contained a commitment to a comprehensive program of selling out Australian public enterprise. Interestingly enough, there was no mention of privatisation as an important issue in Senator Chaney's reply to the Budget in this chamber. Therefore, I assume there is less than undivided enthusiasm for it amongst members of the Opposition. Senator Chaney —What an extraordinary conclusion to draw. Senator BUTTON —Of course, one can also draw the conclusion that there would not be uninterrupted enthusiasm for such sales amongst members of the community, if the Opposition in this place can in any sense be said to reflect a section of Australian community opinion. Let us look at what Opposition spokesmen-apart from Senator Messner-say on this important issue. John Valder, the Federal President of the Liberal Party of Australia, put the correct perspective on this Liberal sideshow recently when he said: It is all very well to say we will privatise this and we will do that and fiddle about. That's all fiddling with the edges. Certainly it is fiddling at the edges. It is a somewhat pathetic masquerade for a responsible economic policy but it is also dangerous vandalism, as Senator Missen pointed out in his recent paper entitled, if you please, `The Winter of our Discontent'-the winter of our discontent which I assure Opposition members is about to turn into an ice age. Senator Missen stated: The sale of the Commonwealth Bank had `no merit' it was `a necessary instrument, a watchdog, to keep private banks from ignoring public need'. Senator Withers —Rubbish! Senator BUTTON —Senator Withers has just interjected: `Rubbish!' Senator Missen continued: People are right to be concerned for their savings held in the Commonwealth Bank under the Liberals. He also said: Privatisation of Telecom and Australia Post- Senator Missen —Mr President, I raise a point of order. At no stage did I say that people in any way were endangering their savings. That is a false statement. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. Senator BUTTON —I apologise to Senator Missen. However, Senator Missen went on to say: Privatisation of Telecom and Australia Post are other dubious examples. Anyone who has experienced the chaos of United States telephones or the slowness of its mail will realise that, particularly in this country, the outback dweller and private citizens have a lot to lose from applying mechanistic `supply and demand' rules to their needs. Even the selling off of profitable parts of these enterprises will leave the ordinary citizen with a vast burden to pay for uneconomic . . . services. Senator Missen was articulating the winter of the Liberals' discontent. The winter of that discontent was made glorious summer this morning by Mr Steele Hall, that son of the Yorke Peninsula, when he said in an address, I think at Canberra Grammar School: Imagine, therefore, some of my more conservative colleagues trying to get a Bill through the Senate to sell the Commonwealth Bank or to float off Australia's international flag carrier, Qantas. They can have a few token authorities to satisfy their appetite-they can get rid of the run down, or the obsolete-but they can't and should not get their hands on the `Get with the strength' elephant, or the`flying' kangaroo. I think we can be sure the Senate will see to it that they don't. These comments contrast strangely with some of the heady rhetoric of the speeches the Liberal Party's national conference by people such as Senator Jim Short, Mr John Howard and Mr Jim Carlton. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. I have no doubt that the Leader of the Government could discourse for 60 minutes on his views on the Liberal Party, but I suggest that has little to do with his ministerial responsibility. I also suggest, Mr President, that he is debating the question and that you should call him to order and get him to sit down. The PRESIDENT —I know that Senator Button is within the confines of answering the question but I tend to think that he is reaching the stage of debating the subject raised in the question. I ask him to try to shorten his answer as much as possible. Senator BUTTON —Mr President, with the greatest respect, what I was drawing the Senate's attention to was that a lot of other people are debating this question. The outcome of that debate is very important for this country and very interesting. Privatisation is not about small government as some people allege; it is not about cutting taxes in some sort of fire sale mentality; it is all about the ideological obsessions of a Liberal leader incapable of understanding economic policy and with a dwindling grasp of the leadership of his own Party. That is what it is all about. It is most unfortunate that in the context of a very important Budget-- Senator Peter Rae —Why did you do it in the mini-Budget? The PRESIDENT —Order! I have asked the Leader of the Government to restrict his answer. I ask Senator Rae to cease interjecting. Senator BUTTON —I conclude by saying that it is most unfortunate that within the context of an important Budget concerned with economic growth in this country the Leader of the purported Opposition should devote so much time to pursuing this ridiculous red herring which has been intruded into an otherwise very important debate. Senator COLLARD —I ask the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to explain under what criteria members of the Council of the Australian War Memorial are selected? I ask this question in the light of recent changes to the composition of the Council resulting in the removal of Admiral Sir Anthony Synnot not only from the chairmanship but also from the Council. Does the Minister agree that this is an extraordinary action in light of past practice where one member of the Council has always been a distinguished and or senior ex-service person? Does this not imply criticism by the Minister of Sir Anthony's performance, considered more than adequate as Chief of the Defence Force Staff, bearing in mind that Sir Anthony was available for reappointment? Senator GIETZELT —The criteria that I apply for any appointment are that the person should be, first, competent; secondly, representative; and thirdly, able to carry out public functions. In respect of the appointments that I made for 1985-88, the Senate might be interested to hear that Sir William Keys was reappointed. He is the National President of the Returned Services League. Dame Beryl Beaurepaire, who is very active in the Opposition parties and a very well known Australian citizen, was reappointed. Mr Bevan Bradbury from the business sector, G. J. Coles and Co. Ltd, and Mr Ken Fry, the former member for Fraser, were appointed. Captain Saunders, the first Australian Aborigine to receive a commissioned rank in World War II, was appointed, as was Mr Brian McMullan, the General Secretary of the Australian Public Service Association. All those persons were veterans, members of the armed forces during World War II. Therefore, they met an important criterion that they have a natural and abiding interest in the functions of the Australian War Memorial. The implication that we have done something improper in not appointing senior officers of the armed forces to a position ought to be discarded, for the simple reason that the armed forces are represented in their own right. The Army, Navy and Air Force have their own representatives by way of the chiefs of the particular sections of the armed forces. Therefore, I do not believe that the War Memorial is affected in any way by the appointment. I remind those who believe that the War Memorial should have representatives of the senior ranks of the armed services and the Senate of the comments of Field Marshal Lord Wavell who said that the strategy and tactics of war are really absurdly simple. It is the actualities, the hunger, the fear, the tiredness, the lack of sleep and the actual warfare that make war so complicated. That indicates that it is the ordinary citizens who perform the functions during periods of conflict. I was particularly interested in getting more balance in the way in which the War Memorial operated, not because I deprecate the activities of former chairmen of the board, or other senior officers, who have performed that function in the past. However, I was disappointed during my trip to war cemeteries in France and Belgium to find on memorials tributes which read: `To the officers, the non-commissioned officers and the men of the armed forces in World War I', when they should have been tributes to all those who served, not emphasising the officers and the NCOs, and placing the men in a tertiary position. One wonders why so much emphasis is placed on this appointment. When the Australian War Memorial met it chose Dame Beryl Beaurepaire as its Chairman for the whole period from 1985 to 1988. That is a tribute to the capacity of the Memorial to carry out its proper function. Senator COLLARD —I ask a simple supplementary question. In what way do the new appointees meet the three self-imposed criteria laid down by the Minister better than Admiral Sir Anthony Synnot? Senator GIETZELT —As I indicated to Admiral Synnot, I have placed on record my appreciation of his service in that position. In no way does his failure to be reappointed represent any criticism of his membership of the board or his activities as the Chairman or as a very important person in the Australian armed forces. It is the prerogative of governments and Ministers to make changes from time to time. I do not resile from that responsibility. Senator GILES —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. What provision is being made in the new youth package for those young people who have previously been reliant upon transitional allowances in order to take advantage of programs such as the participation and equity program and other technical and further education bridging courses? Are there any plans for extensions of these courses which cater for the disadvantaged youth who are unlikely otherwise ever to qualify for traineeships? Senator BUTTON —The major purpose of the Government's strategy for young people is to increase their access to employment training and education. Improvements in the job market and school participation rates, together with new opportunities available under employment and training programs, particularly traineeships, will provide more young people with the necessary skills to participate effectively in the work force. The introduction of traineeships will see some 10,000 early school leavers take up a structured training program in 1985-86, rising to some 75,000 by 1988-89. About 15 per cent of those traineeships will be made available to very disadvantaged young people, such as the long term unemployed and the disabled. The Government will also be providing additional incentives to employers to offer traineeships to those disadvantaged young people. The Commonwealth is discussing with the State governments the possibility of providing additional pre-employment training for some disadvantaged young people to enable them to participate effectively in the traineeship system. If such courses are regarded as appropriate, transition allowances between the two sets of courses will be made available. I also point out to Senator Giles that about 12,200 disadvantaged young people attending approved TAFE courses will be eligible to receive that transitional allowance. Two thousand additional places in trade-based employment courses will be funded also, including 500 earmarked for young women to improve their access to apprenticeships in non-traditional trades. Participants in these courses will be eligible for government allowances, depending on their individual circumstances. Senator CHIPP —Did the Minister for Veterans' Affairs undertake to table all documents relating to the report of the Royal Commission on the Use and Effects of Chemical Agents on Australian Personnel in Vietnam? Is there in existence a letter to him from the Royal Commission dealing with the proposed $40,000 five-week publicity campaign to disseminate information about the Commission's findings and with the role of the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia in that campaign? If so, in accordance with his undertaking will the Minister table this complete letter before 4 p.m. today? Senator GIETZELT —In my file dealing with the Royal Commission on chemical agents in Vietnam I have a confidential letter from Mr Justice Evatt. I am somewhat at a loss to know whether such a confidential letter should be tabled in the Parliament. It seeks to have my approval of the suggestion that Mr Phil Thompson, the National President of the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia, should be involved in highlighting the good news of the Royal Commission. I did not agree to that request because, as I think honourable senators, whatever their views, would appreciate, the Vietnam Veterans Association has held a very strong view about the involvement of its members in the war and the likelihood that their health was affected by exposure to chemical agents. I did not want to put Mr Thompson in a position where he would be employed by the Commission or by the Government in a publicity campaign in the ensuing weeks which I felt would compromise him and place him in a very invidious position with his own membership. In those circumstances, I believed that I had an obligation to protect him from the suggestion that had been made by the Royal Commissioner. However, as the honourable senator has made such a request-had it not been a confidential letter, I would not have hesitated in doing it-I will very seriously consider the matter and seek some advice on it. If the advice is favourable I will table the letter. Senator CHIPP —I ask a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for his answer. I remind him that he undertook to table all the documents. I find it extraordinary that he has a document which he now says is confidential. Will he please, among other people he consults, consult the Royal Commissioner, to get permission to table that document in the Parliament? I suggest to the Minister that he note that unless overwhelming reasons are given as to why that document should not be tabled, further action will be taken by my Party to have that document tabled and made public. Senator GIETZELT —I will certainly discuss the matter with the Royal Commissioner. Senator TATE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Has the Government noted reports that the Philippines military was involved in the massacre of a parish leader and his four sons in Father Brian Gore's former parish in Negros? Is it a fact that some $1.5m has been allocated in this year's Budget for defence co-operation with the Philippines? What assurance can the Minister give that Australian taxpayers are not aiding and abetting cruel and deadly repression by the military arm of the corrupt Marcos regime? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government has heard reports of the murder of a parish leader and his four sons in Negros. Such reports are monitored regularly by our Embassy in Manila and by the Department of Foreign Affairs. I have no further information at the moment about the circumstances of that murder. If and when it comes to hand I will advise Senator Tate and the Senate accordingly. It is the case that estimated expenditure on defence co-operation program activities with the Philippines in this financial year is $1.5m. The broad objective of our participation in defence co-operation programs with regional countries is to assist them to develop capabilities to counter external threats and to deter the emergence of such threats. Where practicable, preference is given to projects and activities which can benefit the civilian community as well as the military. Obviously, this Australian Government could not condone and would not abet in any way activities or proposals for activity under the defence co-operation program which threatened human rights. The small present Philippines program reflects these aims. Project activity is concentrated on the transfer of specialist skills related to equipment developed and manufactured in Australia. This assistance does not imply on the part of either government endorsement of any or all of the policies of the other. Mr President, I wish to give just slightly more detail-one more paragraph. Project activity this year will consist of assistance in developing a maintenance and support system for Philippines Air Force Nomad aircraft and the provision of advice and equipment to establish a mobile field medical facility. It is expected that some 55 Filipino servicemen will attend staff colleges and train in Australia, developing skills in a variety of fields including underwater medicine; military engineering, survey and artillery; air traffic control and pilot training; and other specialist areas. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. I refer to the lengthy search of the luggage of the Premier of Queensland by Customs officers earlier this month and to the questions which have been raised about who instigated the search. The Minister has been reported as saying that he would obtain a report on the incident. I ask: Has the Minister received the report? Does the report indicate how and why the search was instigated? Can the Minister advise the Senate of the facts and, further, assure the Senate that there has been no victimisation or unfair treatment of the Queensland Premier? Senator BUTTON —Of all the publicity which this Mickey Mouse incident received, I thought the most bizarre allegation which floated up was that I was in some way involved. Having said that, let me try to describe what happened. As I understand it, Sir Joh and Lady Bjelke-Petersen returned from overseas on a flight which arrived at 6.40 a.m. in the morning and were cleared by Customs at 7.44 a.m. Senator Peter Baume —In the morning? Senator BUTTON —The same morning. In the course of discussion with Customs officers Senator Bjelke-Petersen indicated to the aircraft inspector that the baggage contained some goods which were possibly dutiable and chocolates which might be subject to quarantine. As I recall it, this discussion took place after Sir Joh and Lady Bjelke-Petersen had omitted to sign their Customs declarations and had received some assistance with that from a Customs officer. In the course of the baggage examination which followed the conversation between Senator Bjelke-Petersen and the Customs officer a quantity of seeds was discovered and referred to a quarantine officer. Preliminary quarantine advice obtained thereafter was that the seeds were of `a tree seed species not usually restricted'. But further analysis was required to confirm this and the seeds were subsequently referred to the plant quarantine authority in Queensland. Advice was received by Customs from that authority on 8 August 1985 that the seeds were native to Australia, and the release of the seeds was then granted. It is normal practice for Customs officers to question the declarants when undeclared quarantine goods are found. This was not done at the time and there is no clear indication of why this was not the case. However, I am advised that it was probably due to the preliminary quarantine advice that the seeds were unlikely to be restricted goods. No action is contemplated under either the Customs Act or the Quarantine Act, the main reasons being that the seeds are of Australian origin, that the declarant was unaware of their presence in the baggage and that there were indications that the seeds had been present in the Premier's bag for some time. The seeds have been returned to the Premier and he and Senator Bjelke-Petersen have been advised by the Collector of Customs that no further action is contemplated. The decision by the Australian Customs Service not to proceed to further action is consistent with normal guidelines and would apply equally to any citizen in similar circumstances. I had occasion to say at the time of this incident that if there were any lessons to be learned from it by anybody they were that, first of all, returning travellers should sign their Customs declaration; secondly, they should read their Customs declaration; and, thirdly, they should realise that all citizens in this country, whoever they might be, are treated by the Customs Service in an appropriately equal way. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for his answer and acknowledge the final point that he made, which would be the view of the Opposition. The Minister may have answered my question inferentially but I have specifically asked him why the search was instigated. Does his answer mean that it flowed from the facts that he has given us? Were any other factors involved? Has he checked that? Can he give me an answer to that explicit question? Senator BUTTON —There is no point in my checking that information further. I think I understand the circumstances. I just make the point that Customs officers are under an obligation to search all bags. That is their obligation. They may depart from the exercise of that obligation in some circumstances and, of course, thus usually do. The question of whether bags are to be searched is dictated by two things: First of all, the random sampling system which throws up particular passengers for search; and, secondly, a subjective judgment made by the Customs officer in charge at the time. Senator Chaney —In this case? Senator BUTTON —Yes, made by him at a particular time. It is my understanding that the search was instigated largely on the basis of a conversation with Senator Bjelke-Petersen when she informed the Customs officers about chocolates and other possibly dutiable goods. Senator RICHARDSON —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade. Is the Minister aware of the United States `bonus' export program for agricultural trade? Does the Minister believe that this program will unduly affect Australia's agricultural exports, notably wheat, as the Australian Wheat Board estimates that one-third of Australia's wheat export income, $2.5 billion, could be lost? The United States Government recently announced the allocation of 500,000 tonnes of wheat to Egypt under this scheme. What is being done to ensure that Australian wheat exports to Egypt and other markets are not damaged by this scheme? Senator BUTTON —Following the announcement of a $2 billion export enhancement program for agricultural products by the United States Administration, the Government's concerns about the implications of the program were transmitted to the President of the United States by the Prime Minister and during ministerial discussions with the United States Secretaries of State and Agriculture. The Australian Government was given assurances by the United States Administration that the EEP-the export enhancement program- will be targetted against subsidising competitors, and that the United States will be making it clear to recipient countries that it expects non-subsidised commercial trade to be maintained. Further sales under the program will be subject to this expectation being met. These assurances given by the United States Government are particularly important to Australia. Following the last announced intiative by the Americans to target Egypt, the Minister for Primary Industry again expressed our concerns to the United States Secretary of Agriculture, indicating that it will result in downward pressure on wheat prices and is contrary to the key objective of targetting only subsidised exports. Secretary Block again reassured us that the United States had taken careful precautions to ensure that our wheat trade would be protected. No sales under the program have yet been made by the United States. Nevertheless, we are concerned at the possible implications on our wheat trade. The Government is closely monitoring the situation and maintaining close contact with the United States Government. The implications of Senator Richardson's question are that we are caught in a nasty little trade war between the European agricultural community and the United States and that the backlash can be significant for Australia. I think the best summation of the answer is that the Government is very conscious of the situation and is continually making representations to the United States Government about it. Senator ARCHER —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. I refer to Budget information and media headlines which have applauded the fact that rural industry has received an increased allocation of a very generous $117m. Wheat growers, however, claim that included in that amount is $104.6m which was in fact their own funds which were in hand in the previous financial year and could have been paid out in that year. I therefore ask the Minister: Was $104.6m of the increased rural industry budget allocation in fact wheat growers' own funds? Were these funds held over from last financial year and paid out on 1 July? Was the increase in rural industry funding for 1985-86 in fact only $12.4m? Senator WALSH —One thing I will not accept responsibility for is the way in which the Press reports any item of news at all. I am not sure whether the figure is $104m. At least $100m from the Wheat Finance Fund has been paid out in this financial year-indeed, it was paid out on 1 July. The history of the $100m is that when in 1980 the Fraser Government abolished effectively the wheat stabilisation scheme there was a grower fund to which growers had contributed and from which, subject to certain criteria being fulfilled, payments were made back to wheat growers. It was raised by a grower levy. When the Fraser Government effectively abolished the stabilisation fund it chose, however, not to refund the last $100m of grower contributions which were then in it. It set up some typically dodgy piece of cosmetic accounting under the name of the Wheat Finance Fund under which that $100m, for which there was no longer any justification for retention, was advanced to the Wheat Board as a loan to make the first advance payments to growers. I stress that ever since 1980 the reason for which the $100m had originally been collected from wheat growers has no longer been applicable. It was typical of the sort of cosmetic, shonky accounting devices in which the Fraser Government specialised in order to reduce artificially its outlays and deficits. This Government decided it was time that the money was returned to the wheat growers from whom it was originally raised. That was done on 1 July. Senator HARRADINE —Is the Acting Attorney-General aware of the widespread concern among the academic community, and indeed among the community generally, at the establishment of a company IVF Australia Ltd, to expose human reproductive technology to commercial exploitation? Is it not a fact that this company seeks to gain monopoly control over certain aspects of this and related technologies for sale under lucrative royalty arrangements in the United States, whose Government has long since imposed a ban on human embryo experimentation for funding purposes? Given the responsibilities of the Commonwealth on patents and related questions, what action does the Government propose to take in face of this commercial exploitation? Further, I ask what action the Attorney proposes to take on the report of the Family Law Council, tabled in Parliament yesterday, which was based on the findings of its sub-committee which inquired into the matter and in relation to which Council Chairman, Mr Justice Fogarty, said to Mr Bowen: The Council supports the recommendations which would prohibit the production of human embryos for the sole purpose of research/experimentation or the use of spare human embryos for that purpose . . . Senator GARETH EVANS —As to the latter part of the question, I am advised that the Attorney-General has asked his Department to consult with other departments as a matter of priority to assist in the formulation of the Government's response to the report-a response which clearly has not yet been formulated. We understand that the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs is also considering certain issues relating to reproductive technology. It is the Government's wish to take into account the views of that Committee before making any final policy decisions. As to the first part of Senator Harradine's question, I will simply have to take it on notice and seek a reply to him at the earliest opportunity. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade. It follows his response to Senator Richardson, all of which I did not hear. I remind the Minister of the size of our wheat sales to Egypt, which is our single largest market. In 1983-84 our sales were valued at $303m, and in 1984-85 $411m-and in that year involved slightly over two million tonnes. In light of the number of major wheat producers in the world seeking to court Egypt as a major buyer from them, can the Minister say whether the Australian Wheat Board has one full time representative in Cairo? Senator BUTTON —No, I cannot tell Senator Crichton-Browne that. I will find out. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —As a supplementary question, I ask Senator Button whether he would be surprised to learn that there are none. Senator BUTTON —I withdraw my previous answer. I will not find out. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation. I refer to the tragedy yesterday involving a Boeing 737 airliner at Manchester Airport in the United Kingdom, apparently caused by an explosion in one of the aircraft's engines. In view of the fact that 12 of these aircraft with the same engines operate in Australia and that similar engines power other domestic airliners, what actions are the Australian air safety authorities taking to monitor the United Kingdom accident inquiry in order to ensure that Australia's enviable and unparalleled air safety record is maintained? Senator GIETZELT —I think all honourable senators will be shocked at the rapidity of major aircraft disasters occurring in many parts of the world. The latest one that took place yesterday in the United Kingdom involved an aircraft type similar to that used by Ansett Airlines of Australia. The engine which apparently failed is the same type as that used in the Australian Boeing 737 and 727 and the McDonnell Douglas DC9 aircraft. I understand that at a late stage in the take-off roll the port engine failed as a result of an uncontained turbine failure which resulted in an intense fire. The pilot aborted the take-off and the aircraft skidded off the runway in an attempt to prevent the tragedy that subsequently occurred. However, as a result of that there was an extensive fuel spillage and the fire spread very rapidly through the passenger section. There were many casualties in the rear part of the cabin, which indicates the difficulties about airline travel because following the previous tragedy some people had suggested that was the safest place. The Australian record in aircraft safety is of a very high standard. There has not been a major aircraft disaster in Australia for more than 17 years. In respect of maintaining that important safety record, the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation has dispatched a senior officer to Manchester in the United Kingdom to observe and assist in the management of the investigation there and to provide first hand feedback of information to the Department of Aviation so that that information can be fed on to the respective airline companies in Australia which use the same type of aircraft and the same type of engine in the functioning of their airlines. Senator BOSWELL —I refer the Leader of the Government in the Senate to a meeting in Brisbane on Tuesday organised by the Queensland Trades and Labour Council and the Australian Council of Trade Unions which passed a resolution to commence a campaign of industrial action against the Queensland Government and the people of Queensland. Will Senator Button now admit that the Electricity (Continuity of Supply) Act Amendment Bill has proved totally ineffective in stopping unions taking industrial action against the people of Queensland and that the Federal Government was misled by the ACTU in guaranteeing that there would be no further industrial action on this matter? Senator BUTTON —I must be thought to be even sillier than I look. This is called Question Time, not confession time. I will not make any such simplistic or silly admission. Senator CROWLEY —My question is directed to the Minister for Community Services. The Budget announcement about child care places affirms the Government's commitment to providing 20,000 new places over the next three years, including a number to be established this year. Can the Minister give any detail about where these places will be, what is the proposed mix of places, what will be the cost of this commitment to the Commonwealth and what steps will be taken to implement it? Senator GRIMES —As Senator Crowley has said, the Budget documents point out that the Government intends to and will construct some 20,000 new child care places in the next three years. The Budget Papers also indicate that this will cost $107m, which is a considerable increase on the existing Budget of some $160m and in fact more than the total child care budget when this Government came to power. In the first year there will be a thousand places, but also in the first year approval will be given a year ahead for almost half this total number of 20,000 so that people can plan and get their capital structures off the ground and get their centres operating quickly. Of the 20,000 places there will be 12,000 centre-based day care places, 4,000 family day care places, 3,000 occasional care places and the equivalent of a thousand places for those with special needs such as migrants, Aboriginals, disabled children and children from remote and isolated areas. The Government is committed to the implementation of this strategy and we will build these 20,000 places. To those who seem to have some doubt about the capacity of this Government to do that in three years I merely point out that in the first 2 1/2 years of this Government we in fact increased the number of child care places by just over 20,000. We increased the number of places by 58 per cent and increased expenditure by 60 per cent. Our policy is clear. We will continue, in other words, to do what we have done in the past, and that is to make up as fast as we can in an economically responsible way for the great lack of child care and children's services that has existed for so long in this country. Senator MASON —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. It concerns the acquired immune deficiency syndrome and its transference through blood transfusions. Has the Minister noted that Professor David Penington remarked on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation program the National on 8 August that it could be some weeks or months after a person has contracted AIDS before he developed anti-bodies. At a briefing yesterday Professor Penington added that it could be several months in some cases before those anti-bodies developed. Are not the tests based totally on the detection of anti-bodies in blood samples? in this case, will there not be a significant number of blood donations which are able to pass through the screening process and which could well result in people being infected with AIDS as a result of blood transfusions because of that time lapse? What is the Government doing about this or what does it propose to do? Senator GRIMES —As Senator Mason says, the development of anti-bodies in AIDS or in any other viral disease in fact takes some weeks and sometimes months after a person is infected and there is a period when the person may be infected and the anti-bodies are not detectable. Senator Mason is correct that the screening tests at the moment involve the detection of anti-bodies in the blood, but the screening tests are not the only mechanism used in blood transfusions in Australia. Australia has the reputation of having the best checks and the best screenings of blood transfusions in the world as far as AIDS is concerned. There are several reasons for this, not the least that we do not have in this country a system whereby people are in fact paid for their blood. We do not have the situation which exists in so many other countries where people actually give blood in order to gain money, sometimes in desperate circumstances. Secondly, all blood transfusion centres in Australia have been operating full testing procedures for AIDS for about 3 1/2 months and in addition to that the AIDS task force recommended and the governments and the National Red Cross Society took up the introduction of a uniform statement to be signed by all donors at the time of each donation declaring that they are not suffering from AIDS and are not members of groups known to be at significant risk from contracting AIDS. There is a penalty in all States and Territories for people who knowingly sign such forms and make declarations in a false way. Therefore there is a dual approach: The exclusion of high risk donors and the screening of donated blood. As a result of these procedures, since screening was introduced almost a quarter of a million blood donations have been carefully tested and only seven donations have been rejected, indicating the effectiveness of the initial screening process. It is certainly true, as Senator Mason says, that a person does not develop the positive anti-bodies until some time later. Therefore it is theoretically possible that the odd infected blood will get through. It is believed that the safety of blood transfusions in this country is in excess of ten times the safety of that in the United States. The risk of getting contaminated blood is one in several millions. The risk is therefore very minimal and certainly far less a risk than those associated with forgoing a transfusion when it is needed. In the circumstances, because of the effectiveness of the operation that has been conducted in Australia and because of the co-operation between the States and the Federal Government and the medical authorities, I believe we have a system as safe as it can possibly be at the moment. Of course, we are not resting on that. As new developments occur, both the medical profession and the governments in this country will continue to improve that system. Senator BOLKUS —My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, follows the question asked earlier today, in particular that part of the question which proposed that Telecom Australia be sold off to the private sector. Can the Minister say what the implications of such a proposal would be, particularly in respect of country subscribers to Telecom? Senator WALSH —The chief implication of the privatisation moves currently being touted by various ideologues in the Liberial Party for Telecom and Australia Post is that there would be few telephone services, if any, provided in rural Australia because telephone services, and postal services, in rural Australia are innately unprofitable. For example, the cost of providing a telephone connection in the remote areas of Queensland and Western Australia is between $20 000 and $25 000. The maximum fee charged is $1 350. People in those areas would have to pay between $20 000 and $25 000 to have a telephone connected or it would not be connected. It is indeed more serious than that because, as potential customers dropped off the system entirely and ceased to be customers because of the extremely high charges, the infrastructure costs would be affected little and therefore the per service cost would be considerably higher again. Attempts to fully recover costs from communications and postal services in the remote parts of Australia are akin to attempts to chase a mirage; one never gets there. So far as postal services are concerned, the cost of posting a standard letter from, for example, Ingle Downs in central Queensland to Melbourne is $1.70. If a profit-maximising private firm were to take over Australia Post it would seek to recover the full cost of delivering a letter from central Queensland to Melbourne. It would charge $1.70. Then the volume of letters would probably halve and the profit-maximising firm, attempting to maximise its profits, would put up its charges again until eventually the cost would be prohibitive and no mail would be delivered at all. I would be very interested to know what Senator Bjelke-Petersen, for example, thinks about the proposition that it should cost $1.70-indeed, for the reasons I have given it would be more than $1.70-to post a letter from central Queensland to Melbourne. Possibly Senator Bjelke-Petersen would think that a good idea because then Queensland would have no communications with the wicked south! Country Queensland would also have no communication with Brisbane. That might be thought to be a good idea as well. It has, of course, been suggested that, under a privatisation system, moneys could be paid directly from the Budget to subsidise those innately unprofitable operations. If that were to be done, some $490m or thereabouts would be added to outlays by a Party which purports to be about reducing expenditures. Moreover, if that system were adopted it would fundamentally contradict the rationale for the policy of particular ideologues in the Liberal Party, that rationale being that a private service is more innovative and efficient because it is spurred by the profit motive. If governments were to underwrite losses on innately unprofitable country services, obviously the profit motive would disappear and the rationale for the policy would disappear with it. I suppose it is not surprising that anybody who puts up a policy like that got the figures in all his five Budgets wrong, as the chief idealogical proponent of this policy in the Liberal Party did. My colleague Senator Button has already mentioned that Mr Valder described this as fiddling at the edges. He has referred to Senator Missen and Mr Hall, the honourable member for Boothby. I note with some regret that Mr Hall is the only non-Labor rural member to have stood up to condemn this policy, and thereby to have stood up for the electors that he purports to represent. No other Liberal or National Party member has yet had the courage or decency to do that. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance. Why did the Government in the May mini-Budget announce that it would privatise the administration of defence service homes? Senator WALSH —The Government made that decision because it provided a way of increasing the options available to ex-servicemen. I might also note, if anybody in the Opposition is capable of understanding this, that there is an intrinsic difference between defence service homes and the provision of postal and telephone services; that is, the amount of money which it costs to build a house in one part of Australia against another part of Australia does not vary a great deal. Compared with the cost of providing a telephone or delivering a letter, it does not vary a great deal. The entitlement for individual ex-service personnel is a fixed entitlement to the individual. The cost of delivering a letter, as I have specifically mentioned, from Ingle Downs in central Queensland is approximately $1.70. The charge throughout Australia is 33 cents. With telephone services the gap is much wider. It is a highly profitable, highly lucrative, business to provide telephone services within the central business districts of any of the capital cities and probably between the central business districts of any of the capital cities. It is innately unprofitable to provide them anywhere else. These ideologues such as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who is neither for nor against Liberal Party motions to cut government outlays just as he is neither for nor against the prospect of changing the Liberal Party leadership, are proposing either that there will be few postal services or telephone services, if any, outside metropolitan Australian or that there will be a large Budget subsidy of about $500m, which will destroy the rationale of their policy anyway. Senator CHANEY —I wish to ask a supplementary question. As the Minister for Finance, I am sure, on his definition is not an ideologue, I ask him: Will the changes being made by the Government, the privatisation of the defence service homes arrangements, provide a more efficient or a less efficient service to the ex-servicemen that the system is there to help? Senator WALSH —They will have the choice. Senator Chaney is quite right; I am not an ideologue about these things. I am not particulary fussed whether things are in private ownership or public ownership. But in this particular case, because of the nature of the service, it is absolutely essential that Telecom Australia and Australia Post remain in public hands. I again invite those people who purport to represent rural Australia to stand up, as Mr Hall had the courage to do, and to tell the Sydney ideologues that they will not vote for such a proposition. Senator REYNOLDS —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry able to explain the hostility of the Queensland Government to co-operating with the Federal Government in implementing the recommendations of the 100-day committee of inquiry into the sugar industry? Does the Minister anticipate that prolonged haggling will continue to be orchestrated by the State Premier or will the two primary industry Ministers be able to put party politics aside and get on with the job of reaching an agreement in the best interests of Queensland's cane farmers and mill workers? Senator WALSH —I do not have completely up to date information on this. I will ask the Minister whether any further information is available. However, I understand that the Commonwealth officials have put a proposition, or are to put a proposition, to Queensland officials for a package of assistance and restructuring of the sugar industry which involves an underwritten price for the next three years and changes to the regulatory system at both the mill level and the assigned land level which will make the industry more efficient in the long term. The Commonwealth proposal is that, in addition to rural adjustment measures normally funded from the Commonwealth Budget, the costs of the additional Queensland or sugar industry specific proposal be shared dollar for dollar between the State and the Commonwealth Government. I do not know how close we are to getting agreement to that. However, I would expect that the Queensland Government would try to welsh on its responsibility to match the Commonwealth funds which have been offered. It is extremely generous of the Commonwealth, given that the sugar industry is virtually confined to one State only, to offer that sort of assistance. I might also add-I think it is worth putting on the record-that for many years the Queensland Government, and to some extent some other State governments, has received Commonwealth loans repayable over a 20-year period for lending on to farmers for rural adjustment. Those loans have been repaid from the farmers to the State authorities in periods very much shorter than 20 years-sometimes as short as four or five years. However, the Commonwealth money on-lent by State authorities to farmers when repaid by farmers has not been repaid to the Commonwealth. It has been kept by the Queensland Government in particular and stuffed in a hollow log. This fund of money recovered from farmers and not repaid to the Commonwealth is then lent out for any purpose that the Premier can think of. So far as I know, none of it has been used to finance the development of the hydrogen car or a cancer clinic for Milan Brych. But there is an amount of money, possibly as high as $150m, from that source alone which the Queensland Government has stuffed in a hollow log. So it certainly cannot legitimately claim that it cannot afford to match the very generous dollar for dollar Commonwealth offer. Senator GARETH EVANS —Yesterday Senator Michael Baume asked me a question about the Fleet Air Arm's fixed wing component and its influence on Royal Australian Navy manning levels. I have been supplied with the following information from the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley). Senator Baume's question was based on a false premise. For all practical purposes it was the Opposition's, not the Hawke Government's, decision to disband the Navy's fixed wing aircraft. The Fleet Air Arm's fixed wing component was effectively despatched by Mr Killen's decision in April 1982, announced in the Parliament, to pay off the Tracker and Skyhawk aircraft with no intention of equipping future Royal Australian Navy vessels with anything other than helicopters. After the British withdrew their offer of the Invincible, the previous Government had to listen to the convincing strategic arguments and military advice against replacement of HMAS Melbourne. The Hawke Government merely took a decision the previous Government must have seen as inevitable but was incapable of tackling decisively. The defence policy of this Government is accurately reflected in the 10 per cent dollar increase and the 3.1 per cent real increase in defence outlays planned for 1985-86. The necessary emphasis on investment in capital equipment and facilities and the continued planned rundown of that Navy manpower no longer required as a consequence of the carrier and Fleet Air Arm decisions have resulted in the clearly stated planned level of Navy personnel of 15,536. The overall percentage of defence expenditure devoted to capital equipment and capital facilities this financial year is 31 per cent compared with 30 per cent last financial year. During the years of the Fraser Government the figure ranged from 17 per cent to 22 per cent. Finally, real growth in defence expenditure over the Hawke Government's three Budgets averages 3.3 per cent compared with 2.5 per cent over the seven years of the Fraser Government. Senator GARETH EVANS —Yesterday Senator Sheil asked me a question about aid to Vietnam. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) has provided me with a detailed answer which I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- 2. The Government has not undertaken any practical steps to resume bilateral Government to Government aid in Vietnam. 3. Along with most other Western countries, Australia suspended its bilateral aid program to Vietnam in January 1979 following the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia. This aid has not been resumed. Australian contributions to UN and other multilateral organisation projects has continued. A number of other countries which suspended bilateral aid in 1979 continue to give aid to Vietnam through multilateral agencies. 4. As during 1984/85 Australia will support again in 1985/86: - An English language project of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) - projects of the Interim Mekong Committee and - humanitarian assistance by the United Nations Children's Fund. 5. Australia's contribution to the Vietnam components of these projects totalled $3.5 million in 1984/85 Australian support during 1985-86 is estimated to cost $4.3 million. The only commitment for continued support beyond the current financial year is for English language training by UNDP. In addition, Budget Paper No. 9 stated that projects in Vietnam supported by Australian NGO's would in future be considered for funding under the NGO Project Subsidy Scheme, which is administered by ADAB. 6. All members of the United Nations have a right to aid through UN organisations. All members of the IMC have a right to the regional benefits of the Committee's projects. 7. A discretionary fund for small projects is made available to the Head of Mission at the Australian Embassy in Hanoi, limited to humanitarian and non-development projects. In November 1983 and again in December 1984, Australia contributed 1,000 tonnes of rice worth about $500,000 as emergency humanitarian aid to Vietnam following typhoon damage. In July 1985 Australia contributed $85,000 towards medical relief in response to an encephalitis epidemic. 8. It is the unresolved Cambodian situation which has put problems in the way of Australian and other international aid to Vietnam. Vietnam receives little aid from the international community apart from the Soviet bloc. International financial institutions such as the World Bank have not assisted Vietnam, reflecting international pressure over Cambodia. The Government has made a sustained effort since March 1983 to contribute to dialogue among the principal parties to the Cambodian dispute. Senator GRIMES —On Wednesday during Question Time Senator Messner asked me a question about the new carer's pension that was announced in the Budget. The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) has confirmed my understanding that the new carer's pension will be payable by his Department to people providing constant care and attention at home for a spouse or a near relative who is severely handicapped, aged or an invalid pensioner, or who receives a rehabilitation allowance in lieu of the invalid pension. The term `near relative' means a grand-parent, parent, step-parent, parent-in-law, child, step-child, brother or sister, halfbrother or sister, or grandchild. The Department of Veterans' Affairs will provide an equivalent pension where the person receiving care is in receipt of a service pension. The new pension will be payable from November this year. There will be a three-month period of grace so that arrears may be paid if a claim is lodged before 1 February 1986. As the Minister explained in the House of Repsentatives yesterday, the new pension will be an important benefit for those people caring, for example, for an aged parent or a handicapped child. It is an important step in adapting the social security system to the particular needs of a special group. The PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from Senator Lewis proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The failure of the Government to exercise proper control over the allocation of funds to the Community Housing Expansion Program and adequately safeguard the Commonwealth interests in properties purchased. 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 LEWIS(Victoria)(3.06) —The matter of public importance which I have submitted to the Senate reads: The failure of the Government to exercise proper control over the allocation of funds to the Community Housing Expansion Program and adequately safeguard the Commonwealth interests in properties purchased. This debate brings before the Senate for examination the very fine report of Mr Brian O'Donovan into the community housing expansion program in the Australian Capital Territory. I emphasise the words `expansion program'. One of the key paragraphs of the report is paragraph 2.6 where Mr O'Donovan explains that what the Government did in its 1983-84 Budget was to give Mr Uren $1m to spend how he liked on `a wider range of housing opportunities'. There was no legislative provision that described the purposes for which moneys appropriated could be expended. That was left for administrative decisions. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) stand condemned for that action in which in effect they said: `We trust you, Tom. Here is a million dollars; you go and spend it on those fancy co-operative housing schemes you have been telling us all about for some time'. Well, of course, they could not trust him. He always has been able to be conned by those who know how to treat the Australian Labor Party in Government as a milch cow. Just think of the number of ALP supporters who became very wealthy under the Whitlam Government. People like them are back at the trough. Mr David Combe saw the opportunities of a new Labor government. Honourable senators will recall his prediction that he expected to become a millionaire before this Government went out of office. When Mr Tom Uren was thrown out of the Territories job he left a real bucket of worms. However, that is not to say that his successor, Mr Scholes, should not have realised that it was a bucket of worms. That is not to say that the Prime Minister and the Cabinet can be excused for their failure to look into the bucket when they had at least two opportunities to do so, first in the 1984-85 Budget and then again in the May 1985 expenditure review. In February 1984 a public seminar was held in Canberra to promote CHEP. The outcome of this seminar was that the Minister, Mr Uren, allowed a committee of self-interested people to determine how they would advise him how he should spend the million dollars on themselves. And that is what happened. Mr O'Donovan reports: There is also no doubt that each of the associations that were recommended for assistance under ACT CHEP had a close association with one of the community members of the CHEP committee who was present when the recommendations were made. Indeed, the poor old Canberra School of Arts missed out because the students' representative was not at the meeting when the recommendations for advances were made. By May of 1984 the Minister, Mr Uren, the Department of Territories and the members of this committee were panicking that 30 June would arrive before they could get their hands on the money. So they started to look for some sort of a fiddle that would enable them to get the funds out of the Government before 30 June. They found that it was too late to set up a trust account or to amend the legislation. So the Minister agreed to make the grants prior to 30 June on certain conditions. Honourable senators will recall that he had been given carte blanche by the Prime Minister, Cabinet and the Treasurer. At that time the three successful associations had not even been incorporated. Of course, as the report reveals, no adequate safeguards were obtained. It is now necessary for a whole range of measures to be taken to try to obtain some adequate safeguard of the Commonwealth's interests and the report lists those measures which will have to be taken. Mr O'Donovan is extremely critical of Mr Uren's so-called guidelines. He said that those for 1983-84 `were so highly flexible that they could not . . . be regarded as a program'. He said that those for 1984-85 did not `reflect the basis upon which Cabinet and the Minister had agreed to the appropriation of $669,000 for that year'. I charge Mr Uren with having misled Cabinet with those guidelines. Clearly from Mr O'Donovan's report, he is saying that the guidelines adopted by Mr Uren did not reflect the basis upon which the Cabinet and the Minister had agreed to the appropriation. But even assuming that the guidelines did constitute programs for both years, Mr O'Donovan again said: . . . at least some of the approved grants would seem to have fallen outside the guidelines so approved. If one thinks about that one can see that Mr O'Donovan is saying, in effect, that the guidelines were weak and flabby. In fact, the 1984-85 guidelines did not follow the guidelines for which the moneys were appropriated. But even then, the grants made by Mr Uren fell outside his own guidelines. Unfortunately for the taxpayers of this nation, Mr O'Donovan has to report that because the Minister had a blank cheque to make the grants, the grants he made are not recoverable. I turn now to chapter 5 of the report which relates to Wyuna. This chapter is absolutely damning of the CHEP committee, the Department of Territories and certain participants in the Wyuna scheme. Mr O'Donovan states: . . . even on the information available at the time the CHEP committee's recommendation was made, the grant ought not to have been recommended. Mr Acting Deputy President, you will understand that the CHEP committee was considering these applications. It had before it an application from Wyuna. Mr O'Donovan says that, on any basis, when the CHEP committee looked at that application, the grant ought not to have been recommended. The reasons are set out in the report, but I will summarise them. The first is that the property was already occupied and beneficially owned by the community which was applying for the grant for its so-called purchase. The members of that community already owned the property. They were in occupation and they beneficially owned it. Yet they were applying for a grant to buy the property and to carry out certain extensions to it. So, of course, this money, which was being allocated towards the purchase of the property, could not result in any expansion of community housing in the Australian Capital Territory. Eligibility for assistance was doubtful and a number of other factors should have alerted the CHEP committee to the possibilities of a very nasty smell. But the committee recommended the application. By the time the committee's recommendation came to receive departmental consideration, other matters of concern had emerged. The Minister had called for a valuation which was below the proposed sale price. There had been a complaint by a neighbour about the application and there was concern as to whether the extensions might contravene the lease purpose clause. I would like the Senate to think about that. I am talking about the Department of Territories, which is bound to uphold lease purposes of properties in Canberra. It was considering an application for finance to conduct works which might breach the lease purpose. I turn now to individuals mentioned in the report. Dr Cairns was lobbying as hard as he could. He has said that he received no benefit from the CHEP allocation to Wyuna, but the evidence on which Mr O'Donovan reports now shows that moneys paid to Wyuna were disbursed in part by paying off a loan of $11,648 to Wyuna from Dr Cairns and by discharging loans from the Commonwealth Bank totalling $51,778, for which Dr Cairns would have been jointly liable, together with J. Morosi, D. Ditchburn, M. Morosi and L. Morosi. So all these people have received a benefit by having their liability to the Commonwealth Bank paid off. Further, Mr O'Donovan reports that there is fairly persuasive evidence, although not conclusive evidence, that at least one of the loans discharged was secured on No. 22 Morant Circuit. That is the adjoining property to Wyuna, the owners of which are shown to be Dr Cairns, D. Ditchburn and J. Morosi. One Bernadette Morosi occupies an interesting position in this drama. She was a member and public officer of the Wyuna community. She was employed by the Commonwealth as a community tenancy scheme housing worker from November 1984 to 31 May 1985. They are very significant dates in regard to this application. She attended almost all the CHEP committee meetings, firstly as an observer and then as a member of the committee. Mr O'Donovan finds: . . . that, at all material times, Bernadette Morosi was the tenant of a government flat at . . . Lyons, even though she has regularly given her residential address as 24 Morant Circuit. In other words, that is the Wyuna home. Of course, as a tenant of a government flat she was already receiving housing assistance from the Commonwealth Government. Bernadette Morosi indeed played a very important part in the allocation of funds to Wyuna. Mr O'Donovan reports that Wyuna was `less than frank' with the CHEP committee and with the Department. That is clear from the application. Mr O'Donovan says `less than frank', which is really a euphemism for `some lies' or `very careful drafting'. Words are used which subsequently, on examination, have a different meaning to what they might have appeared to have had on first reading. Nevertheless, that cannot excuse the CHEP committee or the Department because there were enough flashing red lights and odours to alert anyone that there was something fishy about this matter which ought to be looked at. In light of Mr O'Donovan's discovery that nine members of the Wyuna community have non-resident status-in other words, they are in Australia on a visitor's permit-and one of them is, in fact, a prohibited non-citizen, one should look very carefully at the possibility of other rackets in this community. This report is devastating for the Government. Let us examine it in some detail. The CHEP scheme had been looked at by Cabinet for the 1984 Budget and again for the May 1985 economic statement. The report of the Auditor-General in April 1985 contains a catalogue of serious breaches of the Audit Act and Finance Regulations within the Department. This alone should have alerted the Minister and Cabinet. In the May 1985 expenditure review Cabinet did not take up Mr Scholes's offer to surrender the whole of the program's $669,000 but left $429,000 in the program. Why? In particular I would like to ask the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) why. Who lobbied whom? Who lobbied him? Who determined that the amount left in the program would just nicely cover the amount of Wyuna's application for $421,820? I might say that Wyuna did not get that; it got $133,000, but its initial application was for $421,000. That was just the nice round sum that the Expenditure Review Committee decided that Mr Scholes must have left in the scheme. Who had told whom how much Wyuna was seeking? The Prime Minister became aware of the full implications in June of this year, but he took no action until 19 July when he learned that the National Times was going to expose the racket. As I said, this Government stands condemned by the report. The Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the Minister for Finance and two Ministers for Territories failed to ensure adequate protection of government funds. Mr Uren had set up an irresponsible scheme and misled his Cabinet colleagues as to how he was using the funds by making grants outside his own guidelines. Mr Uren also made it clear to Mr Scholes that he supported the activities of the Wyuna community and his mate Dr Cairns, no doubt with a view to influencing Mr Scholes in the decision he had to make about Wyuna's application. Mr Scholes inherited a scheme he disliked but the Prime Minister and Cabinet insisted on its continuation so that Wyuna could get its loan. Why did they not take up Mr Scholes's offer to abandon the scheme? Notwithstanding his dislike for the scheme, Mr Scholes failed to see any of the warning lights or notice the smell of the Wyuna application. I have already indicated another smell which might be in that application. I hope he takes that up. So the report condemns this Government's two Ministers for Territories. As I have already pointed out, the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the Minister for Finance and other Cabinet members had opportunities which they ignored and ultimately they must have collective responsibility for this scandal. I congratulate Mr O'Donovan on his report. Within fairly narrow terms of reference and working to a very difficult and short timetable, he has produced an informative and revealing report which, in dispassionate terms, effectively is a major indictment of the Government. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(3.23) —There are proper elements of concern about the administration of the community housing expansion program. To that extent I am grateful to Senator Lewis for bringing the matter before the Senate today. I am, by now, convinced that the axing of CHEP is part of a far more complex process, details of which will take quite some time to emerge. The raising of the Wyuna case, I believe, is a smoke-screen for what is really happening in housing in the Australian Capital Territory. In order not to spend too much time on the Wyuna situation I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a statement by the Wyuna community of its intentions in establishing the community and also a critique of the O'Donovan report. I have received permission from the Government to incorporate this material. Unfortunately, because Senator Lewis was speaking, I did not obtain permission from the Opposition. Leave not granted. Senator VIGOR —It is a great pity that censorship is being applied to the other side of the story. We definitely need to clear the smoke and get to the motivation of those who unleashed a furious assault on the CHEP committee if we are to do our job properly. So I am distinctly disappointed that I am unable to incorporate the document. However, I would like to incorporate in Hansard an article from the 29 June 1985 edition of the Canberra Times. It is headed: `Annual funding puts future home program under cloud'. The article mentions that CHEP has been a model for other alternative housing programs under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. Six co-operatives, housing 65 low income earners, have been established at a cost of about $1m, and that includes all future maintenance and administrative costs. I seek leave to incorporate that article. Leave not granted. Senator VIGOR —I said that the cost was $1m quite deliberately because the funds used to buy Jerrabomberra House cannot really be lumped in with those granted to co-operatives. The point is that the Department of Territories runs Jerrabomberra House as a priority housing venue. There is no community participation in its management. That would seem to be a breaking of the principles of the whole scheme. Perhaps the allocation should have come from some other area of funding, such as the community tenancy scheme or an emergency housing appropriation. The decision to buy Jerrabomberra House from CHEP moneys was made by the Department of Territories and Local Government, as it then was, before there was any public involvement in the program. This is one of the strange things that one finds about