Friday, 11 April 1986 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 9 a.m., and read prayers. The Acting Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Child Care Amendment Legislation To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned shows: Our serious concern that the Child Care Amendment Act 1985 will have serious adverse affects for the future provision of high quality child care services for the pre-school children of this nation. Your petitioners ask that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should: Repeal the Child Care Amendment Act 1985. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Bolkus (from 33 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petitioners of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: that the humble petitioners respectfully believe that the representatives in Australia of the African National Congress and the South West Africa Peoples Organisation should not have to suffer unending financial problems related to the cost of rent, food and clothing, and the maintenance of two small offices run on the most austere basis. Your petitioners therefore pray and urge the provision of: 1. Official recognition of A.N.C. and S.W.A.P.O. as the legitimate representatives of the people of South Africa and Namibia. 2. Financial support to the offices and representatives of the African National Congress and the South West Africa Peoples Organisation to promote the anti-Apartheid cause. 3. Additional financial support for the official representatives of the A.N.C. and S.W.A.P.O. to assist the humanitarian needs of Namibian and South African refugees who are victims of Apartheid. 4. Scholarships for South African and Namibian refugees. These to be provided through the A.N.C. and S.W.A.P.O. education departments. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator McKiernan (from 79 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament House assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of Australia, humbly pray that the parliament act to outlaw the practice of the large petrol companies also controlling petrol retail outlets in competition with independent petrol distributors and retailers who they supply, thus acting in a position of unfair competition, and leading to the large companies exerting unconscionable pressure on those independent distributors and retailers. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Vigor (from 24 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 whereas there is no evidence of a clear public demand for a Bill of Rights; and Whereas many rights included in the Bill of Rights never have been, nor are now in danger in Australia; and Whereas many rights deemed precious to all Australians are not included in this bill, e.g., the right to own property and the right to choose not to belong to a trade union without incurring penalty, and Whereas this bill confers on a non elected, non representative body [the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission] powers, better vested in the judiciary: Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government desists from proceeding with a Bill of Rights, until, by referendum it ascertains if [a] Australians believe their freedoms are in jeopardy; and [b] Australians believe such a Bill needs to be introduced. And your petitioners as in duty bound ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 91 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That we urge you to oppose the Australian Bill of Rights Bill because: We get no legally enforceable rights under the Bill The Bill does not guarantee vital rights such as the right not to belong to a trade union, the right to own private property and not be deprived of it without just compensation and the right of choice between Government and non-Government schools. The Bill gives Canberra extra powers to change our Federal system by the back door without a constitutional referendum. The Bill gives dangerous new powers to a Federal Government Commission. Your petitioners ask that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should vote against the Bill of Rights, support Opposition amendments and seek a genuine public debate and a referendum on the Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Durack (from 3,199 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: The Government's proposed Bill of Rights legislation has been introduced into Parliament with haste and without regard for the adverse effects it would have in many areas essential to the liberty and freedom of the Australian people. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should- Delay any further debate on the Bill of Rights until sufficient time has elapsed to allow public discussion, after which it seek the consent of the people of Australia in a referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Walters (from 12 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian Bill of Rights Bill is a harmful, dangerous and divisive proposal, the provisions of which are authoritarian and anti-democratic. Your petitioners therefore pray: That the Senate rejects this Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Durack (from 59 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian Bill of Rights Bill is a harmful, dangerous, and divisive and unnecessary proposal, the provisions of which are dictatorial, harmful and against the true interest of the people of Australia. Your petitioners pray: That the Senate reject the Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Durack (from 143 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 proposed Bill of Rights because it adversely affects areas of the liberty and freedom of Australians. It will operate against:- The States and our Federal system of Government Criminal Justice The Police Education Families Employer/Employee relations It will remove the power of the people through Parliament, by giving power to a new more powerful Human Rights Commission which is not elected, but can act as a Star Chamber. We do most earnestly wish to keep our system of Common Law. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should reject this Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sheil (from 551 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we oppose utterly the proposed Bill of Rights because this Bill will Transfer to government powers not given nor intended to be given by the Constitution Threaten our rights by making them subject to the will of this and any future Government Turn the Human Rights Commission into a political Star Chamber with unjustifiable power Abrogate Common Law and common liberty Set the State above the individual Restrict Rights to those specified by the Bill We the undersigned believe in democracy and freedom and earnestly entreat you to recognise that this Bill will undermine the fundamental basis of these. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should reject a Bill of Rights in this or any other form. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sheil (from 1,169 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That the Bill of Rights and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Bill 1. Offer nothing more than is already available under Common Law, 2. Deny some Human Rights and do not include others, 3. Give dangerously, wide powers to an unelected body, and 4. Could cause far more damage than they could possible cure. Your petitioners request that the Senate should: Completely reject both the Bill of Rights and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Walters (from 128 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That the Hawke Government should; pass on the full benefit of lower international oil prices on 1 March 1986; not increase or extend fuel taxes; and maintain its tax cut commitments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Hawke Government honour its commitment to the Import Parity Pricing policy. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Walters (from 27 citizens). Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland) —by leave-I present to the Senate a petition which is not in conformity with Standing Orders from 48 citizens of Hervey Bay objecting to the Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985. We the undersigned and of voting age (18 years and over) strongly object to any possibility of the Human Rights Bill passing in Parliament. We feel and know that to implement such a Bill in our democratic society would do intolerable and immeasurable damage. We quote the words of our own Chief Justice, ``If society is tolerant and rational, it does not need a Bill of Rights, if it is not, no Bill of Rights will preserve it''. Petitions received. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —In accordance with my notice of intention given on 10 April 1986, I now withdraw Business of the Senate, Notices of Motion Nos 1 and 2, standing in my name for this day of sitting for the disallowance of Amendment No. 46 of the Telecommunications (Staff) By-Laws and the Navigation (Limitation of Shipowners' Liability) Regulations (Amendment). Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —I give notice that, on Wednesday next, I shall move: That sections 54 and 59 of the Health Authority Ordinance 1985, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 69 of 1985 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —I give notice that, 15 sitting days after today, I shall move: That sections 61, 62, 63, 65, 66, 67, 68 and 69 of the Health Authority Ordinance 1985, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 69 of 1985 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: (1) That the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of three or more of its members for the purpose of attending Delegated Legislation Conferences and that the quorum of a sub-committee be two members. (2) That the Committee, or any sub-committee appointed pursuant to paragraph (1), have power to move from place to place. Motion (by Senator Grimes for Senator Gietzelt) agreed to: That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the Senate approves the following proposal contained in the report of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House presented to the Senate on 9 April 1986, namely: The construction of the National Bicentennial Science Centre at Section 28, Parkes. Debate resumed from 9 April, on motion by Senator Button: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(9.07) —The purpose of the Builders Labourers' Federation (Cancellation of Registration) Bill and the Builders Labourers' Federation (Cancellation of Registration-Consequential Provisions) Bill, which are before the Senate, is to cancel the registration of the Australian Building Construction Employees and Builders Labourers Federation, commonly known as the BLF, under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act and to make provision for the consequences of that deregistration. I personally thank the Government and the members of the Australian Labor Party for showing the way. I recall that when we were in government I had strongly argued to our Government that that was the path we should take-that we should simply legislate to deregister that union. The members of the Fraser Government said that that would not work, that it was too harsh a procedure, and that the union movement would not accept it. They said that we should take the course of going through deregistration proceedings in the Federal Court. That case was proceeding at the time of the Federal election in 1983. It had been started in 1981. I do not think there is any doubt that at that stage the whole of Australia believed that that case should have been brought to a conclusion, but one of the first acts of this Government in office was to apply to the Federal Court for an adjournment of the proceedings against the BLF so that it could enter into some sort of sweetheart deal with that union. I remind the Senate of the approach of the Australian Council of Trade Unions to industrial disputation under the presidency of the present Prime Minister, Mr Hawke. The game plan then was to let crippling behaviour run its course and only then would the great white hope emerge from the woodwork where he had closeted himself while the disputation was running its course. He would try to present himself as the great white hope who in some way or other had conciliated the dispute. Senator Chipp —He did it well, didn't he? Senator LEWIS —I agree with Senator Chipp. He did do it well. He used to stay away for weeks. We would not hear anything from him; then, suddenly, he would appear as if he were a knight on a charger, just when everyone knew a dispute was coming to an end, and present himself as the saviour of the nation. The destruction that was wrought in this country under his presidency of the ACTU is being felt by this Government at present, as it was felt by the Fraser Government when we were in office. Clearly, the Prime Minister saw himself in that role and, and in some way or other, he still sees himself in that role. There can be no other explanation for this Government's belated behaviour. I ask the Senate: Did this Government really believe that the leopard would change its spots? Why did he choose to ignore the BLF track record, which has been known for so long? Why did he ignore the judgments of Mr Justice Joske, Mr Justice Smithers and Mr Justice Franki? In the 1974 deregistration proceedings, Mr Justice Smithers dealt at length with the reasons for cancelling registration. He said that the then executive officer of the union had tried to establish an unreasonable domination of employers, and indeed of employees, by intimidatory actions, arrogant, vulgar and insulting communications, mass violence to property and menaces, sometimes in mass and sometimes terrifying to persons. That track record continued. Notwithstanding, in 1983 the Government sought the adjournment of the proceedings which we had instituted. Can the Government deny that in 1983 and early in 1984, by attempting to buy out the BLF with the employers, it was doing a deal which was deliberately planned to circumvent its own wage guidelines as set out in the accord? Is it not true that a deal was contrived between the Government and the building trade unions, including the BLF, in the run up to the 1984 election? When the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission refused to give its seal of approval to this deal which involved a BIRPA-a marvellous acronym, a building industry recovery procedures allowance-and which was clearly outside the Government's guidelines, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, personally approved a non-contributing superannuation deal for the building industry, the cost of which would be about the same as BIRPA. Last year, the Government introduced another Bill to speed the deregistration of the BLF. For over a year the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has struggled with the case, with hundreds of witnesses, thousands of pages of transcript, and at enormous cost, and inevitably it has reached the conclusion which we all knew it would. Mr Justice Ludeke, in his judgment, said that the BLF had no standards as the word was currently understood but reacted to events according to the view taken at the time by the union's federal management committee. The Bench found that since 1976 the BLF had breached eight industrial agreements as well as undertakings given to the Arbitration Commission. The finding was based on BLF industrial action in 10 major disputes, including the $9 campaign in 1984, the 36-hour week campaign in 1984-85, the Melbourne Cricket Ground light towers dispute and the Sydney Police Centre dispute. Is the Government saying that it was not aware of those disputes at the time, that it did not know the way that the BLF was behaving? Did the Government really have to wait until the Full Bench of the Arbitration Commission, led by Mr Justice Ludeke, told us about these matters? The Bench said that control of the BLF was firmly in the hands of the union's federal management committee. Did the Government not know that? Mr Justice Ludeke continued: Instead of a rational policy designed to advance the interests of the members, the federal management committee is addicted to slogans such as `Dare to Struggle, Dare to Win', `Most Harm to the Boss, Least Harm to the Members' and `An Injury to One is an Injury to All'...the federal management committee has waged its campaigns, leading the rank and file from one disaster to the next... The efforts of the leaders have caused hardship to the workers and aroused the hostility of the other building unions. Here we come to the crux of the matter. Instead of allowing the Arbitration Commission to deal with the BLF as per the Government's legislation, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and this Government have decided on a whole new ball game. Mr Willis said that where a union is: ...engaged in conduct which contravened agreements or undertakings to which it was a party, which seriously hindered or prevented the achievement of objects of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, or was inimical to the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes by conciliation and arbitration. They are the guidelines set down by Mr Willis and this Government and in those circumstances the Government will legislate to deregister the union. We have the formula for the future. The principles will be that, where a union contravenes agreements or undertakings which seriously hinder or prevent the achievement of objects of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, the Government will legislate to deregister that union. We will be looking forward to a very busy legislative program and, when we get back into office, we will know the rules of the game. We know that, when we get back into office, when we as a Government become satisfied that a union is contravening agreements or undertakings which seriously hinder or prevent the achievement of objects of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, we will be able to legislate to deregister the union and, as we are giving this Government support, we will expect support from honourable senators opposite when they are on this side of the chamber. These Bills are the model. The Government has shown us the way and set it all out for us. I can assure the Minister that I shall be working to ensure that those principles are carried out when we get into Government. We will want to go even further, because there are some defects in this legislation. It does not tell us about what will happen to the assets of the union. It tells us nothing about what the Government is going to do about the Builders Labourers Federation superannuation scheme which does not appear to be dependent upon registration. It has been reported that Mr Gallagher and his cohorts have withdrawn $1.5m from bank accounts and that that money is now being carried around Melbourne in bags. Is this money the property of the union? Is this Government doing anything to protect the property of the union members? I am sure that, if the directors of some company were to involve themselves in this type of action, members of the Australian Labor Party would be up in arms talking about the rights of the shareholders. What about the rights of the ordinary individual members of the union? Is the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) aware of the same rumour, which we have heard repeated so often that there has to be some fire behind it, and is it true that the Builders Labourers Federation union officials plan simply to take over-and I will name the union-the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners of Australia and continue their standover tactics and thuggery? Has the Minister heard that rumour? What is he going to do about it? What action has the Federal Government taken to ensure that the State governments exercise the powers that are available to the States but which are not available to the Federal Government to ensure that the funds and superannuation funds of the rank and file members of the union, the ordinary decent people working in this industry, are protected? Can the Minister give an assurance that he has taken the necessary steps, through his State colleagues, to ensure that the assets in the superannuation fund of these people are in some way or other protected? There is no evidence. Mr Willis has not said anything in his speech about it and there is not of course anything in these Bills which may indicate that that is happening. We support this legislation because the case against the Builders Labourers Federation is simply overwhelming. Senator Coleman —Oh! Senator LEWIS —I hear Senator Coleman over there say: `Why?' We know that Senator Coleman is one person in the Australian Labor Party who does not support the legislation. We know that there are a large number of people over there who, if we called the division, would cross the floor or walk out of the chamber, but they certainly would not vote in support of this legislation. We are well aware of that. Nevertheless, we will not be calling any division on this legislation, because we will support it. The evidence against the Builders Labourers Federation is simply overwhelming. It must be deregistered. We might say to the Government that, if it likes to take similar action against other maverick unions, we will also be supporting the Government in relation to that. There is absolutely no justification for allowing the Builders Labourers Federation to continue to participate in the conciliation and arbitration process for which it has demonstrated absolute contempt and this warning should be heeded by other unions that engage in similar behaviour. The union has outlawed itself and has no right whatsoever to expect any of the privileges of a union registered under the Act. Mr Acting Deputy President, as you would know there is another flaw in the legislation and that is that the proposed deregistration is for a term of only three years although Mr Willis has indicated that if the Government is not satisfied in three years it would be prepared to extend the term. We say that that is simply not satisfactory. The BLF's behaviour warrants a term of at least 10 years, a term which would be quite long enough to enable the current leaders of the organisation, who have so misled the people in the union down the wrong path, to retire and get out of the industry altogether, to go on the old age pension or whatever they will retire on and to get right away from the union movement. A period of 10 years would enable this to happen. When we get to the Committee stage of this legislation I will move, and the Opposition parties will support, an amendment to make the deregistration extend for a period of 10 years. Three years is simply not long enough to put this union out of business. From the way it has been behaving a term of 10 years is the minimum. We say that the Government has failed in its responsibilities insofar as the rank and file members of the union are concerned in ensuring that both their assets and superannuation funds are adequately protected. For far too long this Government has turned a blind eye to the excesses of maverick union officials. Belatedly it is now taking some positive action and we applaud that. It is essential that the very roots of this organisation are destroyed and that it is not able to engage in some bottom of the harbour arrangement that allows it to re-emerge under another union banner. The Government has an obligation to talk to its colleagues within State governments to take action to ensure that this union is put out of business permanently. It also has an obligation to apply the same rules to other maverick unions which hold the normal processes of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in contempt. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(9.23) —I rise in support of the Builders Labourers' Federation (Cancellation of Registration) Bill 1986 and the Builders Labourers' Federation (Cancellation of Registration-Consequential Provisions) Bill 1986 which have been brought into the chamber by the Government. However, in doing so I wish to express very grave misgivings indeed about the form of the legislation. If I had any mild misgivings before Senator Lewis rose, the fact that he is so infatuated by this legislation and sees it as a model for the future simply reinforces the concerns which I have had. Parliament is being asked to legislate directly to abolish the Builders Labourers Federation's existence as an organisation which has rights within the federal conciliation and arbitration system. It is highly likely that the force of what we are doing will have that direct impact. Of course the Executive might decide not to present the Bill for royal assent but that is highly improbable. So one can truly say that it is the Parliament which, when this Bill becomes law, will achieve what is set out in clause 3 of the major Bill before us entitled `Cancellation of registration of Federation' and which reads: The registration of The Australian Building Construction Employees' and Builders Labourers' Federation under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 is, by force of this section, cancelled. So what is happening is that the Parliament is cancelling the registration of not only the Builders Labourers Federation but also, given the definition of a non-registered organisation in clause 3 of the Consequential Provisions Bill it extends this penalty to any other non-registered association formed in connection with the building industry, a majority of the members of which are, or have been, members of the Federation. It is quite clear that the intention of the two Bills is plainly not merely to restrict the right of the Federation to participate in the federal industrial relations system but also to restrict the right of the present membership of the Federation to participate in that system except through those organisations to which coverage of those members is awarded by way of regulations made pursuant to the Consequential Provisions Bill. I emphasise that all of this is to be done by legislative fiat, by the action of the two chambers of the Australian Parliament. In chronological sequence this Bill was presented after the review of the activities of the BLF by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The legislation was introduced after the declaration by that Commission, which in a summary form is to the effect that the Commission was satisfied that the BLF had contravened undertakings given to the Commission, the Industrial Registrar or the Federal Court, had engaged in conduct that prevented or seriously hindered the achievement of an object under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, and had engaged in conduct which was inimical to the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes by means of conciliation and arbitration. Whilst it is true that in chronological sequence it comes after all those hearings by the Commission over many days, listening to many witnesses, it must be strongly emphasised that this Bill and our passage of it are in no way dependent on those declarations by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. There is no linkage to this in the Bill, as there would have been had the Minister acted in reliance on the declaration under the legislation that we passed last year. There is no requirement, as there was for the Minister, for example, that members of this Parliament take into account or even read the findings of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in relation to this matter. It is very important, I believe, to contrast this legislation with the legislation passed last year. That legislation vested the decision to strip the BLF of these rights within the federal conciliation and arbitration system in the Minister, that is, in a responsible member of the Executive Government-responsible in many senses of the word, not only responsible as the ultimate bearer of political responsibility in this area, but also responsible, I believe, in a much more important sense in this case, as someone required by the legislation to act responsibly. Any conclusion reached by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission was preliminary to his exercise of independent judgment. The exercise of his judgment required him, I believe, to take into account and assess the findings of the Arbitration Commission, and supplement it with any representations made by the BLF by which it sought to demonstrate either that the findings were quite ill-founded or that, despite the findings, deregistration was not warranted in the public interest. At least, that is how I read the probable requirements of section 5 (1) of the legislation which we passed last year. Indeed, it was also clearly the understanding of the Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth. I have here a transcript of proceedings in the High Court of Australia in the matter of an application for a writ of mandamus against the members of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission brought by the BLF. Before Mr Justice Mason in chambers Mr Griffith, the Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth, as recorded at page 27 of the transcript, stated: . . . Your Honour . . . looking ahead, if there were a declaration, the minister does intend, Your Honour, to give notice to the Federation of what he is minded to do and to give them an opportunity to make representations about it. He went on to say, a few pages later, that that was a matter of common decency, which is a shorthand way of saying it is a matter of natural justice and ordinary administrative law that if one is to exercise a power to strip an individual, or an organisation, of rights which he has one ought to do so after giving that person an opportunity, before one exercises that discretion or judgment, to make out his case for one exercising that judgment or discretion in his favour. Under the legislation we passed last year, in other words, the responsible Minister would have had to weigh up the evidence and act to that extent in a quasi-judicial fashion before forming an opinion, as outlined in the section to which I have referred, that the public interest required that the cancellation of the participation of the BLF in the Federal Conciliation and Arbitration Commission should go ahead. This Bill has none of those features of responsible decision making in the sense I have outlined. It substitutes the Parliament for the Minister as the deregistering body and it does not require in its terms that any such assessment of the Commission's findings be carried out by the members of this or any other chamber. I have read the 66 pages