the administrative support for CHEP. There was a Budget announcement in 1983, yet it was not until a seminar in February 1984 that public participation was invited. It seems that this could be a recipe for problems. There was a one-line allocation, to be used by the end of the financial year, or the remainder returned to Consolidated Revenue if it was not completely used up. Effectively there was only five months in which to get through the work necessary to make the grants work. I believe this administrative problem has been evident throughout the development of this scheme. However, in my own State of South Australia where there has been full Housing Trust co-operation with the co-operative housing concept, it took three years to arrange the details and articles of association before the Women's Shelter Housing Association could become firmly established. That was with a guarantee of recurrent funding instead of just a one-off fund. In the past financial year we have found that 15 housing associations in South Australia have received mortgage subsidies. Over 130 units of housing were secured for low income renters under the scheme. The applications of about 10 groups in South Australia are currently in the pipeline. The 1985-86 Budget Estimates make allowance for 300 further units to be added to the co-operative housing scheme. It has taken seven to eight years for the scheme to blossom and for the financial sector to become confidently involved in lending money. That has come about because the Housing Trust guarantees the repayment of loans in the event of default. Residents pay 20 per cent of their income as rent. This is used to repay the mortgages and to set aside funds for maintenance and deposits on other properties. This principle was applied in Canberra; that is, 20 per cent of the income was collected as rent. This applied to the Australian Capital Territory housing co-operatives. A housing co-operative by the name of Poach received a grant under CHEP in 1983-84 to buy two houses. It received a smaller grant of $30,000 in 1984-85, when it was able to obtain as well a loan in the commercial sector to finance buying a third house. The rent paid by members is sufficient to cover mortgage repayments, maintenance and rates on the three properties and on the last purchase. That is an example of what was meant to happen under CHEP. Why has it been so difficult in the Australian Capital Territory? Firstly, I believe the problem has been the uncertainty over annual allocations and the manner in which the money could be spent. That has been a problem that has exercised all the CHEP committees. Right through the report of Mr O'Donovan and the attachments one finds references to the Committee expressing disquiet about the uncertainty and lack of information on which it could operate. There is little indication of what efforts went into meeting the Committee's requests to provide information about ways in which a trust fund might be set up to avoid last minute panics in the allocation of housing funds before the end of year deadline. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard paragraph 2.46 of the O'Donovan report. Leave granted. The paragraph read as follows- 2.46. First, I shall look at the involvement of Mr Uren as Minister for Territories and Local Government from the beginning of July 1984 until 13 December when he assumed another portfolio. Mr Uren was, of course, involved in the Budget allocations for ACT CHEP. The official papers disclose two important decisions taken by Mr Uren. First, he approved the new CHEP Committee for 1984-85 as recommended by a public meeting held in September 1984 (Attachment 11). Secondly, he caused to be sent to the Department a manuscript note saying that he would like a draft prepared to go to the Minister for Finance seeking amendments to legislation or the formation of a Trust Fund to allow private funds to be brought into CHEP in the ACT to ensure the long term viability of CHEP in the ACT. That request is dated 8 November 1984. A copy of the note is Attachment 12. Senator VIGOR —The report refers to a minute written by the then Minister for Territories and Local Government, Mr Uren, on 8 November 1984, requesting draft legislation that would allow the introduction of private funds into the community housing expansion program. No mention has been made of what happened within the Department in response to that minute. I wonder whether the present Minister was ever made aware of its existence. I believe that the Senate should know exactly what happened especially as the scheme is now being axed. It is being axed without being given an opportunity to exist under private enterprise conditions. This is what the CHEP committee was seeking. Indeed this is how this type of scheme operates in other States, such as South Australia. It is interesting that before the media hysteria over this issue, on 20 July last Paul Malone wrote a very perceptive appraisal of the community housing expansion program. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the second half of his article. Leave granted. The document read as follows- The program itself was a relatively small innovative attempt to provide cheap accommodation. It would be a pity if all such attempts to improve the public housing alternatives were damaged by one political embarrassment. But that may yet be the case. A number of community groups in Canberra fought hard for the program and when funding cuts were announced in March this year there was a noticeable reaction. The Canberra Times carried a number of articles outlining why the cuts were serious and quoting those who have devoted a considerable amount of their time to making the scheme work. Members of the CHEP committee which had representatives from such organisations as Shelter and the ACT Council of Social Services pointed out that they had contributed unpaid time in their efforts to carefully asess projects which met the guidelines. It is no secret that significant sections of the Department of Territories were cool to the whole CHEP program. They will not regret its passing and the use of funds solely on more conventional public-housing projects. Reports suggest that Mr Scholes did not fully approve of the guidelines for running the program which he inherited from his predecessor, Mr Uren. But if this is the case he was free, as minister, to have them changed or to apply more stringent guidelines himself before he gave approval for any grant. Every minister inherits programs from his predecessor which he does not like and it is up to him to act as soon as possible to have them knocked into an acceptable shape. Senator VIGOR —At a time when State and local government housing authorities are being encouraged through moneys from the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement to develop co-operative housing programs where tenants have full responsibility for the management of their own accommodation, the Government is pulling the plug from under community housing investment in the Australian Capital Territory. This is something that is being done as far as we can see under the umbrella of a Press rampage on one of the participants in this scheme. Not only has CHEP gone but also the community tenancy scheme, under which a group such as a students association could lease housing stock, guarantee to find tenants and meet appropriate rental payments. At the same time an extra $220,000 has been found for mortgage and rent relief in the Australian Capital Territory. I believe that mortgage and rent relief is an important part of any comprehensive housing program. I refer the Senate to the report `Homelessness-A Capital Problem' published in January last year. This is a comprehensive document on the serious housing crisis in the Australian Capital Territory and things have become worse since. At the moment the Australian Capital Territory Council of Social Service is conducting a one-month study into the problems of the homeless. I will mention some of the recommendations in that homelessness report. Page 20 of the report states that the Department should establish a rental bond board. Each year the Consumer Affairs Bureau receives over 3,000 inquiries about such problems from lessees and landlords. Page 93 of the report states: The CHEP concept needs to be encouraged and developed to maximise community involvement in housing. Incidentally, at page 17 of the report is a table showing the fall-off in land servicing in the dark years between 1978 and 1982 when, in total, only 18 blocks were serviced. Perhaps that is why the Opposition has not stood on its housing record or attempted to take a constructive approach to Australian Capital Territory problems. At the moment over 4,000 people are on the waiting list for public housing. The Commissioner for Housing loans scheme will be revived in November after last year's managerial debacle which saw loan commitments frozen for over a year. The Canberra rental market has, until recently, been the tightest amongst the mainland capitals. The vacancy rate got as low as 0.2 per cent in January 1984 compared with the 3 per cent that the Real Estate Institute of Australia regards as the balance point between supply and demand. In the past two years the price of housing has also risen astronomically in the Australian Capital Territory. I am sure all honourable senators will have noticed that. The moving annual median price for an established house in June 1983 was $62,100; in June 1984 it was $77,700 and in June 1985 it was $87,000. In June the median price for a house was $88,700 and for a unit $76,700. Only Sydney has more expensive houses. On top of this we have the housing boom and inflation putting up prices and rents. It is no exaggeration to call the situation a crisis. That is why the Australian Institute of Urban Studies held a seminar on Canberra's housing situation in June this year. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a nine-point summary of the problems, as listed in the excellent paper entitled `Monitoring the Allocation of Housing in the Canberra Area' by Colin Adrian of the Institute and Ken Johnson of the Australian National University. Leave granted. The summary read as follows- (a) a rapid growth over the past two years in the price of housing in the ACT and the increasing difficulties of below average income groups becoming owner occupiers; (b) the lack of private rental accommodation and rapid increases in rents; (c) the length of wait involved for allocation of public housing; (d) the degree of homelessness in the Canberra region associated with a lack of affordable, `lower end of the market' accommodation; (e) the housing needs of special target groups-aged, youth, unemployed, disabled-most vulnerable in a tight rental market; (f) the cost associated with the provision of housing (and a relative absence) of low-cost accommodation; (g) broader issues of urban consolidation, associated with housing styles and types and declining occupancy rates in established areas; (h) the intimate relationship of the housing sector with the `well-being' of the Canberra economy through such variables as the construction workforce, levels of government expenditure and availability of housing finance; (i) the impact of broader societal and demographic trends in Canberra on housing needs, e.g. the housing implications of high rates of youth unemployment and increasing numbers of single parent families. Senator VIGOR —The way in which the terms of reference were given to Mr O'Donovan and the limited amount of time available to him in which to come to grips with the issues meant that some of the points about the housing situtation were not taken up and there was some sensationalism about the Wyuna community. I do not believe that we should hold this against the inquiry which was carried out under very stringent conditions. The terms of reference should be wider and the Government should now continue to look thoroughly at this problem. I also hope that the Government will respond in a far less hostile way to the request for further negotiations by representatives of other community housing groups which I contacted before this debate. Russell Fisher has written a letter to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on behalf of the Meidelant, Segais, POACH, HOME and WITCH co-operatives, asking for more consideration to be given to the scheme. I seek leave to incorporate that letter in Hansard. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- The Co-operatives. C/ C.H.E.P. F.M.B. P.O. Box CANBERRA CITY 2601 Wednesday 21st August 1985. The Hon. R. J. L. Hawke, Prime Minister, Parliament House, CANBERRA A.C.T. Dear Prime Minister, Representatives of the following Co operatives-Meidelant, Segais, POACH, HOME and WITCH-met today to discuss the Recommendations of the Inquiry into the Community Housing Expansion Program and subsequent proceedings in Parliament. We appreciate the Commonwealth's interests and concerns and are in agreement with Inquiry's call for a ``mutually satisfactory agreement'' (4.16) to be worked out. To this end we are willing to negotiate with the Commonwealth on the condition that the Commonwealth provides legal fees in order for the Co operatives to be equitable partners in the negotiation process. Further the Co operatives request the continuation of funds for a Resource Worker to assist the Co operatives through the negotiation process. As a matter of principle and for fullest co operation from both parties we request Observor Status at the proposed Interdepartmental Committee meetings. We see this request as based on the Co operatives' view that a ``mutually satisfactory agreement'' will best be achieved if based on trust. Your sincerely, RUSSELL FISHER on behalf of the Co-ops. Senator VIGOR —The Wyuna smoke-screen must not be allowed to be a cover for inaction on housing problems in the Australian Capital Territory. A serious attempt should be made to get a recurrent community housing program operating in the Australian Capital Territory. The Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) has not demonstrated that the previous arrangement forced upon the CHEP committee by ministerial and bureaucratic lethargy was inefficient. There is no way that we can expect a committee to operate without proper guidelines and I believe that such guidelines were not given by the previous Minister, Mr Uren, and this matter was not followed up in any way by the current Minister. It is very difficult for people who are operating a scheme to operate in a vacuum. The Minister has certainly not demonstrated that a modification of the South Australian or Victorian models could not be made to suit Australian Capital Territory conditions. Eventually the full story will emerge but in the meantime it is extremely important that we should not let individual affairs and names of people who may be well-known in the community be used by the Press and others as a smoke-screen for real problems in the community. It is extremely important that we, as senators, should stand up against the type of sensationalism and front-page journalism which has been going on concerning the Wyuna community. I repeat that I am very disappointed that the paper from the Wyuna community cannot be incorporated in Hansard to allow honourable senators to consider aspects which that community wanted to raise as well as those aspects which the community's opponents might want to raise in debate. We as Australian Democrats have no particular leaning towards either view. We wished to have that incorporated in Hansard in order that the facts could be known. I believe that the only way in which we can deal with matters properly is by presenting facts. That is why I sought that incorporation. Again, I seek leave of the Senate to have that information incorporated at this late stage so that it is possible for the debate and investigations to continue effectively. Leave not granted. Senator VIGOR —I thank the Senate for its indulgence in this matter. I hope that we can resolve the problem of community housing in Canberra-the problem for all those people who need homes and who are currently not getting them. Senator LEWIS(Victoria) —by leave-During an early part of Senator Vigor's speech he sought leave to incorporate in Hansard an article from the Canberra Times. I refused leave. At that stage I did not quite catch what it was that he was seeking leave to incorporate. Perhaps I should not have objected to that incorporation. If Senator Vigor would like to seek leave to incorporate that article from the Canberra Times now I will raise no objection. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —by leave- I seek leave to incorporate that article in Hansard. Leave granted. The article read as follows- Annual Funding puts Future Home Program Under Cloud The continuation and further development of a co-operative housing program in the ACT was threatened by the lack of a Government commitment to long-term funding, according to a spokesperson for the Community Housing Expansion Program. Funding for the project was on an annual basis, which did not allow for longer-term planning. ``We think it is vital that the Department of Territories keeps the ACT in line with the national program and funds CHEP, not just next year, but into the future,'' the spokesperson said. ``A viable co-operative housing program cannot be established by one-off annual grants. ``It is ridiculous that a program which has been a model for the establishment of a real housing alternative for low-income people throughout Australia should be faced with such insecurity. ``What is needed is a commitment to secure the program's funds for at least three years.'' The ACT project, a joint initiative of the Department of Territories' housing branch and community groups to establish housing co-operatives for low-income earners, is a pilot program for similar projects throughout Australia. It has successfully established six co-operatives housing schemes for about 65 low-income earners. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(3.44) —The shadow Minister responsible for the Australian Capital Territory, Senator Lewis, has sought to use the O'Donovan report to besmirch the reputations of Ministers in the Hawke Labor Government as well as the reputations of those people who have been participating in schemes designed to improve the housing situation for low income earners in the Australian Capital Territory. I think the Senate ought to be reminded that the one outstanding feature of the Labor administrations in the years 1972-1975 and from 1983 onwards is their earnest tackling of the acute housing problem-a major social problem in Australia. If we look at the Whitlam Government's endeavours in that area we must pay tribute to the then Minister for Urban and Regional Development, Mr Uren, for the way in which substantial capital funds were made available to the States to overcome the serious problem that existed then in public housing. Of course, the Commonwealth-State housing agreements were the vehicle by which those areas of housing responsibility were funded in the various States. I remind Senator Lewis, who led the attack on the Government and its record in respect of housing, that in 1982, the last calendar year of the Liberal Party Government, the number of public houses erected in Australia for low income earners dropped to 106,000. That represented some 40,000-odd fewer houses than were built in the peak year of the Whitlam period. In fact, if we examine the funds allocated in the peak period of the Labor Administration, in 1974-75, and compare the funding allocated in the period when Labor took office in 1983, we find that some $3.5 billion was stolen from the States during seven years of Fraser administration. It reduced the amount of funds available for public housing. That Labor Government funding was applied universally among the States, whether they were States with Labor administrations, National Party administrations or Liberal Party administrations. Having come back into office after seven years of Fraserism, we find a greater number of people on public housing lists waiting for accommodation than ever before in the history of this country. I think that has to be seen as the reason why Mr Uren, as the Minister for Territories and Local Government, after the 1983 election set about establishing some means by which to tackle this problem. Mr Uren was responsible for changed housing policies under the Labor Government. He introduced the first Commonwealth-State housing loans scheme. He initiated changes within his own portfolio. One these was the pilot scheme which has now become known as the community housing expansion program, or CHEP, as it has been referred to in this debate. Senator Lewis criticised the Government and Mr Uren for not having a firm legislative base for this program. I ask Senator Lewis-a reasonably intelligent person and a person with some legal training-how it is, if we are to have a pilot scheme for which we set aside funds, we can establish guidelines when it is such a new and innovative scheme. In fact, one must allocate the funds and then set about establishing the means and processes by which the new scheme can be implemented. It is not appropriate therefore in a pilot scheme to have such a legislative basis. The experience that comes from running that scheme then provides the basis for subsequent legislation. The community housing expansion program involved an alternative form of housing for low income earners. It was the only scheme in that respect that could be applied to the Canberra scene. It was recognised as an innovative pilot program. Community involvement in decision making was a key element in it. So the Government set about establishing the means by which the local community could be involved in the decision making process. Of course, the program was based on principles of co-operation. It was established as a co-operative, as are many housing schemes in other parts of Australia. Senator Lewis has largely referred to the Wyuna housing co-operative funded under CHEP. He has made great play about that. He has not paid any tribute or given any support to other aspects of this scheme which have proven to be successful and to have protected the public interest adequately. He is being rather semantic or pedantic-depending on how one places the emphasis-when he suggests that the 100 per cent grants somehow represent a departure from the norm. Of course, innovations always represent departures from the norm. The Australian Capital Territory is the only place where the Commonwealth itself can be involved in innovative housing programs. Of course, many other schemes in the Australian Capital Territory lack the legislative basis and can be described as innovative. So any attempt to smear not only the Minister but also the people is ill-conceived. I wonder what would have happened about this whole affair if the person concerned had been Bernadette Smith instead of Bernadette Morosi. We would not have heard a word about it. It just so happens that the name attracted the interest of certain people. From that, a case of some form of conspiracy or improper conduct can be deduced because of past connotations. Mr O'Donovan was appointed by the Government to examine the scheme. Senator Lewis ignores the fact that he exonerated the two Ministers. The report, which I would have expected a country or suburban solicitor would have understood very easily if he were not interested only in making some political capital, makes the point that the Ministers concerned were exonerated. Steps were taken by the current Minister prior to this matter becoming an area of public debate. One can only doubt the credibility of the Opposition when Mr O'Donovan says specifically that the grants met the guidelines and were within the appropriation. A comment on that matter in the report has clearly been ignored by Senator Lewis or he has conveniently sought to forget it so as to pursue his smear campaign. Mr O'Donovan agreed that the expenditure added to the stock of the Australian Capital Territory public housing for low income earners. One can remember that during the Fraser years the Australian Capital Territory had the highest percentage of unemployment. As a result of the change of government and a change of economic direction and policy this position has changed very dramatically, but many people are still receiving low incomes. Therefore there is an obligation and a responsibility for the Commonwealth Government to provide funds for the access of low income earners to public housing. As early as February 1985 Mr Scholes had decided that this new scheme would not be funded in 1985-86, not because he disagreed with it or that he felt there was any weakness or deficiency in the scheme but as part of the economic restraint which the Government and all Ministers had to acknowledge. It was only a pilot program. The number of organisations and groups that have been assisted by this program shows the success of the concept which Mr Uren, during his first year as Minister, advised the Government to take. Mr Scholes has announced a consultancy to advise him on the need for and, if appropriate, cost effective forms of alternative housing. Mr Scholes had already taken steps so that if the pilot scheme were not found to be a workable scheme there would be other alternatives available to the Government. The Department had already initiated formal breach procedures and legal action against Wyuna to freeze its remaining funds. I wonder how a lawyer of Senator Lewis's standing, knowing full well that litigation is pending in this matter, would comment as much as he has on this matter which is currently before the courts. A request has been made to register the Commonwealth's interest on titles generally and to have a Commonwealth signatory on all bank accounts in these matters. The co-operatives have said that they will seek legal advice and wait for the O'Donovan report. As the Opposition spokesman has suggested, Mr O'Donovan has raised several matters about Wyuna. While they do not appear to be relevant to Mr Scholes's decision, they have been referred to the Attorney-General's Department for further consideration. Other matters that have been raised under parliamentary privilege about other persons had been referred to the appropriate departments by the Government prior to Senator Lewis raising the matter. I remind the Senate of the seven co-operatives in total that were funded. They came within the guidelines as shown in sections 2.51 and 2.66 of the report. Let us see whether any member of the Opposition is critical of those cases. A sum of $340,000 was allocated for the purchase of St Benedict's convent at Narrabundah for 35 tenants. This represents about $10,000 a head. That is a very cheap investment for providing accomodation for low income earners and is one which I think any government would be quite happy to say represents a good investment from the point of view of public expenditure, as well as providing decent housing at a cheap rental base. The Barton co-operative was given $8,000. Does Senator Lewis criticise that decision? Six organisations were listed as applicants including such important organisations as the Canberra School of Art, the Epilepsy Association of the Australian Capital Territory and the Meidelant Association. Moneys were allocated to appropriate organisations that were established as co-operatives. These included the Householders of Meagre Earnings, HOME; the Peasants of Ainslie Collective Housing, POACH which helps people on low incomes; and the Richmond Fellowship. Others included Women into Collective Housing Collective, WITCH; and Segois Women's Housing Co-operative. So funds were allocated on the basis of need. On that basis Mr O'Donovan found that there had been no impropriety whatsoever. The concerns expressed by Senator Lewis can be put to rest. The Government has acted with alacrity and fairness and in a way to protect the public interest. Therefore, this matter does not fall within the province of a matter of public importance. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Order! The discussion is concluded. Senator GEORGES(Queensland) —I present report 235 of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts which is the response to the Advance to the Minister for Finance 1981-82. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator GEORGES —I seek leave to incorporate a short statement in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- In essence Report 235 presents the Government's response to the Committee's report on Expenditure from the advance to the Minister for Finance (Appropriation Acts 1981-82). That report, Report 204, was presented in October 1983. Report 235 has been structured to enable readers to place the Government response in context. Chapter 2 of our Report 235 sets down the main issues highlighted in the Committee's original report, report 204, and the conclusions and recommendations arising from its inquiry into expenditure from the advance to the Minister for Finance (AMF) (1981-82). Chapter 3 of Report 235 reproduces Departments' responses to the Committee's recommendations and conclusions. That is to say Chapter 3 reproduces the minute co-ordinated by the Department of Finance using information provided by the particular Departments cited in the Committee's original report. Chapter 1 of our Report 235 presents the Committee's reactions to that Government response. By way of background to the subject matter of this Report, the Advance to the Minister for Finance is a provision authorised by the annual Appropriation Acts and made available to the Minister. In 1981/82 amounts of $125m and $100m were provided for this purpose in Appropriation Acts Nos 1 and 2 respectively. As a general principle the only amounts which should remain a charge to the appropriations for the Advance to the Minister for Finance at the end of the financial year are urgent and unforeseen expenditures which arise between the time of preparation of the additional appropriation Bills Nos. 3 and 4 and the close of the financial year. In its examination of use of the Advance the committee seeks to ascertain whether or not expenditure from the Advance conforms to that general principle. In its examination of use of the AMF (1981-82), the Committee received explanations relating to 118 items of expenditure. Supplementary written information was obtained on 11 items and one item was selected for public inquiry. The main subject of scrutiny in Report 204 was that of the Government Printer-more specifically its loss of operations in 1980-81 which, as customary, was recouped by appropriation from the Consolidated Revenue Fund in the subsequent year. An administrative error resulted in the necessity to fund the loss using the advance to the Minister for Finance. This item, which was within the Portfolio of the Minister for Administrative Services, and now is within the Portfolio of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, was selected for public inquiry. The Committee also examined the use of the Advance by the Department of Aviation and the Departments of Capital Territory and Education. The Committee's inquiry relating to the Government Printer focussed on the financial and operational practices of the Government Printer where it found weaknesses in accountability and inefficiencies in administration. The Committee also found clerical errors and deficiencies in estimating procedures in the Departments of Aviation, Capital Territory and Education. The Committee is generally satisfied with the responses and undertakings offered by Departments following Report 204. The main initiatives in the response by the Government Printer to the Committee's inquiry are: A review of the AGPS accounting section which has been completed, resulting in the establishment of a management accounting sub-section which prepares and reviews operational and financial budgets in consultation with managers; An improved performance in the accounts receivable system of the Government Printer Trust Account and a target for the billings systems which represents an improvement on past performance and which is achievable under AGPS current production control and costing methods; and the drafting of a printing and publishing manual to replace the set of AGPS circulars setting out procedures. The Committee's major concern regarding the Government Printer's responses relates to scrutiny of the financial statements of the Government Printer's operations. Essentially the Department argues that it does not have the resources to devote to improving its accounting system to a standard consistent with that set down in the accounting guidelines issued by the Minister for Finance on 20 May 1983. The Committee appreciates that the guidelines are not mandatory and that Departments must allocate scarce resources among competing priorities. However, the Committee regards it as essential that the Department allocate its resources to permit the conversion of its cash based accounting system to one based on the notion of accrual. Such a system will provide improved financial management information for the Department. The Committee's original concerns in the Department of Aviation and the then Departments of Education and the Capital Territory relating to administrative oversights and staff inexperience have been met with approved training and checking procedures in the relevant areas. The Committee accepts these measures and expects to see improved performance in these areas in the future. I therefore commend this report to honourable senators. Consideration resumed. The Bills. (Quorum formed) Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(4.00) —I refer to clause 4 of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill and to the section that is to be inserted. I have three questions relating to three of the terms used in that proposed new sub-section. The first concerns the reference to `the Land Council in the area'. I ask: Why are those words used rather than `the Central Land Council', when the Central Land Council is the land council in the area? Secondly, whilst the term `Land Trust' is unexceptionable with capitals for `land' and for `trust', I do not know of any schedule to this amendment which gives any further definition of that land trust. Is it contemplated that the exact persons who will make up the trust are to be determined through the process of a land commissioner having a hearing in the way in which all other land claims have been proceeded with, or will the Central Land Council by its own fiat determine the exact persons who will make up that trust? By what procedure will the land trust be defined? The third question relates to the lease. The lease is referred to in the proposed new sub-section with one overriding pre-condition; that is, that it will enable the Director to hold the land for the purposes of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975. That means that the land will be used for purposes that are strictly defined in that Act. I ask: Does that Act allow the excision or the definition of some parts of the land that could be used as living areas for Aboriginal people, or is that expressly not allowed by the Act to which the Director and the trust have to subscribe in the agreement determined by the relevant land council? I ask those three questions of the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) and I believe that it will be of help for us to have specific reassurances on those matters. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(4.03) — In answer to Senator Teague's first question regarding the general reference to a land council rather than naming a particular land council, I inform him that the particular land council cannot be named in the Bill. The reason for that is that the land council boundaries could change in the future; so the council that is relevant to a particular area could change. That is why a general description is given. In answer to Senator Teague's second question, about the land trust, I advise him that the members of the land trust will be appointed by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs on the nomination of the land council. As to Senator Teague's third question, regarding the possibility of secure living areas for Aboriginals in the Uluru National Park, since 1977 when the national park was proclaimed the Mutitjulu community has lived in the park under the provisions of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act. The relevant legislative provisions are not being altered. The lease will provide that relevant Aboriginals shall have the right to reside within the park in the vicinity of the present Mutitjulu community or at such other locations as may be specified in the plan of management. The words `relevant Aboriginals' mean all the traditional Aboriginal owners of the park, the Aboriginals entitled to use or occupy the park and Aboriginals permitted by them to reside in the park. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(4.05) —I just seek clarification of the second matter; that is, the definition of the trust. The Minister has said that the members of this trust will be determined by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs on the advice of the land council. Is that by administrative action; is it by the announcement that she has just made; or is it prescribed by any statutory definition or regulation? If it is an administrative matter that she has just announced, what guarantee is there that the Minister will not change his mind? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(4.06) —The arrangements I have just described are prescribed in section 7 of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. Bills agreed to. Bills reported without amendment; report adopted. Bills (on motion by Senator Ryan) read a third time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy) —I lay on the table explanatory notes from the Australian Bicentennial Authority and the Department of Territories on estimates of proposed expenditure for 1985-86. Motion (by Senator Ryan) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(4.07) —I wish to place on the record some information that I was advised it might be inappropriate to put before the Senate last Tuesday during the tributes to the late Mr Odgers. I think members of the Senate will understand that rather mysterious statement. I think that justice would not be done to the late Mr Odgers unless the following words were said. Mr Odgers was always a staunch supporter of the powers of the Senate, and in the 1976 edition of his book he stated that the Senate had the power to block Supply. This led to some ill feeling towards him by some members of the Parliament. Some members of the Australian Labor Party, for quite proper reasons, resented the fact that he appeared to be advising the then Opposition during the 1975 crisis. However, in fairness to Mr Odgers, it should be recorded that, as a true officer of the Parliament, he also advised the then Labor Government during that crisis. I am informed-I believe that historians would be fascinated by this information-that he had devised a procedure whereby the questions for the passage of the Appropriation Bills could be put in one motion. The extraordinary thing, as I am informed, is that, if Mr Whitlam, the then Prime Minister, had returned to Parliament House after he had been sacked by the Governor-General and notified his Labor Party Senate Leader at that time, Senator Wriedt, and if Senator Wriedt had used the procedure devised by Mr Odgers, it could have prevented the passage of the Appropriation Bills in the equally divided Senate and thereby forced the Governor-General to reverse his decision. Senator Peter Baume —I think there are several procedures that he could have used. Senator CHIPP —Yes. I thank Senator Peter Baume for the interjection. It is rather fascinating to know that if events had occurred a little differently the whole history of this nation may have gone in a different direction. It should also be recorded that Mr Odgers was for many years a very close personal friend of Mr Norman Parkes, the Clerk of the House of Representatives at the time of the crisis, and that these two remained very good mates in spite of the dispute between the two Houses. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 4.10 p.m., till Tuesday, 10 September 1985, at 2 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Acts Interpretation Act-Correspondence and a statement relating to an extension of specified period for presentation of Part 2 of the Australian National University Annual Report 1984. Radiocommunications Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 196. Radiocommunications (Frequency Reservation Certificate Tax) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 202. Radiocommunications (Receiver Licence Tax) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 201. Radiocommunications Taxes Collection Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 200. Radiocommunications (Temporary Permit Tax) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 199. Radiocommunications (Test Permit Tax) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 198. Radiocommunications (Transmitter Licence Tax) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 197. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Ordinances 1985- No. 34-Trustee Companies (Amendment). No. 35-Motor Traffic (Amendment). No. 37-Dog Control (Amendment) (No. 2). No. 38-Co-operative Societies (Amendment) (No. 2). No. 39-Credit (Amendment) Regulations 1985- No. 18-(Co-operative Societies Ordinance). No. 19-(Court of Petty Sessions (Civil Jurisdication) Ordinance). No. 20-(Business Franchise (Tobacco and Petroleum Products) Ordinance).