of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission finding and I am sure that Senator John Siddons has done the same because we are responsibly participating in this debate. But under this Bill there is no need for us to form any view whatsoever or even read the Commission's findings. The Bill simply rests on the formation of a political judgment which could take a host of considerations into account, none of which can be reviewed as to the relevance or legality as would have been the case with the Minister under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. If the Minister were to form an opinion and take into account quite irrelevant political considerations, that could have been challenged in the courts as to the legality of the process of his decision making, not as to the merits of his opinion. I am scrupulously avoiding contradicting the assessment of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission as to whether or not the BLF ought to be deregistered. I am talking about the legal propriety of the way in which one goes about such a process. It seems to me that in short we are engaged in a process which at least in my view is very likely to be in breach of Article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which talks about freedom of association and which has been translated into Article 11 of our proposed Australian Bill of Rights. In that respect I concur with the view of the Freedom of Association Committee of the International Labour Organisation, which had this to say in its general principles regarding freedom of association: . . . legislation which accords to a Minister the power to order the cancellation of the registration of a trade union in the Minister's entire discretion and without any right of appeal to the courts is contrary to the principles of freedom of association. A fortiori, it is even more so if we put that untrammelled discretion without any right of appeal into the hands of the Parliament. It seems to me that we are very likely to be in breach of those principles of freedom of association. It astonishes me that Senator Austin Lewis-who is a past Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances and a current member; I have a tremendous respect and high regard for his work on that Committee-has been able to accept with equanimity the sort of parliamentary action we are undertaking today. In fact that is rather ironic, this being the very week in which we have made such laudatory comments about our late colleague Senator Alan Missen, and particularly as during those comments reference was made to his courageous resistance to attempts by the Menzies Government simply to dissolve the Communist Party of Australia by naming it in a piece of legislation. The fact is that the Communist Party Dissolution Act was struck down in the High Court of Australia primarily because that Court considered it beyond the constitutional pale that Parliament should simply by making a declaration and naming the Communist Party of Australia dissolve it. There was a question of constitutional power there but I believe that the same principle is at stake: The forfeiture of rights or property should be expressly linked to the carrying out of certain activities which are made offences for the commission of which the forfeiture of rights or property follows. By naming a person, an individual or an organisation, and stripping it of its rights by parliamentary fiat we are harking back to that Communist Party Dissolution Act rejected by the High Court and rejected by the people by referendum. We are going back to the Bills of attainder of Stuart and Tudor times and the Parliament itself I believe is being brought to a very dangerous point. I raise these matters because of my grave concern which, as I say is now doubly reinforced by Senator Austin Lewis's enthusiasm for and infatuation with the model that he sees being put forward here for future action. However, having said all that it is the case that I will have to vote with the Government on the passage of this Bill. I have now expressed my view as a senator and as Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on the Scrutiny of Bills. Honourable senators will have circulated to them the Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest on this Bill. I had earlier expressed the same concerns, although in shorter form, in the Caucus of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party. If anyone understands the principles of solidarity and tight discipline in an organisation, I am sure that the BLF does, and therefore it will not be surprised if, after the full debate within the Party room, in which I have participated, I am bound by the decision reached by the majority in that Party room. The principle of Caucus solidarity is inherent in the operation of the Federal parliamentary Labor Party as an effective political force, and I have agreed to submit to its disciplines, except of course on matters of conscience to do with the creation of human life. I will not vote against its decisions, but I consider it proper to express my concerns in relation to this matter. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(9.36) —I listened with a great deal of interest to Senator Tate's concerns about the Builders Labourers Federation (Cancellation of Registration) Bill 1986 and allied Bill. I think that he has very bravely put his point of view on the drafting of this Bill. I must say I can sympathise with his concerns. However, essentially, they are concerns that have to be expressed within his Party room. In this chamber, we are confronted with a piece of legislation that we must judge on its merits and accept, reject or amend, but not in a substantial way. In commenting on what Senator Tate said, I would say, nevertheless, that this legislation to deregister the Builders Labourers Federation was preceded by a very detailed investigation of the affairs of the BLF by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. So, the precedent has been set. It was not simply an arbitrary decision of Parliament to take the law into its own hands; it is acting on a recommendation of the Commission that the BLF should be deregistered. To that extent, I believe that many of Senator Tate's concerns will be allayed if future governments adopt the procedures that have been adopted, in this case with the BLF. Having said that, I make clear that the Democrats do support the aim of this legislation, that is, that the BLF should be deregistered. In our view it is absolutely essential, and until that is done the building industry will not get back to some kind of sanity in this country. This level of insanity has been abroad in the construction industry since the early 1970s and it has cost the Australian public enormous amounts of money. We are now confronted with a situation where the Federal Labor Government, in conjunction with two State Labor governments, are supporting the move to deregister this union. In other words, Labor politicians have said that enough is enough, that something has to be done. For that we commend the Government and the State Labor governments that are supporting this action. I want to make clear that the Democrats' concern with the tactics of the BLF is in relation to the executive of the union and not to the builders labourers themselves. We believe they have been led by a very unsatisfactory national executive, and our concern is to see that that national executive is disbanded and that it is not in a position to re-form at some future time. For that reason, we will move an amendment to extend from three years to five years the period that should elapse before the Builders Labourers Federation can apply to the Commission for the reregistration of the union. I want to spend a little time explaining just why we believe that a five-year period is necessary. The national executive of the BLF has access to substantial sums of money. Three years is not a long time in industrial relations. We believe that, if the period were only three years, that would be insufficient time to ensure that the present nucleus of the federal executive of the BLF could not keep some organisation in place in that three-year period and then immediately apply to the Commission to establish a new builders labourers union. On the other hand, the Opposition has moved that the period be 10 years. We believe that this is far too long to have a prohibition on the forming of a new labourers' union, if the Commission saw that that was warranted. Nobody knows how the situation will settle down after the deregistration becomes effective. It could well be that there is a very serious disadvantage to the builders labourers in being forced to join unions that do not directly represent their particular interests. It is a matter of judgment as to how long the prohibition should be, and it will be a matter of observation to see how well the situation works after the present BLF is deregistered. We think that five years would be about the right time. That no doubt would include some penalty on the builders labourers because of the fact they will not be allowed to apply for a union of their own in that period. Nevertheless, we cannot support the Opposition's amendment of 10 years because we believe that is unreasonable. The sooner we can get on with the passing of this legislation the better, so I do not wish to unduly delay the Senate in voting on this matter, but one or two observations are necessary. It is significant that at present three Labor governments in the country, the Federal and two State Labor governments, are supporting deregistration. The previous President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Cliff Dolan, had the following to say about the BLF on Monday, 19 August 1985 when his organisation deliberately and clearly distanced itself from the BLF and its activities: The ACTU cannot and will not give unequivocal support to the BLF and its activities. The ACTU is not prepared to act as guarantor to the BLF commitments in view of the questions raised as to their compliance to these agreements. In other words, the ACTU is officially abandoning the BLF. It is no longer prepared to lend its name to the BLF's actions because the union will not stick to agreements and cannot conduct itself in a reasonable manner or be relied upon to honour its word. It is not only the ACTU that has had reservations. The BLF has been disaffiliated from the New South Wales Trades and Labour Council and from the Victorian Trades Hall Council over the last few years. The New South Wales disaffiliation was the end result of years of violence committed by the BLF against other workers and their unions, culminating in the extraordinary events at the police headquarters in Sydney. Charges were laid against BLF members. Workers in other unions had material, including steel and concrete, thrown at them from above, union officials had their lives threatened and their cars damaged, and workers were assaulted in hotels. In other words, the affairs of Al Capone had nothing on what was going on in this country for a while. In Victoria there were equally bloody incidents relating to who should operate scissor lifts on building sites. The BLF attacked the tradesmen's unions with such ferocity that the rest of the union movement said `This is enough, we will end our support for the BLF'. Without going through the long list of criminal acts laid at the door of the BLF, I feel it is important that action be taken, so we are supporting this legislation. The question of union power and its abuse is of great concern to the Australian Democrats. I believe action has to be taken in other directions. For example, I believe the Transport Workers Union of Australia needs to be disciplined by governments in some way or another. Right now the TWU is attempting to set unreasonably high prices for the carting of beer from Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd and Carlton and United Breweries in Queanbeyan to hotels and licensed bottle shops here in Canberra. That amounts to an enormous restrictive trade practice. The union wants to fix the price of a load of $420 when other carriers are prepared to carry the same load for $150 to $200. The action of the TWU amounts to standover tactics and should be investigated. I raise the matter in this debate only to point out that there is wide concern in the community about the abuse of union power. I do not think it is good enough for Labor senators to stand up and say when anyone criticises a union that we are union bashing. There has to be discipline. Some brake has to be put on the widespread abuses by unions such as the TWU. I hope the Government will take the necessary step before too long to do this. There is no doubt that a union that is led badly by a hard core and disciplined national executive can cause untold damage. Our concern is directed against the executives of the unions and certainly not against the unionists themselves, and we believe government action should be taken in this direction also. I believe that this Bill will lead eventually to a more harmonious and productive building industry, and that the quicker action is taken the better it will be for both building contractors and the workers in the building industry. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(9.47) —Three years ago the present Government withdrew the deregistration proceedings which the previous Government had instituted against the Builders Labourers Federation. I think this nation should not forget that this Government has given the BLF an additional three years of standover tactics and thuggery because of a massive miscalculation and a massive misjudgment. Of course, there are those people who might say that this is so because of some curious link which at times, particularly at election times, seems to exist between sections of the union movement and this Government. Why did this Government give the BLF three more years in which to stand over Australia? I think that is a question that this Government had better answer. When the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) introduced the Building Industry Bill last August with powers to deregister the BLF he said: The time has passed for yet another `last chance'. That time had passed long ago. The people who have been stood over at incredible expense and at the risk of physical violence over the last three years have this Government to thank for that. The Ministers involved, from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) down, are the guilty men who have allowed this group of thugs to stand over Australia for that time. That last chance point certainly was reached when the previous Government decided to undertake deregistration proceedings. I want to know why the present Government terminated these deregistration proceedings. My colleague in the House of Representatives, Mr Shack, asked last year: Was it terminal industrial relations naivety? Was it the belief that the mighty word of the Messiah would turn the BLF bad boys into good guys? There is probably something in that suggestion. I do not wish to explore further possible explanations for the Government's stupidity in terminating the deregistration proceedings in the first place. I simply wish to point out that the Government was wrong, that the BLF did over the Government, and that the BLF made the Prime Minister and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations look foolish in relation to the building industry peace agreement. That was last August in the House of Representatives. Let us hear a coherent and effective response from the Government at last in this place. There is no doubt that the BLF, which has demonstrated at the extremes the appalling way in which power can be abused in the industrial relations arena, must be deregistered. It is curious to look at the quaint sort of love affair this Government has had with the BLF, even to the extent, of course, of providing it with $52,000 of the taxpayers' money over the last two years to help it to paint things on walls. We already know that the BLF has received funding from the Australia Council for a muralist in residence. We have noted from the `Free Norm' and `Hands off the BLF' graffiti that is spread all over the capital cities and on the private property of the people building those buildings that that has at least improved its style. It is now often in three colours and it looks almost attractive. The fact is that this Government has, for some incredible reason, not only harboured this group to its bosom and given it additional chances to be good but also rewarded it by providing it with grants to enable it to spread its message on the walls of our cities. Senator Elstob —I thought that is how democratic societies would act. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I thank the Minister for his interjection because the reason- Senator McKiernan —Congratulations! Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I thank the honourable senator for his interjection, prompted by the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes), and point out to him that, had the proper course been taken, the BLF would have been deregistered three years ago and, as a result, would not have been in a position to get $52,000 from this Government to help it daub walls around Australia. That is the inescapable truth that may eventually filter through to Senator Elstob. The issue, of course, came up again last August when the Government introduced the Building Industry Bill. The purpose of it, to quote Mr Willis, was as follows: Its objective is to provide machinery for the cancellation of the registration of the Builders Labourers Federation under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act or to provide for the effective equivalent of such deregistration in parts of Australia . . . we have come to a point where the actions of the BLF are, in our opinion-and, we would believe, in the opinion of the community as a whole-totally unacceptable. He went on: It is now patently clear that the BLF leadership is utterly untrustworthy and that it regards undertakings and agreements as mere strategems to achieve a momentary advantage which can then be disregarded at will. I just interpose there that it is extraordinary that it took Mr Willis until August 1985 to wake up to that. Surely he knew about that back in 1981 when we in fact started to institute proceedings to deregister-- Senator Robertson —Started to institute! Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Indeed we did. Those proceedings were terminated by Senator Robertson's Government. Senator Robertson —It did nothing of the sort. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —They certainly were. The reality is that this Government, having terminated those steps to deregister the union, took until August 1985 to wake up. I will continue with what Mr Willis said in August 1985: Furthermore, its unprincipled, indeed outrageous, mode of operation has created havoc in the building industry, thereby causing extraordinary delays in building programs and crippling increases in costs. Its use of tactics such as breaking concrete pours, reckless application of work bans, resort to walk-offs or `homers', and claims for payments 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. Those activities were going on in 1983 when this Government came to power; those activities were allowed to go on because of the withdrawal of deregistration proceedings that the previous Government had instituted and that withdrawal was done by this Government. So here we have thuggery, violence, blackmail and intimidation continuing for three years thanks to this Labor Government which has this special relationship with the union movement. Having said that, I note that this legislation which was introduced last year, which was going to solve all these problems and fix everything, has not been used. Instead of that, the Government has found that it appears to have been a piece of defective legislation and has replaced it urgently by this new piece of legislation. There is no doubt there were some problems and we pointed them out at the time. In fact, Senator Siddons also pointed them out. I was disappointed that Senator Siddons did not refer to the strong point he made last year on this matter. There were defects in that legislation which were pointed out to the Government at the time, but the Government chose to do nothing about them. This raises quite serious questions about its credibility in relation to that legislation. There was no doubt that questions about the problems raised then, which clearly have inhibited the Government from acting under that legislation now, are as proper now as they were then. It has taken the Government until now to recognise that the legislation introduced last year would have been no more effective than the piece of window dressing that many of us considered it to be. It was a gesture; it was full of the same sort of rhetoric that one tends to expect from this Government in this matter. Ultimately it proved apparently to be so defective that the Government had to introduce something else to take its place. Senator Siddons pointed out last August that he had some problems with that legislation. He said it would be a very dangerous precedent for the Government to deregister a union without bringing in an impartial body. He said that to do otherwise would amount to the Government's acting as the prosecution, judge and jury. That is what he said last time and there would have been some merit in his saying that this time. I certainly will be saying that kind of thing now. One of the defects that we saw at that time with that legislation was that it gave the Minister enormous powers. I quote from Senator Messner who said of that legislation: It 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. The Senate might remember that at that time questions were raised by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee that some of those powers and actions by the Minister could well put that Bill in a position where it could be challenged in the High Court on legal grounds. I refer to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee's tenth report, 1985, which said: . . . because the Minister's powers are exercisable on the basis of the Minister's subjective opinion or, in the case of the decision to permit re-registration, no statutory criteria at all, the scope for review as to legality is limited. The powers permitted to be exercised by the Minister to deregister the Federation, to suspend its rights, privileges and capacities, to require the Registrar to alter its rules and to award coverage of its members to another registered organization are powers ordinarily exercised only by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission or the Federal Court. . . The Committee further considers that the vesting of these powers in the Minister calls in question Australia's compliance with its obligations under Article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (dealing with freedom of association) and under the International Labour Organisation Convention concerning Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise. There are other elements in that legislation last year which certainly raise questions about the capacity of the union to take the matter further and to consider it to be an assault on human rights. In that context, perhaps I might say that the human rights legislation which is at present before this Senate will override any existing legislation which brings it in conflict with the human rights legislation. If this human rights legislation states-as I understand it to state-that there are freedoms of association inscribed in the legislation, we shall clearly face a situation in which the passing of the human rights legislation in its present form appears to override the requirements of this Bill. It will be interesting to hear what Senator Gareth Evans, the Minister representing the Attorney-General, will have to say on that matter, because if the human rights legislation overrides this Bill, we shall have a great deal of interesting litigation proceeding, at least to test whether this is so. It may well be held that the right to association for a specific purpose-that is, the right to associate in order to get some sort of industrial position before industrial arbitration structures-is meaningful only when it is the right to associate for a purpose, and when that purpose is denied by administrative fiat, by executive fiat or by parliamentary fiat, as Senator Tate has pointed out, then there is a clear problem in relation to the Bill of Rights itself, apart from a clear problem in relation to the existing bulk of law. I am not suggesting that the Builders Labourers should take action. I am simply warning that under the previous Act, which was defective, there was clear scope for legal challenge, apart from the fact that there was the clear opportunity to appeal to further bodies to circumvent for quite a considerable time any attempt to deregister the body. So, okay, the previous legislation was defective, would not work, and it would allow the Builders Labourers Federation to keep going on and on forever, fighting it through the courts and the judicial system. To what extent does this present legislation improve that situation? Let us face it: There is a cost and benefit in all matters. The cost in relation to the new Bill is that, as Senator Tate quite rightly pointed out, it makes the Parliament do things that should properly in our society be done by the courts. In other words, it adds a new dimension-in my view, a new opportunity for challenge-to the Bill. Quite apart from the questions of civil liberties that are involved, there are some problems with this Bill. I make these points. The Security of Bills Committee has pointed out, in its report of 9 April, that under this Bill: . . . the Federation will be deprived of the right to participate in Australia's highly structured Federal industrial relations system. The Committee states that the intention of this Bill and its associated Bill is: . . . plainly not merely to restrict the right of the Federation to participate in the Federal industrial relations system but also to restrict the right of the present membership of the Federation to participate in that system except through those organisations to which coverage of those members is awarded by way of regulations. The Committee has said that whilst it recognises that the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission already has broad powers to deregister organisations, it suggests that: . . . while it may be thought appropriate for a person or organisation to be deprived of rights by a court in accordance with due process of law, it may not be considered appropriate for the Parliament to deprive a person or organisation of rights in this fashion. This is the basic civil liberty problem. The committee pointed out: A court may for example declare a person guilty of murder and impose on that person a sentence of imprisonment . . . But it would be inappropriate for the Parliament to pass a law making such a declaration and imposing such a sentence itself. In other words, it creates the law within which the courts make such a determination but the Parliament itself does not do so. I think that is a more worrying analogy because it harkens back, as Senator Tate mentioned, to the Communist Party Dissolution Bill. Likewise, it would not be considered appropriate for the Parliament to pass a law depriving a political party of the right to participate in Federal elections and depriving members of that party of the right to form another association for the purpose of participating in Federal elections. This has a real relevance and it concerns me greatly. I must say that I am glad to see that this kind of thing concerned Senator Siddons last August, even though it was not developed to the extent that it is in this matter. I would be interested to hear the Australian Democrats position on this basic question of civil liberties. Senator Siddons —We are concerned about it, Senator, as I said in my speech; quite concerned about it. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I think it is a matter for concern and, of course, it emerges that these concerns arise only because the Government has had desperately to find some mechanism to correct its incompetence and the disastrous consequences of its incompetence, going back over three years, when it kept on giving the BLF another go, when another go was clearly inappropriate and when another go has cost Australians multi-millions of dollars and added to the costs in Australia. Because of the massive increase in the price of buildings, space and so on these costs have been carried forward into our inflation rate. This is apart from depriving many people in that building industry of employment because of the way money has been wasted that could otherwise have gone into productive employment and activity. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee, of which Senator Tate is Chairman and Senator Cooney and I are members, suggested: . . . . it may not be considered appropriate for the Parliament to pass a law depriving a particular organisation of the right to participate in the Federal industrial relations system and depriving the members of that organisation of the right to participate in that system except through other registered organisations. In depriving the organisation and its members of this right the Bill goes to the heart of the rationale for the existence of industrial organisations. In the view of the Committee, therefore, the Bill may be said to trespass both on the right of freedom of association and on the right to organise. While the Federation will retain the right to exist as a non-registered organisation and to organise outside the confines of the Federal industrial system, it will be deprived of its rationale for existence, namely the right to participate in the Federal industrial relations system. It seems to me that we are providing in this legislation, as we provided in the last legislation, clear opportunities for the BLF to take this matter to the High Court of Australia, for example, in terms of constitutional propriety and the conflict between international conventions. Certainly, if we pass the Bill of Rights within a reasonable period it will enable the BLF to proceed on the basis that this legislation is in clear conflict with the Bill of Rights, unless the Government recognises that the Bill of Rights is a nonsense legislation and should be withdrawn, or else the courts hold that the Bill of Rights is the sort of nonsense legislation that we believe it to be and tend to ignore it. Nonetheless, we have a situation in which, because of incompetence and indolence-I hope for no other more serious motive-the Government has allowed the BLF to proceed to a state at which even this Government has had to get off its tail and do something dramatic and sudden to bring to an end this thuggery. I, and I think almost every member of this House at least on this side-I am not sure how many honourable senators on the other side-are certainly of the view that the BLF should be deregistered. It is a shame that the rules of the Australian Labor Party on the other side of the House do not allow its members to express their views on such a matter as this. Of course, within our Party, we have the right to express a conscience view. If the democratic processes that exist within our Party existed within the Australian Labor Party it interests me to speculate on how many honourable senators opposite would in fact vote against this legislation. Senator Elstob —Try us out. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —It would be interesting to see the consequences if any honourable senator opposite had the stomach to call for a division. There is no way that I will call for a division because I am in favour of deregistering the BLF. I think that the way the government is going about it is incompetent, stupid and the result of a serious mistake; that would be the most polite thing to say about it. As I have said, at this stage I cannot impute any more serious motives to the Government because I do not have any evidence to do so. But it is intriguing to me that, in the face of so much evidence of BLF misbehaviour and thuggery, this Government has taken so long to take action. It is polite of me to regard this as incompetence on the part of the Government rather than anything more sinister. As I have said, I wish only that members of the Government had the capacity within their Party rules to express their views on this matter. It is interesting that, if two or three members of our Party express some disagreement with the Party's policy on a particular matter, it becomes page 1 lead material in the media. Yet something like 30 members, as I understand it, of the Labor Caucus are violently opposed to this legislation. The sort of cover that that kind of break has been given in the media has been utterly minimal. Obviously, at best it is simply curious and at worst disgraceful that, firstly, these kinds of double standards should exist in the media but, secondly, that this Government should, by threat of sacking, force its members who do not agree with this legislation to vote for something in which they do not believe. This underlines a basic difference between the two major political parties in this chamber. I note that the Australian Democrats not only often split but appear to take different positions in almost a majority of cases. This Bill is a very serious one. It is one that the Government is clearly embarrassed about for a whole range of reasons. It is one that demonstrates both the Government's incompetence and a clear split within the Party on this matter. Senator Elstob —Rubbish! Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Senator Elstob says that that is rubbish. Will he deny reports that 30 of his colleagues-- Senator Elstob —Just good debate within the Party; that is all-just fair and honest debate. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —The honour- able senator is saying that as a result of that fair and honest debate everyone then became of a like mind. Senator Elstob —Majority decisions rule, and that is how it should be. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Exactly! In our Party everyone has an individual right. In our Party we have procedures under which the human rights of every individual are paramount. In the Labor Party the rights of the group dominate over the rights of the individual to the extent that no one in that party, if he wants to remain a member of the Party, will have the capacity to vote against this Bill, no matter how fervently he opposes it. That is significant and is one of the most dramatic examples of how the Labor Party, when forced into corners, requires that people support the Party even on matters of major conscience, which this matter is for many people. Senator Elstob —No, it isn't. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I suggest that Senator Elstob ask some of his colleagues, to whom I have been talking and who have spoken freely and properly to me on this matter, and see whether they regard it as something of major significance. This legislation is a bad bit of law. It comes from an incompetent Government. However, there is probably no alternative at the moment to proceeding along these lines if we want-as I certainly want-to see the group of thugs who run the BLF lose their jobs and this union deregistered. Because of the Government's disgraceful withdrawal of proceedings three years ago and its incompetent delay until last August in bringing forward legislation which now does not work, we have no option but to accept this legislation. All I can hope is that in the inevitable challenge in the courts the Government is supported by the courts and deregistration proceeds. It is in Australia's best interests that it do so. It is further in Australia's best interests that the union be deregistered for 10 years. I will support the amendment. Senator McKIERNAN(Western Australia)(10.17) —I am certainly not going to use all the time allocated to me in this debate on the Builders Labourers' Federation (Cancellation of Registration) Bill 1986 and the Builders Labourers' Federation (Cancellation of Registration-Consequential Provisions) Bill 1986, but I will use a short period of it to illustrate a number of points and perhaps answer some of the questions Senator Michael Baume has been posing about the procedures within the Australian Labor Party of which I am a member. I make the point in opening that I take no joy whatsoever in standing here today as a senator for Western Australia and supporting the deregistering of a trade union. I have no joy, as a trade unionist for many years, in taking this course of action. But I am, as was said by Senator Baume who was supported by Senator Elstob, locked into a Caucus decision to do so. I am particularly perturbed at supporting this Caucus decision because it was made on the same day as the Australian Labor Party, a party founded on the trade union movement, took a decision to give a $120m subsidy to the banking sector-four banks of the wealthiest banking sector in the world. We also took that Caucus decision to the strains of some `crying in your beer' music, or country music, from the farmers who were outside the Parliament protesting about what they perceive as their ills and how they are upset in society at the moment. In saying that I have some sympathy for the farmers. We took the decision. People have been disadvantaged by the farmers in a whole number of areas. They blockaded the airport, the Treasury building, Parliament House and the car pool, using tactics they allegedly learned from the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Builders Labourers Federation and other unions. They did all this on fuel subsidised by a Federal Labor Government which at the same time has taken the decision to deregister a union. I am torn because of my opposition within the Caucus committee which made the decision on the deregistration and my opposition within Caucus itself. I opposed the decision in both places. But I will vote in support of the legislation because I will follow the procedures I accepted when I joined the Australian Labor Party. I am also torn in what could be perceived to be my alleged support of the Builders Labourers Federation because of my membership of the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union and, in turn, its membership of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Neither my union at a national level nor the ACTU is supporting the Builders Labourers Federation in its current tussle over registration. So I have a number of conflicts, the final resolution of which is that I will support the procedures followed in my party, although I have expressed some disquiet about those procedures as they operate and about what we are doing. I want to say a few words about the Builders Labourers Federation. Builders labourers work in an industry which is rough, tough, brutal and dangerous. Those involved in it have an uncertain future. The builders labourers, the ordinary workers on the job who carry the hod for the brickie and do many other jobs, used to be at the bottom of the whole pile. They were really down at the bottom of the pile. Senator Elstob —They were slaves in that industry. Senator McKIERNAN —They were slaves, and they were used and abused in that industry, not only by the employers, the managers and the foremen but also-I am loath to say-by some of the tradesmen. The Builders Labourers Federation has done a tremendous job in giving some esteem to those very fine people, many of whom would be migrants. Many of them were poorly educated. Big numbers of them did not have a command of the English language and, therefore, were vulnerable to being kicked around. Through the actions of the union, the industry in total-tradesmen as well as labourers have benefited-is now a much safer and more secure industry in which to work. Although there were some problems in the collection of statistics some years ago, they prove that the union, through its actions, has ensured that there has been some degree of redistribution of wealth and that the labourers, who were right down on the bottom rungs of the industry, often working for a contractor or on a contract that had been sub-let, eight, 10, 12 or 15 times, with each sub-contractor taking a piece of the action, a piece of the cake, as the contract proceeded, now have a reasonable wage in most cases. They have some degree of security of employment. The union has to be commended for that. I am not going to seek to answer all the allegations regarding thuggery, criminals and others of ill-repute who might operate within the Builders Labourers Federation. I have no doubt that the Builders Labourers Federation, like any other group in our community, has criminal elements involved in its midst. There are thugs on both sides of industry. It takes two to tango. But what has often been overlooked, not only by parliamentarians or politicians at a State and Federal level but also by other trade unionists, by the media and by commentators, is the fact that the Builders Labourers Federation has many fine human beings involved in it-people with compassion, people who care and people who have dedicated their lives to the welfare of their fellow workers. I know a large number of people who work within the Builders Labourers Federation-people who work on the job as labourers, people who are shop stewards and officials of the union. I do not say that I agree with everything they do or have done from time to time, but I understand that sometimes they have seen the need to take the actions they have thought necessary to redress a wrong. In the vast majority of cases they have done so not for self-benefit or self-indulgence but on behalf of their fellow workers in the industry. That point has been overlooked. When labels are being cast around very freely in the debate surrounding this legislation and the actions of the Builders Labourers Federation, too often the vast number of people who have dedicated their lives to the union have been given the same label and their contribution has been overlooked. People going to large cities such as Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and even Perth see many fine old buildings that have been protected and preserved for future generations through the actions of the Builders Labourers Federation. Collectively, we on both sides of the chamber and society owe a debt of gratitude that cannot be repaid. One final point on which Senator Cooney will probably enlarge is that of the amendments to the three-year provision before application for reregistration can be made-by the Australian Democrats amendment to five years and by the coalition amendment to ten years. This small point shows a lack of understanding and appreciation of what is involved in industrial relations and the Conciliation and Arbitration Act if they need to put forward such amendments. Perhaps people on the other side do not understand what the Government is doing in putting a three-year clause in the Bill, in the sense that they are not aware-if they were they would not have put forward the amendments-that the three-year clause means that there cannot be even an application for reregistration in that time. On the last occasion on which the builders labourers were deregistered in the 1970s and reapplied for registration, they had the support of the Government, other unions and employers. In the present frame of mind it is very unlikely that if an application for reregistration were made by the builders labourers they would get the support of government, unions or employers. In the 1970s, even with all their support, it took the builders labourers 18 months to have their reregistration processed. If things turn out the same way-I am accepting that the Bill will go through because I, like my colleagues on this side of the House, will support it-it will be at least three years before an application is made. If opposition to the BLF continues it will take a lot more than 18 months for such a reregistration to take place. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(10.27) —The Builders Labourers' Federation (Cancellation of Registration) Bill and the Builders Labourers' Federation (Cancellation of Registration-Consequential Provisions) Bill basically seek to bring about the cancellation of the registration of the Builders Labourers Federation and to deal consequentially with that cancellation. The matter before the Parliament arises from an application by the Federal Government on 6 September last year to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to declare that the long history of unlawful actions of that trade union put it beyond the terms of behaviour which would justify continued registration. On 4 April the Full Bench concluded that that was so. I simply read an extract which says: It has been established beyond question that the Builders Labourers Federation has rejected the standards of behaviour accepted by most trade unions in Australia. The Federation has no standards as that word is commonly understood, but reacts to events according to the view taken at the time by the Federal Management Committee. Instead of a rational policy designed to advance the interests of the members, the Federal Management Committee is addicted to slogans. I point out that the legislation before the Senate is very radical. I find no joy in its necessity. Rather than its being a pattern for the future, I hope that we will find ways of remediation and prevention which do not regard it as being an essential battering ram. We ought to regard it as being necessary at the moment and the only available weapon to use to deal with an extremity. We ought to look to the trade union movement to prevent the emergence in future of such extremities. I find considerable sympathy with many of the comments made today by Senator Tate. I hope that, whilst we all come to the conclusion that we must, of necessity, support this legislation, we will all have a very great regard for the reasons that this has happened, the failure of the Australian community to prevent this kind of happening in the past and the need in the future for prophylaxis and remediation. That is basically why I speak in this debate today. If anyone believes after this legislation is passed that this matter is over, that person fails to understand the enormous consequences of what has been triggered. In my time in the Fraser Government we were inclined to take this path. I do not seek in any way to establish an argument or tribal war between the parties on the opposite sides of the chamber. At that time it was clear that the Australian Labor Party would not support us and the trade union movement would not support us, and many employers expressed an unwillingness to come forward. We have been through this agony. I come to the essential point. We are engaged in an extreme action. In some ways I agree with what Senator McKiernan said. I would be the first to pay tribute to the magnificent struggle of the trade union movement over the decades. I am an avid student of the history of the emergence of trade unionism, of the English guild system which emerged to protect the skills and working conditions of its members and, from that, the development of crafts. I am an avid supporter of the principle of true and authentic industrial trade unionism. I am a total opponent of political trade unionism and militant civil war as a means of achieving goals. When looking at this situation let us in this chamber not have the elements of a tribal war. A fundamental fallacy has created the situation and the extremism that exists today. All of us are to blame-the whole Australian community, Liberal, Labor, boss and worker. We are now, almost unique in the world, peddling an industrial revolution belief that one can succeed against the other in an industrial war. We are being licked hollow, if I may use an Australianism, by countries costing us out of world markets not because their employees receive lower pay-they don't in Japan-and not by lower standards of work, but because they understand that employer and employee interests are identical. If ever a lesson is to come out of this brutality, because we are engaged in dealing with a brutality, it is to get back to the fundamentals of what has caused it. We are facing an inevitable decline. It has been caused attitudinally because we have failed to understand that other countries are working to increase productivity-boss and worker working together-because, unlike the pernicious doctrines peddled in Australia, they know that their interests are identical. Again, I am an avid student of the arbitration system. Indeed, it was governments of my political faith that established the arbitration system. It is well worth understanding in this silly civil war on trade unionism that governments of my faith put into legislation the power of industrial trade unionism to flex its muscles to get better benefits for workers. Anyone who follows history from 1901 onwards, through the time of Mr Justice Higgins and the `Harvester' case, will see that the Liberal view has been that there ought to be an orderly way to establish living conditions, there ought to be a civilised way of resolving conflicts. Two things should emerge. Fundamentally there is a need to establish a minimum wage below which no one can be exploited and within that a need to establish margins for skill so that skill can be rewarded. Senator McKiernan talked about the need for labourers to share. One of the dangers in that, and I commend the principle, is that the mob-and I do not use that word in a derogatory sense, but in the numbers game, because there are far more unskilled than skilled-in the industrial unions swamp the skilled. The margins for skill have diminished. We have fought in a brutalised way. What I basically want to say today is that this matter will not be solved in future by saying: `Let us do it again'. If honourable senators think this is the only case, let me read the absolutely ugly words from the Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. Senator McKiernan said, and I accept it, that there are thugs, villains and criminals in every union as there are probably in every industry. That is just something we must accept. The Royal Commissioner stated: The Union has attracted to its ranks in large numbers men who have been convicted of, and who continue to commit, serious crimes. They treat the law with contempt, and are scornful of its punishments. They treat law enforcement agencies as their enemies. They are motivated by greed and are not controlled by any consideration for their victims. The only limitation they impose on themselves is that generated by the fear of physical harm should they disobey their group's instructions and directions. Violence is the means by which they control the members of their group. They do not hesitate to kill. They care not who takes the public offices of their union so long as the encumbent obeys their dictates, as all office holders do. They are careless of their reputation, glorying in its infamy, and by that reputation attracting employment by wealthy people outside their ranks who stoop to use their criminal prowess to achieve their own questionable ends. No Australian could take any pride in that. If, of necessity, a union must cater for those who, having served their time in prison, must get a job, I understand that and sympathise. Those people, having paid their penalty, deserve to be good Australians and be treated as such. But that report in itself condemns not only that union but also the whole concept of Australia; it condemns not just the Australian Council of Trade Unions but every Australian looking at the trade union movement. I come to the fundamentals. Why has this happened? It has happened because a union has been able to persuade its members that their interests can be increased by using industrial thuggery against their employers. I am not going to paint the employers as being innocent in this situation. No industrial trade union can exist in future in Australia, and Australian living standards will be destroyed, if beyond this day we allow it to be peddled around Australia that any one group of Australians can succeed by belting the others, by scoring off the others. If there is an ugly concept in Australia today it is the stupid belief that has gone on since the Industrial Revolution that somehow or other we can up our living standards and increase our amenities by taking it out of the hides of others, that somehow or other we can stand up an airline on a basic pretext which is never the one that is important because all the negotiations are done behind the scenes and that that does not matter. Every time we seek to score we diminish not only our quality as persons-I include myself-but also the capacity of Australia and Australians to lift themselves up economically and as human beings. What has happened? The Labor Party more than anybody has peddled this belief. I do not want to be divisive in what I say. I hope that nothing I have said so far is divisive. The Labor Party has sought to make its gains by taking unto itself a pretended monopoly of the trade union movement and saying: `We are here to protect you against the bosses. The trade union movement must stick to us because the bosses are your enemy'. It has painted the other side of politics as somehow or other supporting the bosses by saying that the trade union movement is its enemy. I cannot think of any more crass nonsense than this kind of warfare. I pay tribute to Senator Tate who is in the chamber. One does not solve these problems in the long run by radical acts of Parliament. One solves them by changing attitudes of mind. The real trouble in the industrial jungle in Australia is attitudinal. The real trouble is the absolutely outrageously wrong belief that the way to get gains is to develop a commando raid on the boss. Lest anybody thinks that I am siding with the boss I say that the most dangerously foolish decision that was ever made in Australia was made by the employer groups when they decided that they would get together and pay the same standard margin to the most skillful of their people as to the least skillful. The day they did that-employer solidarity-was the day they took all incentive out of industry and all incentive out of the individual to strive to enable himself to get on with the business of productivity. We have to understand that what is necessary in Australia is to encourage people to develop their talents, to pursue excellence. We have two great messages for the generations ahead of us. One is to work on the whole question of peace and disarmament because unless there is peace and justice in this world there will be no future generations. Running parallel with that is that we have to provide an economic atmosphere in Australia in which our young can get jobs of their choice, jobs that require skill, so that Australian living standards can grow. More importantly, we have to develop wealth so that we can distribute it amongst the underprivileged amongst us. The economic situation in Australia is this: Our costs of production are too high for us sell our goods overseas and for us to maintain manufacturing and service industries to employ our people. I read today that unemployment amongst the young is rising again; that there are fewer jobs in manufacturing industry and that the brutality of this message is still entrenched in our economy. Unless we can say to employee, employers and governments: `Stop this civil war. Stop this strife. Get together and understand the fundamental problem which is that if you work together to increase productivity you do not put your real wages or your living conditions under any threat at all. Indeed you enhance them'. If we can increase productivity, and everybody can, 5 or 10 per cent in whatever we do, we will be able to build a manufacturing industry again, to export, employ our young and therefore to have a civilised community. That is fundamental to this Bill because I know of nothing that has destroyed job opportunities and productivity more than the industrial warfare that has gone on on both sides. For a very short time of my own career I did a little industrial advocacy. I saw the enormous nonsense that went on, how the dialogue between boss and worker was taken from the factory or office floor and put into institutionalised, polarised conflict. They were problems that ought have been solved a different way. We have polarised conflict. One has to look only at the enormous hours and days that industrial advocates spend in courts, reaping huge amounts of money and widening the gap of disputes when the only place the dispute can be solved in the end is on the factory floor. I make very clear my views about the loosening up of the labour market. I understand fundamentally that we must always maintain a minimum wage and that that minimum wage must be as high as the country can stand. I insist that there must be proper margins for skill and that in no way must numbers of unskilled be able simply to wipe out the ability of the skilled to gain. The unskilled cannot gain by picking up an extra dollar or two against the skilled. Let me make that clear. The unskilled, like everybody else, have sons and daughters who need jobs. Unless we can enhance skill, unless we can enhance productivity in this country, everybody will suffer. The very fight of the unskilled in the big industrial unions to swamp the others has cut their own throats. Australia is engaged in a massive civil war of destruction. No other economic thing matters in Australia compared with this one fundamental point: We have a war in office and factory, and we have institutionalised it in arbitration far beyond what was ever envisaged before. Because we have done that both sides of politics, however inadvertently or otherwise, have peddled the absolutely ugly and false doctrine that the one can score off the other. The Builders Labourers Federation is to have its registration cancelled today because it has pursued industrial thuggery, it has pursued a civil war against the people of Australia and it has pursued duress, blackmail, bribery and every kind of corruption. Its members have gone along with that in the completely false belief that it would benefit them. Yes, workers can take a quick quid for the moment but they cannot score in the long run. If they win today they lose tomorrow because there will be another civil war involving another trade union, firmly entrenched in its view and believing it can score. I have risen today basically to say that of course I will support this measure. I will look with enormous interest at how the Federation shall progress as a deregistered, unincorporated, voluntary body passing largely out of the Federal jurisdiction into State jurisdictions which I suspect will remain mute and inert. I look toward a trade union with immense funds and immense capacities, and I look also to a trade union movement which on the one hand authentically has the right to attract numbers but on the other hand has in the past indulged in raiding parties. After all, one of the very bedevilments of the trade union movement has been an inability to solve demarcation disputes. I would think that the price Australia has paid for demarcation disputes within the trade union movement has been extraordinarily high. I have watched all this; I have watched the raiding parties over the years. It will not be an easy journey over the weeks and months ahead. We will see again evidence of illegalities, of thuggery and of everything else. This is not the only union that has got a mote in its eye. Let me pause to say this: I forget the number of trade unions in Australia, but it is in excess of 300. Those of us who indulge in union bashing do a serious disservice to the people of Australia. Senator Georges —What have you been doing? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I challenge Senator Georges now to show me in Hansard or anywhere else any word that I have ever said in this place or anywhere that could be considered as union bashing. I also challenge him, while he is on that journey, to produce all those words with which, like today, I have paid tribute to the trade union movement and to the arbitration movement and have attempted to get to the core of the situation. It is not the clever thing to invoke the tribal war as he is doing. He should keep the tribal war for when he is out in the streets of Brisbane. We are trying to get to the bottom of a serious matter, and the serious matter that I am raising today-I raise it with all the personal force I can as John Carrick and as a Liberal-is that all of us have created this grave injustice that exists today. We have all done that by creating and enhancing the tribal war; we in this place having done that no less than any others at all. I repeat that the answer to this is not to wait again for another problem and hit it on the head; it is to understand the whole core of things and get out and tell the people of Australia that they cannot fight each other. Let me put simply what ought to be asked of the people of Australia: What does a worker on the factory or office floor want? He wants first of all to get a living wage the real purchasing power of which will increase with time so that he can buy more goods and services, and those goods and services should improve in quality not just quantity. So he wants goods and services as cheap as possible and with as much quality as possible. `Oh', say those who oppose that kind of view, `that is antipathetic to the boss'. Hold on-what does the boss want? He wants to manufacture goods and services of as high a quality as possible in as great a quantity as possible for as low a cost as possible and to sell them to the biggest market. Where is that market? The distortion that has been taught in this civil war of ours is a result of the failure to understand that 90 per cent of the market is made up by the ordinary factory and office worker, by the ordinary trade unionist. Indeed the client of the boss is the ordinary trade unionist. They have absolutely identical interests. I rose to say this with the force I could, not just because we are debating this Bill-it might sound like loud words of rhetoric-but because I believe that, unless this message is told to the people of Australia, day in, day out and week in, week out for the years ahead the living standards of the people of Australia will fall and we will go on using the ugliest of the nineteenth century industrial situation instead of getting on to increased productivity and a higher understanding of human beings. I know nothing that so creates an ugly situation in Australia as the false concept that there is an authentic conflict or polarisation of interests between boss and worker. I know, and it is best that the Australian people know, that their interests are identical. In Japan-where now the cost of maintaining a worker all up is higher than in Australia, so we cannot say we are being beaten by cheap wages-what does a worker do when he goes on strike? He puts on a black armband, stays on the job and works harder. What is he doing? He is registering his protest and at the same time he is saying: `I understand that if I seek to take it out on the boss, I am taking it out on myself'. He does a sensible thing. Senator Georges —Oh no! Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —`Oh no' says Senator Georges. Senator Georges —What the employer in Japan does is to go to South Korea or somewhere else to get cheap labour. Don't give us all that rubbish. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I shall be delighted if Senator Georges rises in his place in due course and debates this matter. I have the greatest admiration for him in his willingness to handle issues but he cannot get away from the fundamental situation. I put it to him that it is wrong to define, develop and exacerbate the concept that there is a polarisation, a complete antipathy of interest, between boss and worker. The solution of this Bill in the long run is that it is right to preach the virtue of co-operation, the virtue of higher real wages, and the virtue of the entrenchment of margins for skill and, wherever possible, for disputes to be sorted out on the factory floor. If that is done, it will be the reason why we shall never see another piece of legislation like this again. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(10.56) —I feel somewhat daunted following the excellent speech by Senator Sir John Carrick. Of course, I disagree with his political philosophies as no doubt he disagrees with mine, but the general thrust of his remarks should be noted by this Parliament, because of the precedents being created by the Builders Labourers' Federation (Cancellation of Registration) Bill. What in effect he was saying was that this is a most extraordinary measure for this Parliament to be enacting and that it should be isolated, quarantined, and never be used again. That also came through the remarks of Senator Michael Baume, although not as specifically. Senator Siddons was also of that mind, although the effect of his remarks was perhaps not what he intended at one stage when he mentioned that the Transport Workers Union of Australia was in his view committing industrial mayhem. It may well have been interpreted from his speech that he was inviting this Parliament to use the same methods against that union that it is against the Builders Labourers Federation. Senator Siddons —No, that was not my intention. Senator COONEY —I am glad to hear that Senator Siddons did not intend that to be so. Serious problems are involved in this area and I hope that I will not bore the Senate too greatly by going into some of the technical aspects. I begin at section 143 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, which reads: Any organisation or person interested, the Minister or the Registrar, may apply to the Court for an order directing the cancellation of the registration of an organisation . . . That is a function given to the court and is clearly a judicial function. If one looks at the Constitution of this country, under which we have now lived for many years and which in recent days has been highly praised in this chamber, one sees that section 71 reads: The judicial power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Supreme Court, to be called the High Court of Australia, and in such other federal courts as the parliament creates, and in such other courts as it invests with federal jurisdiction. The High Court shall consist of a Chief Justice, and so many other Justices, not less than two, as the Parliament prescribes. It may be hereafter that the deregistration of this union by way of an Act of Parliament will be looked upon as some sort of administrative act-that because the Parliament can create organisations, it can unmake them. Whether that is so, the fact remains that the deregistration of a union, whether an administrative function or not, can certainly also be a judicial function as is evidenced by section 143 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. That is a matter of grave concern for this Parliament, particularly when the Constitution provides for a separation of powers. I want now to talk in general terms. The form of the Bill that is now before us is worth reading because it is such a small one. It reads: Whereas the Parliament considers that it is desirable, in the interest of preserving the system of conciliation and arbitration for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes extending beyond the limits of any one State, to cancel the registration of The Australian Building Construction Employees' and Builders Labourers' Federation under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904: It goes on: The registration of The Australian Building Construction Employees' and Builders Labourers' Federation under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 is, by force of this section, cancelled. There is no preamble to the Bill which gives reason, evidence or argument as to why it should be cancelled. Placitum (xxxv) of section 51 of the Constitution deals with the settlement of industrial disputes beyond any one State. Placitum (xiii) of section 51 provides that whereas Parliament considers that it is appropriate for the proper procedures in banking and the proper running of the banking system of Australia, such and such a bank could be dissolved, and it is by force of that provision dissolved. Therefore, the precedent is set not only in terms of the industrial relations power of the Commonwealth, but in reference to any power of the Commonwealth. That matter should give us concern. It is comparable to the Bill of Attainder where Parliament, simply through the very Act itself, condemned somebody to death, or to what used to be called the Bills of pains and penalty which in the same way imposed other penalties. It is a matter that should be looked at not simply in terms of its effect upon the industrial relations power of the Commonwealth but in terms of the wider power given to this Parliament. This is why it is heartening that contributors to this debate have expressed their concern. It is apparent that there is great concern about this legislation, as no doubt there was great concern in Cabinet. It is right and proper that that should be the case. The process of law should apply across the board. It is easy enough to apply the process of law to the beautiful, the admired and the attractive. The real test comes as to whether it can be applied to the ugly, the terrible and the unattractive. Senator Tate —Senator Lewis. Senator COONEY —No, Senator Lewis has some very attractive features! After a year in this place I have come to the view that the ability of parliamentarians is much higher than the media and public recognise. Therefore, when this sort of Bill is brought before the House consideration must be given to the fact that it has been brought before it by people of high integrity, people who are sensible, and that therefore great regard should be paid to it. At the same time when one looks at the radical nature of the Bill-as Senator Sir John Carrick said, it is unique, and other speakers may be able to tell whether it is in fact unique-and at the ramifications of the Bill, not simply in terms of the industrial relations powers of the Commonwealth but all the powers, one must pause and consider whether the better way to proceed, if at all possible, is by way of judicial process. I think it is important to put on the record, as people already have put on the record, the concern that all parliamentarians from the various parties have had about this matter forming, as I said before, a precedent for the future. Senator Michael Baume spoke about the solidarity of Caucus. He said that members of the Liberal Party of Australia have a right to express views, and that may well be so. They have certainly shown over the years a commendable ability to agree in this chamber. I do not wish to go into tribal warfare about this, except to say that when one looks at the procedures, the structures and the instruments by which political power is carried on one finds that it is necessary, given the nature of Government these days, to create an ability for an Executive to be able to proceed on the assurance that it will be able to govern securely. It is proper, therefore, that an Executive should come into parliament with confidence, knowing that the Party from which it is drawn will support it. Indeed, I think that is an approach that is taken right across the board, as is demonstrated, in contrast to what the theory might be, by the evidence that the Executives of both parties are able to do this. Whether that is good in all situations is another matter but certainly it is the way the present system runs. There have been allegations made about a union, the people in it and their reputations. As the Bills are drawn and have come before the Parliament, there is no evidence on the basis of which Parliament is able to exercise what is in effect, a judicial function. That is a matter which Senator Tate touched upon and which I will not repeat. I rose simply to express those thoughts so that when people come to read Hansard and look at this period in times hereafter it will not appear that this radical procedure, as Senator Sir John Carrick properly called it, was taken lightly but that there were people on all sides of the House who, as parliamentarians, were concerned about the procedures adopted and about Executive power, and that this quite historic and unique debate was one which concerned high issues, that people were concerned about those high issues and that these decisions were not taken without considerable anguish. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(11.08) —We are debating the Builders Labourers' Federation (Cancellation of Registration) Bill 1986 cognately with the Builders Labourers' Federation (Cancellation of Registration-Consequential Provisions) Bill 1986 because one Bill is consequential upon the other. While the Labor Government would have us believe that this legislation is designed to remove the Builders Labourers Federation from the industrial scene, the truth of the matter can be found elsewhere. The truth, of course, is that the BLF will still be able to function and negotiate with employers, employees and other unions, provided that the employers and the other unions are prepared to negotiate with it. The history of this union is such that that is highly probable. Senator Georges —You are quite right. The whole situation is impossible and this legislation is a waste of time. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —It is not a waste of time. Frankly, I question the motives, but I do not question the effect. In my view, the effect will be negligible. I do not know whether it is a sop to the Left or it is inadequate legislation by design or ineptitude. The truth of the matter is that under this legislation the BLF will continue to function in the way it has in the past. The only deprivation it will suffer is that it will no longer be a body recognised by and able to appear before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. That, to me, is the simple limitation. It ought not to be forgotten that the legislation before us in no way seeks to deal with the $4.5m to $5m of assets that the union presently has. One accepts that that is primarily a State matter, but the Federal Government does have jurisdiction over the Australian Capital Territory and, if it was serious about the distribution of those funds back to union members, it could provide legislation accordingly. It ought not to be forgotten that this union has a capacity-- Senator Georges —That would be a waste of time. Possibly the funds are somewhere else now-the State branches. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Senator Georges said, to take up his interjection, that the funds are elsewhere. Obviously, they have been spirited away. I understand that Norm Gallagher has been walking around with a big handbag with $1.5m in cash in it. I am sure he is not going off to some exotic-- Senator Georges —You would be doing the same if you were under the same threat. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I would not be conducting, in such a capricious and irresponsible way, the handling of funds of a union of that type, but of course, I would not be in a union of that type. It ought to be remembered that this union is subject to receipts by way of contributions of something like $6m a year. That makes it a pretty potent and pretty powerful union. Unions are not necessarily strong by virtue of their numbers; they are strong by virtue of their revenue and the strategic position they have in the work force. More importantly, there has been no indication from the Federal Government that it intends to enter into discussions or negotiations with the State Government for complementary legislation to be introduced for the distribution by the States for the funds of the various State branches of the union. Senator Georges —That will take 10 years to achieve. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —That will never be done. As somebody said the other day, it is a wonder we ever got to federation. I might say that it was no thanks to Western Australia. It was only the gold miners who came across from Victoria who carried the day. The goldfield vote in Western Australia got us into federation, thanks to Victorians. Senator Georges —We cannot even get a Bill of Rights through this place. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I am not sorry about that, I must say to Senator Georges. As a result of those assets and enormous receipts, the union will be able to flourish and grow. Perhaps the clearest indication of the Government's lack of commitment to the demise of the BLF can be found in the provisions that allow for its resuscitation and its resurrection in three years time. For the time being, and I am not sure that is going to happen, if it seeks to be dormant and to retain its membership and its finances, it can come back in three years time in the same clothes with the same union leaders, conduct itself in the same way, indulge itself in the same activities and create havoc in the community, as it has done for the last 10 years. To me that is an absurd caveat to place upon this legislation. Perhaps we ought to look at the history of the union. It was first deregistered in 1974 for a period of two years-not three years-and for what reasons? The same reasons as it is again being deregistered. For the reasons, deregistration proceedings were undertaken in 1981 by the Honourable Andrew Peacock, the then Minister for Industrial Relations in the Fraser Government. For the same reasons, legislation was introduced in 1985 to commence proceedings as a result of a determination of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Yet I still do not understand-no doubt Senator Georges will be able to explain to me later-the deficiencies and the defects in that legislation which prevent the deregistration axiomatic upon the decision of the Arbitration Commission. Senator Georges —It is impossible to legislate in this field. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Legislation was passed. Was the legislation defective? Was the Government incompetent or did it not have the will? Why do we have this piece of legislation when the last piece of legislation tells us that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations can make application before the courts for deregistration. Senator Georges —You would have to be stupid; that is why. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Senator Georges says that the Government is stupid. Senator Georges —I said that we are all stupid. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I am sure that on your side, Senator, that is probably a pretty universal view. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Jones) —Order! Senator Crichton-Browne, will you pass your remarks through the Chair instead of holding a private conversation with Senator Georges. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I always find conversations with Senator Georges both stimulating and rewarding. I remind the Senate of what the deregistration proceedings of 1974 found. It was: The evidence established that in the years 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973 and 1974, the organisation by its officers, organisers, delegates and representatives has continually called stoppages of work and strikes, and often without providing management with any prior opportunity for discussing claims made and often making fresh on-the-spot claims as soon as claims which had been made were granted. It has held up jobs by banning overtime, by placing bans on jobs, by preventing work being done, by preventing equipment-for example cranes-from being used and by expanding bans from one building job to other building jobs controlled and operated by the same building contractor, such expansion being characterised by the president of the organisation as `blowing them sky-high'. It has disregarded the process of conciliation and arbitration, either by ignoring it altogether, or refusing to accept decisions made or rulings given or denying agreements made in the course of the process, or repudiating them as soon as they were made and claiming that they were not binding. Even where claims were made which were novel in the industry, rather than go to arbitration on them the organisation has completely closed down the site and the job with a view to forcing the building contractor to meet the claim. Leaders of the organisation have jeered at the notion of obeying the law, awards and agreements, and the organisation has openly flouted all three. I continue with the findings: Many of the stoppages and strikes it has brought about have lasted for months and a number have continued indefinitely and are still current. Large industrial jobs have been held up for lengthy periods, causing losses amounting in all to millions of dollars, which hardly brings about industrial goodwill. Jobs have been left in an unsafe state so that they are likely to collapse, which likewise does not promote goodwill in industry. This document goes on to explain all the activities which are still being undertaken. It talks about attempts which have been made: . . . to make employers dismiss men whom they did not wish to dismiss, but who were not satisfactory to the organisation, to make them accept labour provided by the organisation, and on the organisation's terms, instead of choosing their employees and when they have chosen them continuing to employ them. The organisation has insisted on the reinstatement of men dismissed for good cause, including disobedience and irresponsibility, and pay has been demanded for men on strike and for work which has not been carried out. All these have been conditions of return to work and bans being called off or of stoppages and bans not being placed on a job or part of a job. Men, when compulsorily reinstated through the union's insistence, often cause trouble and can only then be got rid of by management coming to special arrangements with the union to buy them off. They are the sorts of things about which we read in contemporary times. But we are now talking about 1974. The findings continued: There has been intimidation by the respondent- the respondent being the BLF- on job sites on a wholesale basis. The organisation has been guilty of sabotage on these sites and has taken part in mob violence causing destruction on industrial sites and the disruption of industrial projects. When it has suited them, union leaders have led their members in numbers upon invasions of industrial sites, doing considerable damage there and preventing work taking place and occasioning great hostility and bitterness in the industry. On occasions, police have been called upon to deal with the situation which has arisen. The respondents have claimed, of course, that it is not a matter in which the police ought to be involving themselves. So it goes on. It says that attempts at reconciliation and arbitration have failed. The respondents have made it quite clear in respect of settlements that it makes no difference to tell the respondent that statements and agreements it has made and entered into are expected to be honoured; it just simply does not honour them. One could go through this document at length, but I shall not do so other than to tell the Senate that: In addition, it is apparent that the executive officers of the union- and there is no provision in this legislation to prevent the union office-bearers from holding office in the future-- have endeavoured to establish an unreasonable domination of employers and indeed of employees by intimidatory actions, arrogant, vulgar and insulting communications, mass violence to property, and menaces, sometimes in mass, and sometimes terrifying to persons. It gives a particular example of the type of threats that could be expected from the union at that time. It is interesting to note that during this deregistration period, the union flourished. Its membership numbers rose between 1974 and 1976, because that legislation was defective. It was the same type of legislation as we have before us now. It was superficial, and it allowed the union, superficially, to be dormant. But of course, it was not dormant; it carried on regardless, with greater vitality and strength, and greater dominance and greater menace. Senator Georges —Greater solidarity-that is what you are doing at present. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Senator Georges says: `By solidarity'. Senator Georges —Greater solidarity; it was under threat. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —The evidence that has been given so far in the court proceedings is that it is intimidation; solidarity brought about by intimidation. In other words, if a man is not part of a union, he is in big trouble. Let us go a little further. It is interesting to note that during that period, as I say, the union flourished. On 16 July 1976, after a further lengthy hearing, the Industrial Registrar restored the organisation to the register and, in so doing, he said exactly this: The community is entitled to be assured that the BLF accepts the duties and liabilities which accompany the rights and privileges which flow from registration. In my opinion, the BLF has satisfied the heavy onus resting upon an applicant when it applies for registration after having had that registration cancelled by the court. I am satisfied that registration is sought to assist in achieving the primary purposes of the Act: the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes by conciliation and arbitration; and that the Federation will use all its influence to induce its members to accept the outcome of the function of the tribunals created by the Act. A major consideration for the Registrar reregistering the union was a Council resolution unanimously followed on 1 June 1976. It says in part: This application for reregistration is made for the purpose of regaining for the Federation the status of a registered organisation and thereby enabling it to participate fully in the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes by conciliation and, where necessary, by arbitration. It is further desired that there be again available to the Federation the machinery contained in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act for encouragement of the democratic control of registered organisations and the full participation by its members in the affairs of the Federation. It is understood that the privileges which attach to the status of a registered organisation carry with them corresponding duties and responsibilities to further the achievement of the objectives of the Act and, in particular, to utilise the means provided by the Act for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes and fully observe the letter and spirit of awards and agreements made by or under the auspices of the Commission. Such duties also require the officers of an organisation to work to minimise direct industrial action. The Federal Council is accurately aware that failure to discharge such duties and responsibilities or otherwise to give effect to this undertaking could lead to the Federation again being deregistered and so render abortive the time, effort and costs which have been expended by the present application. That is the reason that the union gives for wanting to be reregistered-to give it a chance to be involved in the environment of goodwill, peace, settlement, conciliation and arbitration. No sooner had this reregistration taken place than we saw the real character, the real opening and the real soul of the union movement, and its real intentions. In November 1976, the very same year that the union was reregistered, Mr Gallagher, the General Secretary, told the Federal Council that the Federation `should devise new tactics which will hurt the boss'. Mr Black reiterated those words later and he gave his views on how to deal with the boss. I remind honourable senators that this is in the same year and within months of the BLF being reregistered. Mr Black said: These tactics the delegates have suggested are all designed to disrupt and cause the boss as much loss of production as possible. This is a good thing. They are part of our overall strategy of using guerilla tactics instead of the all-out strike weapon used in the past, where members went out on lengthy strikes. These tactics are designed to hurt the boss in the pocket rather than to hurt ourselves in the pocket. Getting down to basics, what we mean by guerilla tactics is to blind the boss with science. The use of stop-work meetings, 1/2 day stoppages, bans and limitations, the use of the safety code, concrete bans and rumours are all designed to disrupt the boss's production. Mr Black went on to say: I believe, even though the Federation has given guarantees not to break concrete pours to get registered again, we should still make the concrete the main battering ram against the bosses. In November last year at the Federal Council, Gallagher said we should devise new tactics with which to hurt the Boss. He said there was a new ball game now. By this he meant the Federation's argeement not to break concrete pours. That was part of the agreement. This is the BLF's new tactic. Mr Black said: . . . we have to find new ways of struggle and new forms of tactics. By this, we mean for example that we should stop the concrete before it actually is poured. There is no agreement on this. We can have a lightning stoppage, on the job, ask the boss for the $30 site allowance. If he refuses we can tell him we are not pouring concrete today, but possibly the next day. In other words, the spirit of the agreement, the body of the law, its intention, thrust and objectives, were never uppermost in the mind of the BLF. They were hindrances and the BLF was looking for new ways to overcome them. As I have said, it ought to be remembered that this kind of conduct and activity took place immediately following deregistration; it took place immediately following two years of previous deregistration. Need one look further for proof of the real intent of the BLF? Its conduct was such that, in 1981, the Hon. Andrew Peacock, the then responsible Minister, instituted deregistration proceedings with the full support at that time of the building industry. However, upon coming to government the Australian Labor Party withdrew from the deregistration proceedings. This left the employers in a very invidious situation. It left them absolutely high and dry and they, too, subsequently had to withdraw. The Government discontinued its proceedings in February 1984 after the BLF had given a written undertaking, which the Minister accepted in a statement to the court in December 1983. At that time the Master Builders Association declined to accept the offer but subsequently it also withdrew in 1984. But a pre-condition of its withdrawing was the signing of the Building Industry Agreement 1984-86. I will not go through it all but it really very much reflects the hypocritical statement that was made in 1976 when the union was seeking registration. The first part of that agreement states: The intention of the parties is that this agreement is designed to place the maximum emphasis on the peaceful settlement of disputes. The agreement goes on to list a whole range of things but the general thrust of it is that there should be very little unilateral industrial action and there shall be a dispute settling process without direct action. However, the irony is that there was very considerable industrial unrest by the union in April 1984, admittedly following the Minister withdrawing from the proceedings, but prior to the union's withdrawing in July of that year. No sooner had that agreement been signed than the BLF began its guerrilla tactics again. In October, the very month that the agreement was signed, the BLF undertook industrial action for a 36-hour week, completely contrary to the agreement it had made that it would not proceed past a 38-hour week. This was followed by a campaign to increase award wages by 2.6 per cent in spite of the agreement. This was then followed by the Melbourne Cricket Ground light towers demarcation dispute. That, in turn, was followed by the Kurri Kurri dispute, which was followed by the Sydney Police Centre dispute. It should be remembered that all this industrial disruption by the BLF was taking place in 1984, the very same year in which the deregistration proceedings had been withdrawn by the BLF and the BLF had signed its peace agreement. On 4 April 1986, the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission found: The evidence in these proceedings disclosed that during the period 1982-1985, the industrial relations policy which the Federation adopted and applied immediately after being registered in 1976 continued to dominate its activities. This, of course, was the period of the deregistration proceedings, the BLF's subsequent withdrawal and the period after which the union signed its peace agreement. Let me just remind honourable senators very quickly of what that agreement contains in part. It contains a provision for no industrial disruption and no variation to the award; proposed new allowances and any increases in existing allowances will become a commitment only to the extent that they are ratified by the Commission or by the appropriate State tribunal. In December 1983 the Minister accepted that undertaking and we saw in a few months an industrial campaign for a $9 a week increase. This disruption was going on in the very same year in spite of the BLF's previous undertakings. There is a whole litany of activity which time prevents me from quoting but the BLF immediately undertook further guerrilla tactics. Perhaps at this point we ought really to be looking at the activities that the BLF undertakes. There are a whole range of activities that the union undertakes that are designed to provide for the maximum disruption to concrete pouring. It entails walking off the job without notice, demanding that certain employees be employed and that those who are dismissed for quite legitimate reasons be reinstated. These tactics are all of a guerrilla nature and are designed to ensure the maximum discomfort to and dislocation of the industry. Sadly, that is the history of the BLF. There are a whole range of other matters of conduct which I cannot lay my hands on at the moment, but these are the general style activities of the BLF. We ought not to forget the activities in Western Australia, a Labor Government State, where there has been no deregistration. One might well ask why that is so. Of course, the government of the day, led by Premier Burke, receives very considerable support from the BLF as part of its power base. Senator Button —And from the electorate, Senator. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —He gets some support from the electorate. One puts it down to a temporary aberration on the part of the electors. I have no doubt that they will see the light in due course and repent. We will forgive them their sins and, no doubt, they will return the Liberal Party to its proper status and its proper place in the community and, that is, in government. Senator Button —I thought you must have masterminded the Opposition's campaign as it did so well. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I am tempted to respond to the interjection but I will simply say that I thought we did remarkably well. We were doing very badly until I came along and made my modest contribution. I am not ashamed of our result after the polls of previous weeks. But, of course, Mr Burke has declined to indulge himself in the deregistration proceedings; that is the farce of this legislation. If there is no deregistration in the States, it makes this legislation an absolute failure, a eunuch. Quite obviously, all of those who are presently registered under a Federal award will seek registration under a State award. It will be a very cosy little arrangement in Western Australia where Mr Burke will take them unto his bosom and ensure that they are able to continue to conduct themselves in the way that they have been doing, using their guerrilla tactics, creating havoc, causing disruption and distortion throughout the industry. The various employers will be subject to that blackmail because they will have no recourse to the courts. As happened in 1984, the moment the employers take the union to court for deregistration, the Federal Government will withdraw. The employers, who had signed statutory declarations and given verbal commitments, would then be subject to enormous intimidation and disruption as a result of their courage; for their sins they would be singled out. It is no wonder that employers are reluctant to go ahead when they have a weak-kneed vacillating government that will allow such things. This legislation will have absolutely no effect because there is no commitment. If this Government were serious, it would have sought complementary legislation from the States. But it has not; it has not even negotiated with the States for the distribution of the assets of the BLF back to its members. As I said at the outset, there is no prospect that in any way this legislation will change the character, the style or the conduct of the BLF. The BLF continues to negotiate with employers, it continues to negotiate with other unions and it will continue to proceed in the way that it has been doing. The only disadvantage that it now has is that it cannot go before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. But, if it were to take a leaf out of Robert Holmes a Court's book, it would look for a nice compliant union of similar character and just simply take it over. Of course, there is a provision whereby unions can refuse membership, but, if the BLF could find a union, such as the joiners, carpenters and fitters union, whatever its exact description is-- Senator Button —It does not matter from your point of view. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —No, it does not matter. Whatever it is called, the BLF could take it over or amalgamate with it and could carry on under a different name but with the same union leaders. Norm Gallagher could do the same as Robert Holmes a Court; he could do a takeover. He has the assets of his own union and could conduct himself as he is doing now and nothing could stop him. So in my view this legislation is a fraud. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Jones) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(11.38) —I am sorry that Senator Crichton-Browne has been cut short by time because he has made a good case against the Builders Labourers' Federation (Cancellation of Registration) Bill 1985 and the Builders Labourers' Federation (Cancellation of Registration-Consequential Provisions) Bill 1986. He has shown quite forcefully and with quite substantial evidentiary support that this legislation will not be effective. If we pass legislation through this House, we should be certain that it will have some effectiveness. Senator Crichton-Browne —That is right; it should not be a charade or a facade. Senator GEORGES —It is a facade; it is a charade. I recall that we previously passed through this House legislation in connection with the electricity crisis in Queensland. We passed that legislation through this House to accelerate the Federal coverage of that union. Of course, what happened was that it was challenged, which delayed the normal processes of Federal coverage rather than assist them, and the legislation was thrown out by the High Court of Australia. As a result, the 1,000 workers who were so arbitrarily dismissed by the Queensland Government through a variety of means remain dismissed. A substantial number of them are still unemployed and have become unemployable in Queensland because of the actions of that Government in refusing them employment in the only industry in which they have a skill. By the legislation that we passed through here, we assisted in what one could consider to be the greatest betrayal of a group of workers in Australian union and industrial relations history. Surely, we should reflect on that and realise that we cannot by legislation settle an industrial dispute, especially when we have established forums to which we have given the responsibility to act in these matters. I consider this legislation to be an interference. It might be justified if it were successful but it is inevitable that it will fail in reality, as Senator Crichton-Browne pointed out. By interjection, I stirred Senator Sir John Carrick, a man of great passion, to ever greater passion. I was moved to do that but in perhaps the opposite direction that he intended. He is always sincere. He has hopes but they are unreal. In the climate of the work place, the worker appreciates that he has to protect himself, by whatever means available through his union and association, by decision on the floor, from the decision of the employer. Senator Sir John Carrick said that the employer is a person of great integrity-- Senator Sir John Carrick —I did not. I said that there were faults on both sides. Senator GEORGES —Right. I was going to amend that and say that in most cases, which is possibly what he did mean, that is so. Senator Sir John Carrick —I placed the blame on neither side. Senator GEORGES —Well, from what he said I inferred that that was the case. Of course, the situation is that in many cases the employer shows as much loyalty and consideration to his employee as sometimes a general is forced to do, that is, to close his mind to the needs of those over whom he has some supervisional control. The climate in which the worker works in Australia at present is one in which there is a substantial level of irresponsibility on the part of those who control the companies. If anyone wants evidence of that, they can look at what happened yesterday and today when there was a great enhancement of someone's personal wealth through transactions on the Stock Exchange to the disadvantage of everyone employed in that industry. Not one extra bar of steel has been produced by Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd as a result of these massive transactions that will give great wealth to some men. Senator Sir John Carrick spoke of Japan. I say to him that the Japanese worker has a problem. Perhaps by tradition the Japanese worker shows great restraint. But what is the result of that restraint? The Japanese employer is seeking to obtain the cheapest labour possible, in consequence Japanese employers have gone off-shore-that is the popular term-to South Korea, Taiwan and a number of other places to obtain cheap labour against the interest of their workers. That will have an impact in due course. What I object to about this legislation, and Senator Sir John Carrick's approach to it, is that it will do the very opposite of what is intended. Senator Sir John Carrick talked about civil war; he used that term time and again; he used the word `jungle'. This legislation will increase that possibility. Its faults and limitations have been pointed out by others. What we will do with this legislation will be to create in the work place a highly destructive situation which will lead to the erosion of the conciliation and arbitration process. What will happen in the work place? This attempt to deregister the BLF will, as the leaders of the BLF have said, force builders labourers into contract-type arrangements. That is what they have been doing up to this point and that is what we have been complaining about. They are the methods they have used to obtain the best result. So what we are really doing with this legislation is accelerating that process. We are concerned about a jungle in the work place, but if this legislation is passed we are creating another jungle. However, it will not succeed. I have a personal complaint to make about this legislation. As a member of the Australian Labor Party I complain when the Labor Party follows a path to deregister a union. It is doing so in spite of advice that if it once stepped foot upon that path it would have to do all the things a conservative government would need to do and would do. That is what this Labor Government, of which I am a member, is doing at present. It is doing all those things because once it made the first decision it had to take all the initiatives-- Senator Lewis —Ha, ha! Senator GEORGES —That is why there is so much horse-laughing from the Opposition benches. Senator Crichton-Browne —How did you vote, Georgie? Senator GEORGES —Let me develop my thoughts at present. The Labor Government has followed that path. I believe that the Victorian State Labor Government has followed an aggressive path through the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Crabb. It has shown no experience of the work place, no understanding of conciliation and no understanding of the system. It merely has provoked and aggravated the situation rather than seeking a solution other than by legislation which is bound to fail. This Government has followed the same path. I can say only that its actions have been equally pathetic. Once we start along the path of deregistration and want to make it effective in this sort of circumstance we have to take every step to do so. The only way to make this legislation effective is to apply further sanctions. But, if we are to succeed in what we are doing, we can apply further sanctions only of the type that Bjelke-Petersen has followed in Queensland-sanctions, if I may say so, which would mean the imprisonment of all those who are likely to lead the BLF. Senator Lewis —Shoot them! Senator GEORGES —Of course; take those further necessary steps, to make this legislation succeed, which only a military dictatorship would take-steps either to imprison the leaders or in some way to exclude them from the scene. I find that absolutely unacceptable as an initiative taken by a Labor government. I have been through this before. The previous time the legislation came before this place I spoke against it. I did the sneaky thing of abstaining from voting on it. But let me make it clear to honourable senators on this occasion: I have been in the Labor Party and associated with the trade union movement for the last 40 years but I have not reached a point in my career where I have to support the deregistration of a union. So I put on the record right now that I intend to vote against the legislation. I make that clear. If there is no division I intend to ask that my vote be recorded. Senator Crichton-Browne —Very courageous. Senator GEORGES —It has nothing to do with courage. Senator Crichton-Browne —Is it stupid, then? Senator GEORGES —It could be. Senator Walsh —Are you offering yourself for pre-selection again? Senator GEORGES —No, and I was about to say so. If the honourable senator were to say to me that at this stage I ought not to take the position that I am taking because it is easy for me to take it, being in my last term, I would say that it is more difficult now to take that position than if I were facing endorsement on the next occasion. Let me say to Senator Walsh-he seems to be able to apply his conscience to and impose his will on everyone else because he is in a position of power to do so-that he ought not to be imposing on someone such as me the expectation that I will vote against a long tradition of the Party, against my own principles and position because I am free of having to seek an endorsement on the next occasion. I am not going to leave this place with this sort of decision on my conscience. I hope to have a few more useful years to do the things I want to do within the Labor movement. But it has reached the point where it is not possible to do so within the Labor movement and maintain my own principles and those of the Labor movement if the Labor Party is to persist with legislation of this sort. It is an outrage as far as I am concerned. I am going to take a position and a stand against the outrage, no matter what the consequences may be. As to the sort of implication Senator Walsh wants to place on what I do, he can do so. He has made implications about others which are equally hollow. I suggest to Senator Walsh that my record in the Labor movement is equal to his. Because it is equal to his, what I intend to do is not easy at all, whether or not I face endorsement this year. Senator Crichton-Browne —Will you get expelled? Senator GEORGES —That has nothing to do with the question before the chamber at present. Members of the Labor Party have to face up to the consequences of what they do, as individuals and as a group. The Party cannot persist in drifting away from policy, from its rank and file, without seams starting to appear and to widen. Senator Lewis —Georgie, why won't you agree that there must be co-operation between management and workers to get success in this nation? It is not a matter of confrontation. Senator GEORGES —I do not disagree with what the honourable senator says, but let us take a look at the record of the BLF in Queensland. There has hardly been a dispute in Queensland between the BLF and employers. I suppose that one of the areas of greatest growth in the building industry is Queensland. What is the honourable senator saying to me-that the abuse is an argument against improper use? We are taking initiatives and putting through legislation that looks only at the abuses? It does not look at the proper use of union responsibility and leadership and employer management. If the Government looked at the good and forgot about the bad it would realise the damage which this legislation is going to do. The only way that this legislation can be made effective is if the States can be forced, by some means or other, to take deregistration proceedings against the union in every State. Does this Government intend to deregister the BLF in Queensland? Is it to impose upon those who are in a position to do something about it the deregistration of the BLF in Queensland? What a grave injustice that would be in Queensland. What a grave injustice that would be in South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania. Why should the BLF in Queensland cop the responsibility for the union's mismanagement in Victoria and New South Wales? If there have been errors or acts that are not acceptable, if there has been the breaking of the law, there are processes by which that can be dealt with. If law enforcement bodies in New South Wales and Victoria are so poor that they cannot bring to account a breaking of the law by a union member, a union or anyone else, we ought to be looking at the law enforcement capacities of those two States. We should not start passing legislation which is absolutely contrary to the rights of individuals. It should not be passed here for expediency. Yet honourable senators opposite will pass it and be responsible for it. What is more, they will try to improve it by making the period 10 years. They cannot improve the legislation. On the Government side there are many people who feel the same way as I, and they have my sympathy. But they may be restrained for the reasons that Senator Walsh has indicated, and I do not blame them because they have to measure and balance what is in the best interests of what they want to do. As far as I am concerned, as Senator Walsh has indicated, I am not restrained. I find it harder for that reason. The legislation ought not to have been initiated. It should never have been brought before the House of Representatives and the Senate. This legislation ought to be rejected and those who are under some constraints in the community because of the actions of the BLF should go through the normal processes, using the forums that have been established. It is said that they do not have the courage to do so. Let them get the courage. Let us not put through this Senate legislation which takes away the rights of individuals and organisations to participate in the work place. That is virtually what we are doing. I get back to what I said previously. Because there is abuse does not mean that the various existing institutions should not be used to solve the problem with the BLF. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(11.57) —The opposition to the Builders Labourers' Federation (Cancellation of Registration) Bill and the Builders Labourers' Federation (Cancellation of Registration-Consequential Provisions) Bill has been of two types. The first has been from those who are either ignorant or wilful misleaders, of whom Senator Crichton-Browne is the prime example, who have asserted that this legislation will be ineffective because the Builders Labourers Federation can continue to exist in State branches. Even Senator Crichton-Browne ought to know that the Commonwealth does not have the constitutional power to deregister State branches. New South Wales and Victorian legislation to deregister State branches of the BLF-the State registered union-has either been passed or is about to be passed so that the BLF will cease to exist as State institutions in those States. He also ignored the fact that other States have the power, should they deem it necessary, to take similar action. Queensland, a non-Labor Government, has decided not to do so. His comments were highly misleading. The second qualitative type of opposition is that which came from ivory tower lawyers and their acolytes, the sorts of people who have a vision which, like many visions, is based on an hallucination of a perfect world when dealing with such things as civil liberties in the perfect world and the protection of those civil liberties. The trouble with that is that we do not have a perfect world. It ignores the fact that pursuit of the objectives of a perfect world ignores, bypasses and fails to achieve the best actual outcomes, which is more important than whatever hallucinatory visions they might have. In the real world the adoption of that sort of attitude preserves the liberty, in this case of the BLF national leadership, to welsh on agreements, not just with employers, the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and governments, but with fellow unionists. That is a practice which it has followed habitually for more than a decade. The BLF has a national leadership with a history of violent assault on individuals in an attempt to enforce its objectives. That outcome has been achieved. It would continue to exist if the visions of the civil libertarian purists were to be adopted as policy. I suggest that such people-I know that some of them sincerely believe this and I accept that-should consult, for example, the Millian liberal-naturally small `l' liberal-limit to personal liberty, which generally goes along the lines that people are free to do what they wish and should be free to do so, and the State should not interfere with what people do, provided that in the exercise of that individual liberty they do not infringe upon the liberties of others. I will not attempt to deal with the criticisms that have been made about all aspects of the Bills but I shall deal briefly with a few of them. Senator Lewis, among others, asked what the Government intends to do about the assets of the organisation. I am sure that Senator Lewis would know that only in the Australian Capital Territory does the Commonwealth Government have control. In the Australian Capital Territory, if it appears necessary that action should be taken to prevent the misuse of the union's assets, that will be done. Otherwise, it is a matter for the States. Senator Lewis —Are you asking Mr Cain and Mr Wran to do anything about it? Senator WALSH —I thought that the honourable senator went along with the general policy of his Party; that is, what is State business should be left to the States. I do not know. I have not asked either of them and I do not know whether anybody else has. I would not presume to teach them how to suck eggs. They would both be well aware, as would the governments that they lead, of the possible need to do that. An important question was asked about what is to be done about the possibility of the BLF taking over other unions. A relatively small union in Victoria has been cited. The answer, Senator Lewis, is that that union could take over the work functions performed by BLF members only if a State or Commonwealth arbitration commission gave it the work coverage. Under the terms of the second Bill before the Senate today, the Government will take action which no previous government has attempted to take to reallocate the existing areas of work coverage provided under Commonwealth legislation for BLF members. That leads us to the critical distinction between this legislation and the actions of the Fraser Government, which proposed deregistration, a proposal which was on the table for two years without anything happening and which would have remained on the table for very much longer. Even then, it might well have been ineffective because the BLF has been deregistered in the past without apparently making a great deal of difference to the way that it operated. What this Government is doing, which is unique, is that, as well as deregistering the organisation federally, it is making provision for regulations which will enable other unions to take over BLF work coverage and therefore secure for people employed in the industry the benefits of responsible participation in the Federal system and the benefits of Federal awards. I understand that the Australian Democrats and the Opposition have forecast an intention to move amendments to extend from three years to five and 10 years respectively the period, regardless of whatever remnants of the BLF may survive in particular States, in which it may make another application for registration under the Federal Act. An appropriate period involves an element of judgment. The Government chose three years because that was judged to be a completely adequate time for the new arrangements as to work coverage by other unions to be settled and bedded down. It also must be realised that the registration process is slow. A contested registration application would take two or three years which would be on top of the threshold hearing which could be expected to last at least four months. So the Government's proposition effectively prevents reregistration, even if the Commission were agreeable to registering the Federation, for a period of six years. That is judged by the Government to be enough. It is a question of judgment as to whether that period should be longer or even shorter. If remnants of the BLF in those States where it has a more responsible record than it has had in the south-east of the mainland continue to exist-in some States they probably will-it seems to the Government that it is not entirely fair to deny those sections of the existing organisation the privilege, or at least the possibility of reregistration under the Commonwealth Act. I understand that Senator Siddons has acknowledged that 10 years is too long. If he reflects on what I have said that is, that the effective period between now and when the remnants of an organisation could be actually reregistered is probably six years and possibly longer, he might come to the conclusion that the provision in the legislation of three years as a period before a reregistration application or preliminary hearings could even start, is adequate. Senator McINTOSH(Western Australia) -I claim that I may have been misrepresented by Senator Georges. I agree with everything that Senator Georges said and I admire him for his stand. He said that there may be people in the Australian Labor Party who because they were seeking endorsement, felt constrained to choose a different path. I will not be seeking endorsement but I want to make it quite clear to the Senate that my reason for supporting the Australian Labor Party on this matter is that I believe that a majority decision is made in the Caucus and I do not expect anyone to go against that decision. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —The question is that the Bills be now read a second time. All those in favour say aye, against say no-- Senator Georges —No. I seek to have my vote against the legislation recorded. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Yes, Senator Georges. I think the ayes have it. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time. The Bills. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(12.10) —As Senator Walsh and other speakers have indicated, the situation is fairly clear and I do not wish to delay the passage of these Bills any longer than necessary. The Opposition parties believe that the matters raised and established before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Committee indicate that the behaviour of this union is of such a nature that not only should it be deregistered but that the deregistration should stand for a period of 10 years. The Opposition wishes to move an amendment along those lines. There has been some difficulty about the way in which such a procedure should be carried. As a result of the advice of the clerks, we are going through the procedures which have been outlined. To the Builders Labourers' Federation (Cancellation of Registration-Consequential Provisions) Bill 1986. I move: Page 3, Paragraph 5 (1) (a), lines 33 to 35, leave out the paragraph. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(12.11) —I indicate briefly that the Australian Democrats will support amendment No. 1 moved by Senator Lewis. The Democrats are still of the opinion that a period of five years should elapse before approaches can be made to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission for the formation of a new Federal builders labourers union. I am aware of the time that it would take from the initial hearing of a reregistration to the point when that actually happens. It can be quite extended. It is anybody's guess as to whether that will take one year, two years or whatever. We concede that a period will elapse. Nevertheless, the problems that have been created by the National Executive of the Builders Labourers Federation are of such a magnitude that the question of the existing National Executive being in a position to reform a builders' labourers union in a comparatively short period is a very real problem. We certainly do not want a repeat in five or six years' time of what we are going through now. Three years is a very short period for industrial relations matters and the Democrats are of the opinion that it is too short. I foreshadow that we will move an amendment to extend the prohibition period to five years. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(12.13) —I support the amendment that has been moved by Senator Lewis. The thrust of the proposal is to give, as best as we are able, some serious intent to this legislation. As I said earlier, it is defective in a number of ways. I heard what Senator Walsh said. One State is commencing proceedings and one has finished proceedings against the Builders Labourers Federation but there are other States that have not indicated that they intend to deregister the union. More importantly, we ought to reflect on the conduct of the union in the past. In my view that is what we ought to reflect upon when deliberating at this point. There is no indication of a change of attitudes to industrial relations or a change in the view of the Executive which very much remains what it was during the periods of disruption from 1974 onwards. Immediately following the BLFs deregistration in 1974 it continued industrial disruption. Upon its reregistration in 1976 it showed no inclination of repenting. It pursued the course that it had pursued prior to 1974. In 1981 when the Fraser Government commenced proceedings for deregistration of the BLF it in no way tempered its style of approach to industrial relations. In 1984 when the deregistration proceedings were withdrawn-firstly in February by the Government, at the request of the Minister, as I recall, and then in July of the same year, when the Master Builders Association withdrew its proceedings-the Federation continued to conduct its normal capricious, irresponsible guerrilla tactics. So there is no indication that this union has any intention of changing its style, its modus operandi. In fact we now have a situation where it is intimidating employers in the Australian Capital Territory and demanding, in the event it is deregistered, that they continue to negotiate with it. To that extent the BLF is now black-banning sites and demanding the signing of a letter of agreement to continue to deal with officials of the BLF in relation to industrial matters, whether it be deregistered or otherwise. That guerrilla tactic will continue until such time, under duress, the employers sign a letter accordingly. It is interesting that the Trades and Labour Council of the Australian Capital Territory at a meeting on 7 August 1985 endorsed that type of activity. In referring to this case it is pertinent to reflect for a moment on the union's activities and why it wreaks such havoc upon the community. The Builders Labourers Federation applies total bans, which means a total withdrawal of labour on a project. Although used on occasions, that tactic has been largely replaced by selective bans. This of course maximises disruption but minimises loss of earnings. It applies the principle of one out, all out in relation to safety issues. If there is a safety issue affecting one employee, all the employees will walk out. It also applies the one on, all on principle so that in the event of inclement weather and only a number of employees being able to be gainfully engaged, it insists that they all be paid irrespective of whether or not their work is carried out. Senator Walsh —You haven't mentioned the homers. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Homes? Senator Walsh —Homers. Don't you know what they are? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Yes, I am coming to that shortly. Homers, to enlighten Senator Walsh if he is making judgments as to whether or not I understand them, involve an automatic and immediate walk-off for a designated period, usually somewhere between 24 and 48 hours, accompanied by a demand for payments for loss of wages when they leave the site for no apparent reason. On many occasions they do not even tell the employer the purpose of the walk-off, and subsequently they enter into negotiations demanding not only that they be paid for the time lost during negotiations but also for the period when they were off the site without having told the employer the reasons. Senator Walsh —You get 10 out of 10 for that. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I thank Senator Walsh. Then of course there are the political bans of all sorts which take place. There have been political bans on broadcasting stations because something was said on the station that the BLF did not approve of. There were bans on the police building; in fact, the union described the police building as a piggery. That is its reflection on law and order. So it has undertaken industrial action on these types of buildings on political grounds. Its members demand pay for lost time when a strike does occur. Terms of settlement invariably include claims for payment for all time lost, including the time over which the claims have remained unresolved. Of course the union's favourite and most devastating trick is that of breaking concrete pours. In the midst of the process of pouring the members stop, and that concrete then has to be broken up by jackhammers. That requires the employment of a number of people and it may well take a full day to lift that concrete and commence the procedure again. Not only is it time consuming and expensive but also it is very costly to the employer in terms of the project being put back further. That has flow on effects in terms of rent, tenancy and all the other ramifications. Of course members of the BLF have this remarkable capacity for demarcation disputes, which was demonstrated in its most graphic and barren form in respect of the lighting of the Melbourne Cricket Ground. After a decision that the job ought not be theirs, they had pickets and intimidated the other employees. The harassed those other employees and their wives, having talked about sexual activity against those wives, and generally acted as complete and absolute thugs. They are just some of the activities that BLF members take delight in engaging in, and for these reasons one can only draw the conclusion that they are not about to be born-again decent, honest, respectable and reasonable employees who are prepared to act as responsible union members within the community. The sad thing, as Senator Sir John Carrick said, is that the view is often put that the Liberal Party is opposed to unions. I am a great supporter of unions. What distresses me so often is that the responsible people in the work force do not involve themselves in union management and leadership. If they did I am quite sure we would have an industrial relations system much different from that we have at present. Unfortunately these moderate types tend to sit back and the activists and thugs end up controlling the unions. Of course the other workers are then subject to intimidation and threat and are coerced into participating in industrial unrest and strife which, if there were a secret ballot, they would in no way be a party to. For those reasons it is my view that the 10-year period provides the best prospect of ensuring that the Builders Labourers Federation will not reappear. Having said that, I acknowledge what has been said earlier. I have had some concern in my own mind that this legislation was introduced at a time when the BLF was seeking to appeal to the High Court of Australia. The conflict in my mind was that it was being denied an opportunity to exhaust the judicial processes available to any citizen. This is the one disturbing feature about this legislation but that is balanced out by the Federation's conduct. One could perhaps find extenuating circumstances but the problem with extenuating circumstances is that one tends from time to time to compromise one's fundamental principles. It disturbs me that this legislation is being introduced and rushed through this Parliament, so denying the Builders Labourers Federation an opportunity to exhaust fully the judicial processes available to it within this country. However, for all the reasons I have mentioned I support Senator Lewis's amendment, which to me is an obvious amendment if we are serious about deregistration in its proper form. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(12.22) —The Government will not accept the amendments. If, however, either of the amendments should be carried or if the Committee refuses to accept the Government's Bill, the Builders Labourers Federation federal leadership will be free to continue its rampant campaign of social and economic dislocation, and the Opposition and the Australian Democrats can carry the odium for its so doing. Amendment agreed to. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance) —by leave-I indicate that I have not called a division on this amendment because divisions will be called on the substantial amendments which will follow. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(12.24) —To the Builders Labourers' Federation (Cancellation of Registration-Consequential Provisions) Bill 1986-I move: Page 3, before paragraph 5 (1) (b), insert the following new paragraph: `(a) a period of 10 years has elapsed from the day of commencement of the Builders Labourers' Federation (Cancellation of Registration) Act 1986;'. This will achieve the objective that we have been talking about; that is, that the deregistration stand for a period of 10 years. In our view that would be a proper term before reregistration proceedings should commence. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Lewis's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 35 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 9 —— Archer, B. R. Lewis, A. W. R. Baume, Michael MacGibbon, D. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Messner, A. J. Brownhill, D. G. C. Newman, J. M. Carrick, Sir John Parer, W. R. Collard, S. J. Puplick, C. J. G. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E. Durack, P. D. Sheil, G. (Teller)Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M. Hamer, D. J. Vanstone, A. E. Jessop, D. S. Walters, M. S. Kilgariff, B. F. Watson, J. O. W. Knowles, S. C. Withers, R. G. Aulich, T. Grimes, D. J. Black, J. R. Jones, G. N. Bolkus, N. McIntosh, G. D. Button, J. N. McKiernan, J. P. Childs, B. K. Macklin, M. J. Chipp, D. L. Maguire, G. R. Coates, J. Mason, C. V. J. Coleman, R. N. Morris, J. Cook, P. F. S. Rae, PeterCooney, B. Reynolds, M. Crowley, R. A. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Devlin, R. Ryan, S. M. Elstob, R. C. Sanders, N. K. Evans, Gareth Siddons, J. R. Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C. Georges, G. Vigor, D. B. Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A. Giles, P. J. Colston, M. A. Hill, R. Sibraa, K. W. Boswell, R. L. D. Richardson, G. F. Baume, PeterHaines, J. Chaney, F. M. Zakharov, A. O. Teague, B. C. (Senator Douglas McClelland did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the death of Senator Missen.) Question resolved in the negative. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(12.31) —To the Builders Labourers' Federation (Cancellation of Registration-Consequental Provisions) Bill 1986, I move: Page 3, before paragraph 5 (1) (b), insert the following new paragraph: `(a) a period of 5 years has elapsed from the day of commencement of the Builders Labourers' Federation (Cancellation of Registration) Act 1986;' Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(12.31) —Could I ask the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) a question? Did I hear him aright, as I thought he said that if these amendments were carried, the Government would not proceed with the Bill? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(12.31) —The position, as I understand it, is that if this amendment is carried the Government will re-amend the Bill in the House of Representatives. Then it will be up to the Senate to decide whether the Senate will allow the Builders Labourers Federation's national leadership to continue that rampaging campaign of social and economic dislocation. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(12.32) —I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that that is not an answer. As I understand it that is what the Minister said-if he will give me the courtesy of paying attention to what I am saying. I draw the Chair's attention to the absolute discourtesy of the Minister, which is typical. The CHAIRMAN —The Minister is entitled not to pay attention if he wishes to, but it is not very courteous to the Committee. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I remain on my feet while the Minister continues his discourtesy. The Minister said in the clear hearing of this Senate that if we persisted with these amendments and they were carried, the Builders Labourers Federation would be allowed to continue on the rampage that it is on now, which clearly meant that the cancellation would not take effect. I ask the Minister-I note the Minister's typical rudeness-two things: Did he not say that-and I shall be interested to look at the pinks? Secondly, what did he mean when he said that? Was it a threat to the Senate? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(12.33) —My understanding is that if the Senate amends the Bill in the way that is proposed, the Government will re-amend it in the House of Representatives. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(12.33) —Did the Minister say that if we proceeded with these amendments the BLF would be able to continue on its rampage, as now? In other words, did he say that the cancellation would not take effect? That is question No. 1, in plain ordinary English words. Does he mean, having said that, that the Government would amend it in the House of Representatives? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(12.34) —If the Government, as I understand was the intention, re-amends the legislation in the House of Representatives, it is then up to the Senate whether the BLF is allowed to continue its campaign or not. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(12.34) —I ask again: Did the Minister say the words that I understand him to have said? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(12.34) —I said that under those circumstances, if that should happen, the BLF would be free to continue. That is just a question of fact. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(12.35) —I just want to indicate that the Government has time in which to take whatever action it wishes to take as the Builders Labourers' Federation (Cancellation of Registration) Bill and the Builders Labourers' Federation (Cancellation of Registration-Consequential Provisions) Bill will be passed at 25 minutes to one today because we will be supporting the amendment of the Australian Democrats and then we will be supporting the third reading of the Bills. The CHAIRMAN —The question is: That the words proposed to be inserted by Senator Siddons's amendment be inserted. Those of that opinion say aye; to the contrary no. I think the ayes have it. Senator Walsh —No. A division is required. A division having been called and the bells being rung- Senator Walsh —I seek leave to have the division called off. Leave granted. Amendment agreed to. Bills, as amended, agreed to. Senator Georges —I ask that my no vote be recorded. The CHAIRMAN —That will be done, Senator Georges. Builders Labourers' Federation (Cancellation of Registration) Bill 1986 reported without amendment and Builders Labourers' Federation (Cancellation of Registration-Consequential Provisions) Bill 1986 reported with amendments; report adopted. Motion (by Senator Walsh) proposed: That the Bills be now read a third time. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —The question is: That the Bills be now read a third time. Those in favour say aye; to the contrary no. The ayes have it. Senator Georges-I ask that my no vote be recorded. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Your no vote will be recorded. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a third time. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —by leave-I give notice that, 12 sitting days after today, I shall move: That section 11 of the Health Authority Ordinance 1985, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 69 of 1985 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. Consideration resumed from 9 April. The Bill. The CHAIRMAN —The Committee is considering two amendments moved by Senator Siddons. The question is: That the amendments be agreed to. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(12.40) —I seek leave to amend my amendments in accordance with the revised amendments circulated. The amendment to my amendments relates to proposed new sub-section 50 (2C) (c). The only change to the original amendments is that a clause has been added. It is a catch-all clause which takes note of the criticism levelled by Senator Gareth Evans when we last debated this matter that there were ways of getting around the amendments. The amended amendments read: (1) Page 2, clause 3, proposed new sub-section 50 (2c), at the end of proposed sub-section, add: `, provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to- (c) any acquisition of shares in the capital, or any assets, of a body corporate within 12 months after the day on which the Trade Practices (Transfer of Market Dominance) Amendment Act 1986 received the Royal Assent- (i) by any person pursuant to a take-over scheme or a take-over announcement within the meaning of the Companies (Acquisition of Shares) Act 1980 or a corresponding law of a State or Territory in respect of which any document or a copy of a document has been registered by, or lodged with, the National Companies and Securities Commission prior to that day, (ii) by any person pursuant to such a take-over scheme or take-over announcement which is the same in substance as a take-over scheme or take-over announcement referred to in sub-paragraph (i), or (iii) in the circumstances referred to in sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) by any person who is an associate of, or associated with, any such person within the meaning of that Act or such corresponding law of a State or Territory; or (d) any acquisition by a person of any shares in the capital, or any assets, of a body corporate where the Commission is satisfied that in all the circumstances the acquisition has resulted or may result in a detriment to the public and the Commission has within 21 days of the Commission becoming aware of the acquisition given to the person a notice stating that the Commission is so satisfied.'. (2) Page 2, after clause 3, add the following new clause: `4. Section 90 of the Principal Act is amended by adding after sub-section (9) the following sub-section: `(9a) Where an application for an authorization is made in respect of a proposed acquisition of shares in the capital or assets of a body corporate, and sub-section 50 (2c) is not applicable to that proposed acquisition by reason of paragraph (d) of that sub-section, the Commission shall make a determination granting an authorization under sub-section 88 (9) in respect of the proposed acquisition if, and only if, satisfied that in all the circumstances the proposed acquisition would not result in or be likely to result in such a detriment to the public that the proposed acquisition should not be allowed to take place.''.' Leave granted. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(12.41) —It becomes necessary to explain why the Government regards this further amendment by Senator Siddons as equally unacceptable. We certainly do. What the amendment aims to do is to provide that an acquisition involving a bare transfer of monopoly power will be subject to section 50 of the Trade Practices Act and its inquiry procedures in two situations-firstly, where the acquisition is made pursuant to a Part A statement lodged prior to the assent of the present Bill or, secondly, where a Part A statement is made before royal assent but is withdrawn or the offer does not succeed and another Part A statement which results in acquisition is lodged with the National Companies and Securities Commission within six months of royal assent. In other words, where a bid having no necessary connection at all with any extant bid is lodged within the next six months after royal assent, that situation too will be covered. There seems no rhyme or reason in principle, other than an evident desire on the part of Senator Siddons to catch one particular possible acquisition come what may, why the operation of the existing section 50, with its inquiry procedure, should be extended in that way. There no longer is any rationale, be it ever so unpersuasive anyway, in terms of not changing the rules for some existing acquisition already in train because the very character of Senator Siddons's amendment makes it clear that a brand new acquisition, having no existence at all in its character at this stage, could still be caught by his particular drafting. There is the further problem that, of course, the amendments as drafted would not apply to acquisitions of assets or on-market takeovers set in train by lodgment of a Part C statement. That was a flaw in all the grandfather clauses we have seen trailing past us so far, but it is equally a flaw in Senator Siddons's latest amendment and it would seem a very selective and arbitrary kind of process accordingly. For those reasons-there are others that I could spell out in more detail, variations on those themes-the Government regards this as not an improvement. It is subject to all, if not more, of the defects that were contained in the original amendment and the Government rejects it accordingly. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(12.44) —On behalf of the Opposition I agree with what Senator Evans has said. Indeed, I spoke to the original amendments, which were along the lines of Senator Siddons's second amendments, on the assumption that his original amendments were intended to read in this way. I think it may well have been interpreted that way. I did not regard that as very interesting or important one way or the other. I think what was important was the attempt that was being made to give an extended life to the operation of the existing section of the Trade Practices Act. It sought to do an entirely different thing from the so-called grandfather clause which I had moved on behalf of the Opposition. I do not think this particular amendment changes in any way the arguments I used before and I simply adopt them again. Amendments negatived. Debate interrupted. Sitting suspended from 12.46 to 2 p.m. Senator CHANEY —I refer the Leader of the Government in the Senate to his two answers yesterday on the question of possible ministerial conflict of interest during the Government's consideration of the Bell BHP takeover bid. He will recall saying in response to both questions that no conflict of interest was involved. He seemed to choose those words fairly carefully, and I ask him now to be more specific. Is he saying that one or more Ministers on the Cabinet Committee gave information to the Cabinet or to the Committee about direct or indirect interests in either of the companies and that it was then agreed that no conflict of interest arose, or is he saying that the seven members of the ministerial Committee either said nothing or simply declared that there was no conflict of interest without giving any details? If it was the former-that is, if Ministers did disclose direct or indirect interests-who provided information and does he recall the nature of their declarations? Senator BUTTON —In answering those questions yesterday, I was perhaps trying to make a simple point which eluded the Opposition-that is to say, that this is the first Government which has been at least specific on the public record about questions of conflict of interest. In previous pronouncements, we have indicated what in our view that meant in terms of prescribing guidelines, and so on. But in respect of the question which Senator Chaney asks, I am not able to provide him with details of what was said by Cabinet Ministers, and I do not think that I have to do so. As far as I felt was appropriate yesterday at Question Time, I indicated what was said by Mr Dawkins and what the responses were. I am not in a position to take the matter any further than that. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I shall not take up the Minister on his attempt to confuse the position of a register of interests with the general duty which he indicated in this place was put on Ministers to make declarations on any matter which may give rise to a conflict of interest. However, I ask the Minister again to say whether Ministers did disclose interests which in the view of the Committee did not give rise to a conflict of interest, or whether there was no disclosure of any interest of any sort when the matter was raised by Mr Dawkins? Senator BUTTON —I just indicate what I said yesterday. There was no conflict of interest amongst Ministers present at that meeting. Senator BOLKUS —Is the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce aware of a report in a recent edition of the National Times referring to alleged Customs duty fraud in the car importing industry-but potentially involving all industries in Australia-that could cost the Government as much as the bottom of the harbour tax schemes? If so, what is the Government doing to tighten import duty requirements and to prevent such fraudulent practices as those alleged to have been carried out by one of Australia's biggest car importers, LNC Industries? Senator BUTTON —The question of valuation for duty is a problem with all the Customs services throughout the world. I understand from the relatively recent Customs Co-operation Council that that issue was discussed and concern was expressed about it by a number of Customs services throughout the world. In respect of the question of valuation for duty of motor cars and an article that appeared in the National Times to which Senator Bolkus referred, an investigation was begun in January 1986, when some irregularities were found in documents used by an importer to enter vehicles. Since that time, a very large number of company documents have been examined during the investigation and demands for additional duty totalling $2.1m have been made on the importer under the provisions of the Customs Act that refer to the recovery of non-fraudulent underpayments. The question of fraud has not, at this stage, been determined but is subject to examination. Investigation into whether fraud occurred or not is not yet completed. In respect of that matter, vehicles from both Japan and Europe are involved. Those investigations aim to determine full details of transactions between the suppliers and the importers in Australia, and the exact role played by a number of other parties-there are a number of parties involved-and the nature of the services provided to ship vehicles to Australia. The Australian Government Solicitor has been involved and his advice sought on a number of occasions. That advice recognises that in a number of places further information is necessary before final conclusions can be reached. That question of obtaining further information is now well down the track. I should say that because of the relative insignificance of duty per vehicle involved, the Customs Service did not regard seizure as an important consideration at that time. I should also say that arising from this particular incidence, the Customs Office, at my request-indeed, I think, of its own volition as well-has been trying to look at the wider ramifications of this issue. I hope to get a report on that at a later stage. Might I say that this is not the first incidence of goods being undervalued for duty. The Customs Service has been engaged in litigation with other companies in other industries in respect of the same sort of thing. I think it is a particularly difficult problem in areas where bulk goods are imported. For example, in the textile, clothing and footwear industries, the strategic and managerial problems of investigating all those matters are very great. It is something that I hope we will get some solution to from the Customs Service in the near future. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I remind the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, of the evidence given last night by Mr Sergio Sergi to Senate Estimates Committee D that it cost $73 each to produce 300 four-page brochures on the Maritime Museum which the Prime Minister requested be ready for him to take overseas next week, and that almost $50 of that $73 cost per brochure was due entirely to Senator Walsh's Department of Finance delaying the funding of the brochure for almost two months because the Department questioned a Cabinet submission, presumably in which Senator Walsh had participated. I ask the Minister: What procedures does she and Mr Cohen, the Minister, intend to implement to prevent a repetition of such blatant and inexcusable waste resulting from such activities by Senator Walsh and his Department, which Mr Sergi said in evidence are a frequent occurrence? Senator RYAN —I was present in the Minister's role at the Senate Estimates Committee hearing last night when questions were put to Mr Sergio Sergi from the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment about the costs of production of a video concerning the National Maritime Museum and the reasons why the project was completed rapidly. I must say I was surprised by some of the comments that the officer made in answering the question, and I think it is fair to say that the purpose of the officer's presence there was to answer questions about expenditures under his responsibility and not to make comments or criticisms about another Department. I think, in fact, that his comments about the Department of Finance were inappropriate. I suppose I should not add to the inappropriateness by saying whether I thought they were true. But I do think that-- Senator Walsh —An apology. Senator RYAN —Senator Walsh has informed me by way of an interjection that he has received an apology. I think the officer in question wandered into areas not appropriate to his performance as an officer before an Estimates committee. I have some further information from the Department concerning the cost of the item which is of great interest to Senator Baume. It is not correct to say that the Department of Finance was responsible for an escalation in the costs of this material. The Interim Director has confirmed that he became confused about the breakdown of the costs when answering the question. There was no cost escalation and I am sure that Senator Puplick will also be interested in that because he evinced a great enthusiasm in pursuing this matter also. The $8,000 was an initial estimate in relation to the printing of a brochure only. The $50,000 is made up of $28,000 for a video, which is well within the normal market price, and $22,000 for the brochure. Of this, $14,000 was for the corporate design, which is similar to design costs for other institutions. The museum has been developing promotion material of this nature in order to publicise its existence and it is clear that this material will be of much use to the museum in attracting interest and support as it will be a lasting and valuable record of Australia's marine heritage. I suppose that that is clear to those who have seen the video; I have given the information from the Department. Like the honourable senator's office, I have not seen the video so I suppose that it is not clear to us yet. But the officers did undertake to make the video available for us and I think that would be an appropriate time for honourable senators to judge whether the money was well spent. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. I did not in fact ask about the video; I asked simply about the brochure. I thank the Minister for her reply. She did say in her reply relating to the activities of the Department of Finance that she did not know whether or not the allegations were true. I ask her: Are they true? Senator RYAN —I do not have any information that would allow me to answer that question precisely. But I did say that, in my view, the comments of the officer were inappropriate because they went to areas that were not his responsibility. However, the further information that has been supplied to me by that Department today assures me, and I now assure the Senate, that it is not correct to say that the Department of Finance is responsible for the escalation in the costs of this material. Senator TATE —Is the Minister representing the Treasurer aware that the Queensland Government intends to borrow $20m in Europe to tidy up several country race-tracks in a pre-election spending spree? Can the Minister inform the Senate to what extent Australia's overseas debt is attributable to State governments and State authorities borrowing overseas? Will the Government do anything to prevent State governments jeopardising Australia's economic stability with such self-interested political grandstanding? Senator WALSH —Senator Tate asked me whether I was aware that the Queensland Government intends to do all these dreadful things. I am aware of a report in the Australian newspaper, which is not dated, on which Senator Tate's question apparently is based. So, I am aware of the report. Senator Tate asked whether the Government will do anything to prevent State governments behaving in that way. Under the present financial system it is difficult to prevent them from behaving in that way. But I think it ought to be noted that, in all the debate about whether borrowing overseas constitutes, on balance, a net economic problem for Australia, it is useful to distinguish between at least three qualitatively different types of borrowing. Whether it aggravates our long term debt provision in borrowing for takeovers depends on what those people who sell the shares do with the money they receive. If it is used to invest, in the economic sense, in productive activity which will either replace imports or generate exports, it could be a net benefit to Australia to borrow overseas. There can be no doubt that, if overseas borrowings are resorted to, to squander on self-indulgences and topping up pork barrels of the type that the Queensland Government proposes, it will aggravate our external account and our longer term economic position. It is also interesting insofar as it reveals where the Queensland Government's priorities lie. Queensland has the worst schools in the country, the worst economy in the country, the highest rate of venereal disease, ex-nuptial births and teenage pregnancies, all of which, of course, are a function of the sexual ignorance which prevails in Queensland and which that Government is dedicated to perpetuating. On the specifics of the amount to which State governments have contributed to foreign debt, according to Loan Council data the level of overseas debt of State non-monetary authorities was just over $9 1/2 billion which was about 44 per cent of total public sector overseas debt. The Loan Council figures do not have the same basis as Australian Bureau of Statistics figures. In spite of that, the level of State authorities' overseas debt is in the order of 14 per cent of total gross overseas debt, both public and private, and State borrowings, of course, are subject to Loan Council restraints. Perhaps in that way the Commonwealth Government may be able to exercise some pressure on Queensland to cease doing this sort of thing. In conclusion, I do not know whether or not the $5m which is to be borrowed by the Queensland Government to spend on the Mackenzie River Dam-which is otherwise known as the John Bjelke-Petersen benefit lake-will be borrowed overseas. Senator CHANEY —My question, which is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, follows the earlier questions relating to a possible conflict of interest in a ministerial committee. I refer the Minister to his declaration of pecuniary interests lodged with the Prime Minister on 12 September 1983 which disclosed that he was a director of the Industrial Printing and Publicity Co. Ltd, the beneficial shareholders of which are branches of the Australian Labor Party and various trade unions. I ask the Minister whether he is still a director of that company. I further ask whether he can confirm to the Senate that Industrial Printing and Publicity is the registered holder of 58,661 shares in the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd, the value of which has increased in the past 24 hours by about $44,000 to $430,000, and that at the time of the ministerial committee meetings it stood to make a profit of more than $80,000 if the shares had been sold at the price then on offer. Did the Minister consider that such a substantial shareholding by a company of which he is or was a director, in the words he read out in the Senate in September 1983, may give rise to a conflict of interests? Senator BUTTON —I am a director of the Industrial Printing and Publicity Co. Ltd as my return of pecuniary interests shows. I am a director of that company as a trustee for certain organisations, some of which Senator Chaney mentioned in his question. I am not in receipt, I have never been in receipt, nor am I eligible for the receipt of any dividends from that company. I am not in receipt of any remuneration as a director. I was, but when I became a Minister in this Government I cancelled any remuneration arrangements that I might have had with that company. I am not aware of the shareholding of BHP. I have not attended as a member of the Board of that company, I think, since I became a Minister. I am not aware of the extent of any BHP shareholding. I probably would have been aware that the company held shares in a wide number of industrial stocks but I could not say which companies. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I acknowledged in my question the apparent trustee status of the Minister but does he agree that, as a director of that company, he owed a duty to that company and to its shareholders and that there was a possibility that that duty to the company and to its shareholders could conflict with his ministerial duties? Senator BUTTON —I acknowledge that, under the Companies Act, I have a duty to the shareholders of that company. I do not believe that any conflict with my ministerial duties is occasioned by that fact. As a matter of fact, if Senator Chaney likes to study the Senate record, for example, I have in the Senate declared my interest as a director of that company in relation to a debate on a broadcasting matter. At that time I was an active director of the company and in receipt of remuneration as a director; in the Senate I publicly declared my interest. But I do not believe that in respect of my current role with that company I am involved in any conflict of interest. Senator CROWLEY —My question is to the Minister for Community Services. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the statements made yesterday in the other place by Mr Ian Cameron, the honourable member for Maranoa, and widely reported in today's papers that, firstly, women should be encouraged to stay at home and look after their families and not bring them up in some `socialised, ratbag, Russianised-type child-minding centre set up at the factory door'; secondly, that he supports the recent statement by the Queensland Minister for Welfare that the supporting parent benefit should be abolished; and, thirdly, that he would extend this by not paying an allowance even for the first child? Does the Minister care to comment on these outrageous claims, in particular the aspersion cast upon children's services in this country and the effect of removing the supporting parents benefits from single parents? Also, will the Minister, in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Health, comment on whether Mr Cameron's claim that he has worked his guts out suggests that he is gutless? Senator GRIMES —As one of the doctors in this place, I take a leaf out of the book of my legal colleagues in this place and will not give medical opinions in this place, so I will have to ignore the last part of Senator Crowley's question. I certainly did see the references this morning in the newspapers and partly in Hansard to Mr Cameron's speech. It seems to me that Mr Cameron wants two things to happen. First of all, he wants women to stay at home. I understand that he insists that his wife stay at home. He also wants no support to be provided in the many instances where one person, be it male or female, has to look after children, through circumstances beyond their control. Senator Walsh —Does he want to abolish the widow's pension? Senator GRIMES —I assume, as Senator Walsh says, that he probably wants to abolish the widow's pension too. I find it extraordinary that he should describe child care centres as socialised, ratbag, Russianised and all sorts of extraordinary things, because even in the electorate of Maranoa, Mr Cameron's electorate, he has child care centres and family day care centres. Senator Ryan —Close them down. Senator GRIMES —I will close them down, if that is what he wants. But I would not like to do that because Mr Cameron, as the local member, has approached me and my Department for assistance for funds to set up such centres. Senator Ryan —Double standards. Senator GRIMES —Of course, we are used to double standards from those sorts of people. He and the new Minister for Community Welfare in Queensland have in recent times had a fair bit to say about child care centres and about the supporting parent benefit. Both of them have said at various times that the supporting parent benefit should not be paid and that they are sick of working to support single parents. They have both also criticised child care centres in the way that Mr Cameron did yesterday. How he or Ms Chapman from Queensland can suggest that we should abolish the supporting parent benefit, leaving people totally unsupported, and at the same time suggest that what these people should do is stay at home and look after their kids, is beyond me. I do not understand that logic. But then again I do not suppose that logic is a strong point in either case. I resent their description of children's services in this country as Russianised, socialised, communist or however else they describe them. One of the penalties that face Ministers in charge of child care in this country-people like Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, Senator Chaney and me-is that we end up with very harrowed looks a lot of the time because, as Ministers in charge of that area, on one side we are attacked by the people who want child care for not providing enough of it, and on the other side we are attacked by people like Mr Cameron who want us to provide none at all. In fact children's services are an essential part of this society and any modern society. They are provided not only for people who need to work; they are provided not only for single parents; they are also provided as respite care-`take a break care', if you like-for those many women in this country who live in isolated circumstances in our suburbs, our mining towns, our large cities and our country towns. Continual representations come to me, to Ministers such as Senator Ryan and to all members and senators in this Parliament from women who wish to be provided with more child care than is available. They are not assisted by the outbursts from people like Mr Cameron. They are not assisted by the vicious statements and prejudicial views expressed by Mr Cameron. The only thing I can hope is that his views are largely his own or at least just the views of the National Party of Australia that he represents. They are certainly reflected in this place by Senator Boswell, Senator Bjelke-Petersen and particularly Senator Sheil. I hope they are not the views of members of the other coalition party. If they are, I feel sorry for the people whom they represent. Senator CHANEY —My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. It refers to his previous answer to a question from me. I refer to the Minister's comment that he declared his interest in a company both in his declaration and in this place in a debate on broadcasting, an occasion that I recall. I ask him to confirm that at no stage has there been any declaration about the interest of that company in Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. I also ask him to clarify part of his answer when he said that he was not aware of the extent of the shareholding but that he was aware that the company had an interest in a wide number of shares. I ask him: Was he aware of any shareholding in BHP at that time or in the past? I further ask him: Does he regard it as satisfactory that it now appears that at least two of the members of the committee have some indirect interest in either BHP or the Bell company and yet that committee was entrusted with the task of making the major inquiry on behalf of the Government into the public interest? Senator BUTTON —What the Leader of the Opposition is trying to do is to contrast my duty as a trustee-director under the Companies Act with my ministerial role and my responsibilities to this Government and this Parliament. Senator Chaney —That is right; very perspicacious. That is exactly what I am trying to do. Senator BUTTON —Yes, it is very perspicacious, and very desperate too because not one member from the other side of the House has ever declared a conflict of interest in this Parliament. I sat here for seven years under the previous Government. Senator MacGibbon —That is not true. Senator BUTTON —I refer to Ministers; not one Minister of the previous Government, in the seven years of that Government, declared a conflict of interest in this place. They hid behind the report of the Riordan Committee on Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament and refused to implement that, although their Government supported it. They took virtually no notice of the Bowen Committee of Inquiry concerning Public Duty and Private Interest. They have obstructed public declaration of interests ever since they have been in this place. When I declare my interest, on the record for them all to examine, they try in this place, by a series of connections, three removed, to make a connection that would establish conflict of interest, relying on my public declaration. They can do that until they are black and blue in the face. What they are is a collection of desperates. If they want to pursue this right down the line and have it out, we will do that. But they should front up with their own declarations of interest before they ask questions of me. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. I note the Minister's total failure to answer the three points I raised with him. I ask him: Did he at any stage in this place or in the privacy of the Cabinet room, which is what I was referring to, make clear or declare the existence of the connection between the company of which he is a director and trustee and the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd with $400,000 worth of shares? Senator BUTTON —I certainly did not make any declaration in the Senate in relation to this matter because I was never asked to do so. The Leader of the Opposition needed a couple of smutty journalists to draw his attention to my public declaration of interest. He needed a couple of journalists to help him out with that. No Opposition senator ever asked me about that. They had plenty of opportunity but nobody ever asked-- Senator Chaney —In the Cabinet room. Senator BUTTON —I declined, in answer to an earlier question from Senator Chaney, to answer on what happens in the Cabinet room. I simply said that I would not reveal the nature of Cabinet room discussions on that question. Senator MacGibbon —Covering up. Senator BUTTON —Covering up, if you want. Senator ELSTOB —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. What action is the Government taking to encourage the United States to agree to sign the protocols for the South Pacific nuclear free zone? Will the Minister be seeking dialogue with the governments of other countries with the aim of establishing further nuclear free zones in our region? Does the Minister believe that this Government's preparedness to mediate and negotiate to reduce tensions and establish zones of peace in our region is a valid and proper role for Australia to play in this International Year of Peace? Senator GARETH EVANS —The idea of a South Pacific nuclear free zone treaty became a South Pacific Forum undertaking in 1984 when heads of government established a working group of officials chaired by Australia to draft a treaty. Since that time Australia has worked as a member of the Forum team to bring the treaty and its protocols-which was the particular subject of Senator Elstob's question-into being. In January-February this year, the chairman of the working group, Mr David Sadleir of the Department of Foreign Affairs, led a delegation representative of the Forum to explain the treaty and its draft protocols to the five nuclear weapons States and to solicit their views on the protocols. The full working group is meeting this week in Fiji to consider the delegation's report and to frame recommendations to Forum heads of government on finalisation of the protocols. Beyond all this, in the course of regular bilateral exchanges with the United States at all levels, we have had occasion to explain the intent and effect of the treaty and to respond to questions and requests for clarification. Beyond saying that, it would be inappropriate at this stage to comment further on the nature of the United States Government's response. Other than the South Pacific nuclear free zone, Australia is an active participant in the United Nations ad hoc committee on the Indian Ocean dealing with the proposal to establish an Indian Ocean zone of peace. As to the last part of Senator Elstob's question, the Government believes that a preparedness to work to reduce tensions is very much a valid and proper role for Australia in all years, including, of course, the International Year of Peace. Senator VIGOR —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is the Minister aware that already this year more than 20 people have died in Italy from contamination of wine by methyl alcohol? Is the Minister further aware that the rate of import of wine grape juice into Australia has doubled since 1982-83 and that over one-third of this wine grape juice is imported from Italy? What tests are regularly carried out on imported foodstuffs to ensure their safety for human consumption? In particular, what steps are being taken to ensure that Australians are not being put at risk from the importation of wines and wine grape juice from Italy? In view of the above and of the problems of the wine grape growers in Australia, what steps have been taken to control the import of grape juice into Australia? Senator BUTTON —I appreciate Senator Vigor's interest in alcoholic beverages. I think that on a previous occasion he asked me a question about Australian wine which was being sold in Japan and mistaken for Austrian wine which was said to have been contaminated. The Australian Government has been assured by the Italian Government-this matter has been adverted to-that no contaminated wine has been exported to Australia, and we have accepted these assurances. I should say that tests are regularly carried out on imported foodstuffs to ensure their safety for human consumption. I am not sure whether it is correct to infer from that answer that regular tests are carried out in relation to alcoholic beverages. The Australian Customs Service has been monitoring imports of wine from Italy to ensure that none of the affected brands are coming into this country. Apparently the brands which are alleged to have been contaminated have been quite clearly identified. Imports of wine grape juice and so on into Australia have been fairly significant in recent years. However, the rate of increase has dropped since the beginning of this year. This is largely attributed to the changes in the exchange rate. Total imports of these wines into Australia represent only 4 per cent of the domestic market. The Department of Primary Industry has been monitoring imports of grape and wine grape juice since the sales tax on wine was imposed in 1984 and the independent inquiry into the wine and grape industry has recommended that there is a need to continue that monitoring. It will continue. Senator FOREMAN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation. Did the Minister see the recent article in the Adelaide Advertiser entitled `Jet Engine Still Risky'? The article says that in the United States doubts have surfaced over the adequacy of Federal Aviation Administration directives in respect of the Pratt and Whitney JT8D jet engines. This engine was considered to be the cause of aircraft accidents in Milwaukee and Manchester last year and is particularly important as it powers many of the world's commercial airliners. Can the Minister state whether Australian aviation checks on these engines are adequate in this context and whether aviation directives currently in force are adequate to cope with this situation? Senator GIETZELT —I am aware, as is the Minister for Aviation, of the article which appeared in the Adelaide Advertiser a couple of days ago headed `Jet Engine Still Risky'. It concerns the Government that there is such a strong division of opinion on the issue in the administration of aircraft safety in the United States. The article highlighted differences of opinion over safety which apparently have arisen between the two arms of the United States Administration responsible for domestic aviation, one known as the National Transport Safety Board and the other as the Federal Aviation Administration. At least in this country we are fortunate that we do not have such divided responsibilities. Aircraft fitted with this engine were involved in the Manchester, United Kingdom, Boeing 737 accident and then the Milwaukee DC9 accident in the United States. The National Transport Safety Board has expressed its concern that engines with high numbers of takeoffs and others that have an older, weaker design of engine spacer are not inspected more urgently. The present Federal Aviation Administration timetable, according to the other organisation, would not detect early stages of cracking that could lead to engine failure. The divided opinion in the United States naturally causes concern, not only in that country but in all countries using those aircraft. The Australian Department of Aviation shares the concern expressed by the National Transport Safety Board and already has taken action in Australia in line with its recommendations. We will keep the honourable senators informed of the progress on those recommendations. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I remind the Leader of the Government, who is a lawyer, of his responsibilities as a director. I quote from the Australian Corporate Affairs Reporter which quotes Lord Cranworth as saying: The director owes a fiduciary duty to his company. It is incumbent on him to assume no part which would be inconsistent with the proper, free and independent discharge of his duty. He cannot serve two masters. His personal interests and his duty as a director cannot be brought into conflict. I draw the attention of the Minister to his own declaration of interests which concedes that the Minister's connection with the company to which I referred is a matter which could give rise to a conflict of interest with his ministerial duties. That is expressly stated in the Minister's own declaration. I ask the Minister: Did he make any declaration of his interests? If he will not answer that, I ask him: What has he to hide? Senator BUTTON —I am glad that Senator Chaney, at the start of his question, identified the quality of his question by saying that I am a lawyer and that I ought to understand the legal point of what-- Senator Chaney —It is a pretty straightforward point for an honest man. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Chaney! Senator BUTTON —I am glad that Senator Chaney characterised his own question by pointing to the very legality of the point that under the Companies Act-- Senator Chaney —I said that an honest man would understand it. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Chaney, you have asked a number of questions. The Minister is entitled to be heard in silence. Senator BUTTON —If Senator Chaney wants to have this on, I will name some people on the other side. Let him think about it for the next 24 hours and decide whether he wants to have it on, because I will have it on with him. The question relates to whether I am saddled in the deliberations of this Government and in this Parliament with a very nebulous duty imposed on directors of companies under the Companies Act and whether that gives rise to a conflict of interest. The rules about conflict of interest, as I understand them and as this Government understands them, are whether an individual will be personally influenced in his judgment as a result of the fact that he has something to gain or lose by the way in which his judgment is exercised. Senator Chaney can turn that around as much as he likes but that is what I interpret `conflict of interest' to mean-whether an individual's judgment will be affected by whether he has something to gain or lose by the way in which he exercises that judgment. I declared my interest publicly as a director of the Industrial Printing and Publicity Co. Ltd. I have said in the Senate and I will say it again that I have nothing to gain or lose by anything that that company does. In contradistinction to members of previous governments-- Senator Michael Baume —What if it goes broke? Senator BUTTON —I have nothing to gain or lose. In contradistinction to members of previous governments, I immediately cancelled any benefit that I might have gained from that company when I became a Minister in this Government. In the past, when I was a director in receipt of remuneration from this company and a member of the Opposition-not a member of the Government-I declared my interest as a director of that company. No one on the Opposition front bench has done that. Senator COATES —I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: How long is it since the question of the establishment of a register of pecuniary interests of senators was referred to the Senate Standing Orders Committee? What progress has been made by that Committee? Have Opposition members of the Standing Orders Committee, which include the Leader of the Opposition, shown any support or enthusiasm for the proposal? Will the Leader of the Government in the Senate discuss this matter with the Leader of the Opposition and attempt to obtain his support for a change in the Standing Orders? At the next meeting of the Standing Orders Committee will he ensure that the matter is brought to a conclusion so that the Standing Orders are changed and a register is established in accordance with Government policy, similar to that agreed to in the House of Representatives, so that conflicts of interest of anybody in the Government and, particularly, in the Opposition can be brought into the open? Senator BUTTON —I can say with absolute certainty that the Opposition representatives on the Committee have shown no enthusiasm about the matter. Senator Chaney —Have you? Senator BUTTON —Oh, yes. I must say that the Standing Orders Committee, of which I am a member, has not met as often as it might and perhaps has been less than diligent in pursuing this issue. One of the reasons for this is that it has been trying to devise a way around the total lack of enthusiasm or, if I might say so, the totally negative response from Opposition senators to any effort to introduce such a register. The PRESIDENT —Order! Before I call Senator Newman, I remind honourable senators that this will be the first time that she has asked a question in this place. I request that the normal courtesies be extended to her. Senator NEWMAN —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment. As a preface to the question, the Minister will be aware that, in response to my questioning last night of the Heritage Commission in Estimates Committee D as to the pre-eminent importance of Port Arthur as an historic site and restoration project, it was agreed that the Government had made no provision for funds for the project to continue, that there had been no correspondence on the matter and that the specialist team of experts is already dispersing, due to the uncertainty of the project. In view of the urgency of the matter, could the Minister tell the Senate why her Government has allowed this nationally important project to be placed in jeopardy? Senator RYAN —I am certainly in no position to agree with the implication in the last part of the honourable senator's question. Certainly, I recall the discussion at the Estimates Committee hearing last evening about the Port Arthur project but I do not recall that any information given then would suggest that the project is in jeopardy, but rather that certain plans could not be implemented until funds were forthcoming. I have no information at hand to add to what was given to Senator Newman at the Estimates Committee hearing last night. I will pass her concern about this project, which relates to her State of Tasmania, to the Minister and see whether he has more positive information which he can make available to her. Senator NEWMAN —I ask a supplementary question. The Minister has agreed with the basis on which I described the questioning at the Estimates Committee hearing last night. In view of that, I wonder how the Minister can explain the fact that, although her public servants said last night that there had been no correspondence on the issue, on 25 September last year a very detailed document for a four-year program was sent with the concurrence of the State-Commonwealth steering committee to the Federal Minister. I have telexes dated 16 January 1986 and 14 February 1986 which clearly show that the Federal Government is dragging its feet in this matter. I seek leave to have the documents incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The documents read as follows- Private Secretary to The Hon. J. Beswick, Minister for National Parks Tasmania Receipt is acknowledged of Mr Beswick's telex of today's date concerning the Port Arthur conservation and development project. I shall draw your minister's telex to the attention of Mr Cohen at the earliest opportunity. Peter Conway Senior Private Secretary Office of the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment Canberra The Hon. Barry Cohen Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, Canberra. I refer to my telex of 16 January 1986 concerning the Tasmanian Government's proposal that the Port Arthur conservation and development project be extended as a joint Commonwealth/State funded project for another four years. Your senior private secretary acknowledged my telex indicating that it would be drawn to your attention at the earliest opportunity. Although I have become increasingly concerned with continual Commonwealth delay in consideration of our proposal I took some heart from Senator Coates comments at the official opening of the restored commandants house at Port Arthur historic site on 25 January 1986. Senator Coates said that he had discussed the extension of the project with the Prime Minister and was confident that a decision would be made within ten days. That period has now well and truly passed and enquiries at officer level this week have drawn the reaction that a decision was expected within two weeks. It is now over four and a half months since our proposal was put to you and over three months since your personal inspection of the site on 8 November 1985. The continual delays by the Commonwealth in considering this proposal are having a considerably destabilising effect on the conservation and development team staff and are also contributing to the loss of valuable knowledge and expertise as staff understandably protect the welfare of their families by seeking alternative and more secure employment elsewhere. While Port Arthur historic site plays a significant part in the Tasmanian tourist industry it is also undoubtedly of national heritage significance and the Commonwealth Government has a clear responsibility to ensure that the ruins of the penal settlement that played such a pivotal role in the development of this nation are properly conserved and presented for future generations. I would be pleased if you would now give this matter your immediate and urgent personal attention. The PRESIDENT —I call Senator Black. Senator Newman —I have not received an answer to the question. The PRESIDENT —Order! There was no supplementary question. It was a supplementary statement. Senator Newman —I take a point of order. My statement enclosed a question. The PRESIDENT —Will the honourable senator repeat the question without the statement? Senator NEWMAN —How does the Minister explain the fact that that correspondence clearly shows that it is the Federal Government which is dragging its feet on the matter? Senator RYAN —I suggest that Senator Newman's supplementary was supplementary information. It certainly was not a supplementary question arising out of the way that she phrased her original question. Nonetheless, because she is a new senator and it was her first question, I will take the second aspect of her question on notice and seek a reply from the Minister. Senator BLACK —Is the Minister assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women aware of the equal opportunity law recently passed in the Japanese Parliament? Can the Minister comment on the similarities of this law and the affirmative action legislation which was passed by the House of Representatives this morning, especially in relation to penalty clauses. Senator RYAN —I was very pleased to read media reports of the Japanese sex discrimination Act. I was pleased because it is very common in this country for those who understand its industrial composition, as does my colleague Senator Button, to point to Japan as a model for the Australian economy. We hear a great deal about the Japanese car industry and steel industry. Indeed, Japan is a leader amongst the industrialised countries and has a very good economic record. It is very interesting and encouraging to see that in this case Japan is following the example of Australia. Like us, Japan has now introduced an Act outlawing discrimination in employment on the grounds of sex. Similar to the provisions in our affirmative action legislation, the Japanese legislation has avoided counter productive, punitive measures and has taken a constructive approach. The new law stops short of penalising bosses who violate it but provides that local equal opportunity mediation committees in each district will dispense advice and disputes about it. There have been some jovial interjections. I think it is important to establish that in these very important respects of equal opportunity in employment, Australia is a world leader because of the legislative program of our Government, and is offering leadership that even highly advanced, very successful economies such as Japan seem very eager to follow. Senator KILGARIFF —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs to his answer to my question on 20 March concerning the visit to Australia of Dr Helen Caldicott and, in particular, I remind him that on that day he advised the Senate: The Australian Government has not been asked to provide, and has not provided, any financial assistance under the International Year of Peace to Dr Caldicott for her visit to Australia . . . Is the Minister aware of a letter written by Mr Max Charlesworth, Chairperson of the Victorian Consultative Committee for the International Year of Peace and published in the Age on 29 March in which Mr Charlesworth states that the Victorian IYP Committee did indeed sponsor Dr Caldicott's Melbourne lecture? Is the Minister aware of a statement released by the Victorian IYP Consultative Committee which further indicates that financial assistance was provided to the Caldicotts? Finally, does the Minister now accept that IYP funding has been provided to Dr Caldicott and his advice to the Senate of 20 March was erroneous and misleading and also that in view-- The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's question is getting a bit long. I ask him to bring it to a conclusion. Senator KILGARIFF —In view of the Caldicott statement on nuclear disarmament and the Australian joint defence bases et cetera the funding was in contravention of the Government's guidelines for the provision of IYP funds. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am not aware of the interrelationship between the national IYP funding from the Department of Foreign Affairs and the State consultative committees and the activities that they may generate. I am sure that there is some distance between those various bodies but I will seek clarification from the Minister and inform the honourable senator accordingly. Senator VALLENTINE —My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. When did the United States Government make its first approaches to the Australian Government regarding a possible fuel base in Western Australia and at what stage are the current negotiations? Given that it is cheaper to refuel in port than at sea on a quantitative basis, why are negotiations proceeding for a United States owned and controlled fuel base? If the land base supply of JP5 jet fuel is the issue, as the Minister indicated here yesterday, why cannot the Australian Government ensure that the current suppliers increase their stocks of that particular fuel to meet the United States Navy's requirements? Why is the Government considering an agreement which damages Australian sovereignty when it is clear that no agreement is necessary? Senator MacGibbon —Utter nonsense. It is because we do not have JP5 in Australia. We have avtur. Senator GARETH EVANS —Would Senator MacGibbon like to take over? This is a bipartisan defence policy, Mr President. Discussions with the United States on the provision of fuel supply in Western Australia have been underway since 1982. Several options have been explored. It is presently intended to reach an agreement to supply diesel fuel from HMAS Stirling in accordance with the 1984 Australian-United States memorandum of understanding on fuel exchange. Since the Royal Australian Navy does not hold, or have a requirement for, significant amounts of JP5 fuel in Western Australia, an agreement to permit commercial arrangements for the supply of JP5 is being discussed. As to the question about why negotiations are proceeding for a United States owned and controlled fuel base-as Senator Vallentine chooses to describe it-the Minister for Defence advises me as follows: Negotiations are not proceeding for a United States owned and controlled base. Current negotiations concern the possibility of the United States navy being supplied F76-whatever that may be-from RAN storage at HMAS Stirling and of the United States Navy entering a commercial arrangement to hire storage for JP5. It is quite incorrect to describe either of these arrangements in the terms used by the honourable senator. As to her third question, JP5 is the United States military specification for aviation turbine fuel used in ship borne aircraft. Australian commercial aviation turbine fuel has a different specification known as Jet A-1-that is subject, of course, to Senator MacGibbon's agreement-- Senator MacGibbon —You're dead right. Senator GARETH EVANS —Good. Consequently, although Australian refiners have the ability to manufacture JP5 they would not normally have storage facilities available. The Australian Government does not have the authority to direct a particular refiner to increase or construct segregated storage particularly for a product for which the principal demand in Australia is for the American navy. As to the final part of the question which goes to an issue of alleged potential damage to Australian sovereignty, the Government is not considering an agreement which, in any way, damages Australian sovereignty. As I have already said, we have proposed to the United States Government a basis of agreement which is designed both to satisfy United States needs and to protect Australian interests, including of course Australian sovereignty. In particular we have stipulated that the fuel is to be stored for routine operational needs, as I said the other day, and not as a strategic stockpile. We have also made it clear that agreement for fuel storage will not constitute prior approval for ships' visits to Western Australia. As I said yesterday, they will be considered on a case by case basis. Finally, any fuel storage arrangements which are reached with the United States Government will not change the nature of United States naval operations in our region. In particular, they will not in any way constitute home porting. Senator JESSOP —My question is directed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. I refer to the Government decision to abolish the compulsory maturation requirements for brandy, whisky and rum contained in the Spirits Act 1906. Is the Minister aware that maturation is an essential, integral step in the production of brandy, whisky and rum without which the oxidation and chemical change does not occur to produce the taste, aroma and characteristics attributed to these spirits? In whose interests has this decision to abolish compulsory maturation been made? On whose advice was this action taken? What steps will be taken by the Government to prevent the market being flooded with cheap rotgut local or imported spirits? Senator BUTTON —There speaks the authentic voice of a South Australian senator. Firstly, Senator Jessop alleges that maturation of brandy, whisky and rum is essential. If it is essential I am not quite sure why most other countries that produce it do not have the essential regulations that we have. I believe that there are very few countries where maturation under regulation is required as it has been required in Australia in the past. Secondly, the decision to abolish maturation is a decision to abolish it in a phase way and was made after lengthy consultations with the industry, various individual companies, the National Health and Medical Research Council and a wide range of bodies. I have been asked in whose interest this was done. It was done not in the interests of any particular person or organisation; it was done in what is believed to be-- Senator McKiernan —In good spirits. Senator BUTTON —In good spirits as the honourable senator said, and in what is believed to be the best interests of the Australian industry having regard to changes in technology which have occurred overseas and which are occurring here. Those who advocate a retention of the existing rules seem to be against it, that is, they are against our adopting the latest technology in those industries. As Senator Jessop's question has obviously been very well written for him, I will obtain a very well written answer and make sure that all the detailed points that he raised are covered. Senator COOK —Mr President, my question is to you. In view of the current controversy and, in particular, the line of questions being pursued in Question Time today by Senator Chaney, will you put an end to the current hypocrisy and ask all honourable senators to declare their pecuniary interests before the debate on the Trade Practices (Transfer of Market Dominance) Amendment Bill and the Trade Practices Revision Bill commences in the Senate this afternoon? The PRESIDENT —That matter is the responsibility of the Senate itself so far as Standing Orders are concerned. I understand arrangements are being put in train for an early meeting of the Standing Orders Committee to be called. Senator SHEIL —My question is directed to the Minister for Education. Is it a fact that the Chisholm Institute of Technology in Victoria is fully funded by Commonwealth grants to the State of Victoria in accordance with the agreement reached at the 1973 Premiers Conference? Will the Minister explain how that Institute finds itself in such a healthy financial position that it is able to purchase for more than $2m a shopping centre comprising a supermarket and 14 shops, as reported in the Weekend Australian? Will the Minister undertake to examine how a portion of the present Commonwealth funding for higher education in Victoria can be redirected to other States to augment shortages of tertiary places rather than to bolster the real estate market in Melbourne? Senator RYAN —In answer to the first part of Senator Sheil's question, yes, the Chisholm Institute is one of the 46 colleges of advanced education funded by our Government. In response to the second part, concerning an allegation that the Institute has used some of its funds to purchase a shopping centre, this matter had not been drawn to my attention until Senator Sheil asked his question, so I will seek some information. It is true that institutions are being encouraged to get private industry funds for applied research but I do not know anything about this particular incident; I will have the matter investigated. Senator GRIMES —Yesterday Senator Walters asked me a question, as Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, concerning the social security amnesty. The answer to Senator Walters's question is, firstly, that the cost of the amnesty has been $531,862. As to the other parts of her question concerning the effectiveness of the amnesty, the amnesty has been effective in helping people get off the treadmill of incorrect social security payments. It is not possible to give detailed results, including details of savings, until the amnesty is concluded. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance) —I table a letter from the Auditor-General on the financial statements of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust for the year ended 30 June 1985 and seek leave to make a brief statement by way of explanation. Leave granted. Senator WALSH —Pursuant to section 162 of the Superannuation Act 1976, the Minister for Finance arranged the tabling in the House of Representatives on 12 February 1986 of the 1984-85 annual reports of the Commissioner for Superannuation and the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust. The report of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust included the financial statements for the year ended 30 June 1985, together with a report of the Auditor-General with respect to those statements. The Auditor-General's report on the statements, however, was provided in two separate parts. Through an administrative oversight only the first part was included with the documents tabled. The second part of the report is now tabled for the information of honourable senators. Although the letter was not tabled, the matters which were the substance of the letter were covered in the part of the report which was. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator RYAN —Yesterday at Question Time Senator Cooney asked about the effect on koalas of the clearing of native forests in the Cobobonee area of western Victoria and the action that the Commonwealth Government is taking to conserve koalas and their habitat. The advice from the Minister for Environment and Conservation is that koalas are not considered to be endangered. However, the Minister is aware that habitat modification and destruction affect koalas in some areas and he is committed to ensuring that the survival of these unique marsupials is not threatened. Conservation and management of koalas and other native wildlife in Victoria is the responsibility of the Victorian Government. Koalas that occur in the Cobobonee area of Victoria are not at the western limit of their natural distribution in Australia. Various other populations are scattered throughout western Victoria. Indeed, koalas have been liberated successfully as far as Lower Glenelg National Park near the South Australian border. With the assistance of funds provided by the American Express company, the community employment program and the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, a total of $321,000 is being made available for work on koalas. Senator GARETH EVANS —On 9 April Senator Sir John Carrick asked me a question without notice suggesting that an alleged photograph showing a judge in company with alleged criminals had been in evidence before a royal commission or the National Crime Authority, and he asked certain supplementary questions. After consultation with the office of the Special Minister of State, which has in turn consulted with the relevant authorities under its wing, I can answer the question as follows: In so far as the Stewart Royal Commission into Drug Trafficking is concerned the matter is one entirely for the royal commissioner whose final report is to be delivered to the Commonwealth, New South Wales and Victorian governments by 30 April. So far as the National Crime Authority is concerned, although the Authority is not unwilling to set the matter straight it finds itself constrained by its established practice, the merits of which I believe the Senate will appreciate, not to respond publicly to questions of this kind going to operational matters. The Australian Federal Police is, of course, aware of the allegations made as to the existence of such a photograph but insofar as it is aware it is not in possession of the alleged photograph. The facts as alleged do not reveal any Federal offence so the Australian Federal Police is not investigating the matter. I understand these allegations have been made on and off since 1979-four years before the election of the Hawke Labor Government. In those four years, while the honourable senator was a senior Minister in the Fraser Government, the alleged photograph did not surface and it has not surfaced in the three years since. So far as proving once and for all the truth of the allegations concerning this photograph, I simply say that there are obvious difficulties for any government and any law enforcement agency in investigating an essentially vague report as to the existence of an alleged photograph purportedly showing a judge in company with alleged criminals. There, I think for the moment, the matter must rest. The PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that, following the death of Senator Missen, I notified His Excellency the Governor of the State of Victoria, pursuant to section 21 of the Constitution, that a vacancy had happened in the representation of that State. Assent reported. Consideration resumed. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(3.08) —I now move to the final amendment that I propose to move in Committee to the Trade Practices (Transfer of Market Dominance) Amendment Bill 1986. This amendment is in two parts. The first part, paragraph (c) is identical to the amendment moved by the Opposition-the so-called grandfather clause. The Australian Democrats did not support the Opposition's grandfather clause for a very good reason. It said simply that a Part A statement within the meaning of the Companies (Acquisition of Shares) Act 1980 was lodged before the day on which the Trade Practices (Transfer of Market Dominance) Amendment Bill 1986 received royal assent, the existing section 50 should apply and the amended sub-section 50 (2C) should not apply. That was an attempt to ensure that the rules of the game were not changed in the middle of a very important takeover in this country. It had one serious flaw, simply that the takeover-the largest takeover in the country by Holmes a Court of our largest enterprise-was in progress, but the bidder, the Holmes a Court companies, could have circumvented the meaning of the Opposition's amendment simply by withdrawing the bid and reapplying it as soon as royal assent had been given to this Bill. Because it was so easily circumvented, the Democrats were unable to support the Opposition on their so-called grandfather clause, although, as I have repeatedly stated, we appreciated the intent of that clause. Both the Opposition and the Democrats agree that one should not change the rules in the middle of the most important takeover this country has seen. The purpose of the amendment now before us is simply to add paragraph (d) to the wording of the amendment presented by the Opposition. It says that if a Part A statement in respect of the acquisition of shares is lodged within six months after the day this Bill receives royal assent, the existing law, the old section 50, should apply and not the proposed new sub-section 50 (2C). If the Opposition were genuine in its desire to ensure that the rules of the game were not changed during the most important takeover this country has seen, it should have no logical or philosophical reason for opposing this amendment. It is very clear, it has been debated at length, and I do not wish to waste the time of the Committee labouring the point any further, but I would make a final point. We have seen in the last two days the spectacle of two public companies investing $3.5 billion worth of shares in a buying spree on the stock markets the like of which this country has never seen before. We are seeing this enormous amount of money-$3.5 billion-being invested for no productive purpose whatever, at a time when youth unemployment is the highest it has ever been, in excess of 20 per cent of our young people being unemployed. What could $3.5 billion do if it were invested in productive resources and in expanding the productive resources of industry? Why are we seeing this enormous waste of funds, this enormous investment and speculation on the Stock Exchange, rather than in productive investment? We are seeing it because the Government is sitting back and saying: `This is no responsibility of ours. Where investors want to invest their money, let them go to it-that is no concern of ours. Whether the money comes from overseas or whether it does not is no concern of ours. When we have a foreign debt, the magnitude of which we cannot even meet the interest payments on, or we are very closely getting to that point, that is still apparently no concern of ours. We will let the market rip'. I suggest that this is not good enough, and that the very least we as parliamentarians can ask is that we should not make it easier for speculators than it already is. We should be concerned when the largest monopoly this country has ever had is about to be taken over under circumstances that the public are completely in the dark about. Therefore, I move: Page 2, clause 3, proposed new sub-section 50(2c), at the end of proposed sub-section, add: `, unless, in the case of an acquisition of shares- (c) a Part A statement within the meaning of the Companies (Acquisition of Shares) Act 1980 or of a corresponding law of a State or Territory in respect of that acquisition of shares by that person was lodged with the National Companies and Securities Commission in accordance with that Act or such a law before the day on which the Trade Practices (Transfer of Market Dominance) Amendment Act 1986 received the Royal Assent; or (d) such a Part A statement in respect of an acquisition of shares by that person in a body corporate is so lodged within 6 months after that day, and a Part A statement in respect of an acquisition of shares by that person in that body corporate was so lodged in the circumstances referred to in paragraph (c).'. In moving this amendment, we concede that this is a last ditch attempt to hope that logic prevails in this chamber. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(3.15) —Such was the degree of confusion prevailing when we debated this matter for about eight minutes before the last adjournment that when Senator Siddons substituted an amendment for that which he had previously laid down and I opposed it, the particular proposal I was opposing was in fact the one we are now debating, not the one he then substituted. Such, however, was the degree of interest shown by Senator Siddons in what I was saying and by anyone else in this chamber that nobody noticed. That simply leads me to say that it is not necessary now to respond to Senator Siddons's latest amendment, because I already did so the last time round. I hasten to add, lest anybody be further confused, that the bottom line was no different so far as the last amendment was concerned than it is for this one. We oppose them both, albeit for slightly different reasons. May I quickly summarise the problems with this current amendment now before the Committee. The first problem is that it does not do any better than any of its predecessors in ensuring that the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd-Bell takeover-if anyone is still interested in it, given other events that are occurring in that market at the moment-will in fact be the subject of scrutiny under section 50. It would be possible to circumvent Senator Siddons's amendment, for example, as currently drafted, simply by changing the legal entity seeking to make the acquisition-that is to say, the subsequent Part A statement could be lodged by a different legal entity, for example, an associated company. One could drive the appropriate tram through the amendment now before us. The second point to make is that it is possible to defeat the amendment in another way by simply delaying the subsequent Part A exercise for six months and one day before another bid is issued. The time limit here of six months is just as arbitrary as the 12 months time limit that was subject to criticism by both sides of this chamber in respect of Senator Siddons's first amendment in this series. The final point I make is one I made just before lunch, and that is that the amendment as drafted would not apply to asset acquisitions or on-market takeovers of the kind set in train by lodgment of a Part C statement. Accordingly, the amendment is discriminatory in the way it operates. It has no foundation in principle that one can discern. It is obviously simply an attempt-not a very successful attempt, with the utmost respect to Senator Siddons's advisers-to find some way of stymieing a takeover which they do not want to go ahead, for reasons unconnected with the continuing merits, which are non-existent, of section 50 of the Trade Practices Act as applied to bare transfers of monopoly power. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(3.18) —I would point out that we are not trying to stymie a takeover. What we are trying to do is allow the existing law to operate on a takeover bid that has been made under the terms of the existing law. It is very misleading for Senator Evans to say that we are trying to stymie a takeover. We are saying that, if it were reasonable for a monopoly to occur under the existing law, that law should remain and the due processes implicit in the existing law should take place. We are not trying to stymie anything. Our position has always been, and still is, that we are not taking sides. We are just saying that in a takeover of this magnitude there should be an inquiry. The existing law would allow it to happen. This amendment will stymie an inquiry, or at least stymie the Trade Practices Commission from ruling on whether it thinks there is grounds for legal action or not in the Holmes a Court bid. That is all we are trying to do. Senator Gareth Evans —How do you feel about John Elliott-just as passionately? Senator SIDDONS —I have already said, Senator, that it is a disgusting state of affairs that we have witnessed in the last two days with $3.5 billion being invested in speculation-that is what it boils down to. That money will not add one iota of productive capacity to this country at a time when over 20 per cent of our young people are unemployed. That is my position. I put out a Press statement today on that. It is quite obvious that these enormous amounts of money underline the importance to the investing public, to industry generally and, I would have thought, to the Government of at least allowing the existing law to operate and not change it in the middle of the business. An amount of $3.5 billion has been invested in the last two days and yet the Government stands in this chamber and says: `Let us change the laws so we can make it easier for one of the parties which have spent this enormous amount of money to achieve its objective'. I have been accused of being unduly persevering in this matter. I have been accused of a whole lot of things by Senator Gareth Evans. He stood up and said that he could drive a bus through the legalities of my amendments. That may or may not be true. I do not believe this chamber is the place to debate highly complex legalities. If the principles that I have been espousing mean anything to the Government and the Opposition, they should at least allow this piece of legislation to go to a committee for a short time so that some of the things which have been said in this debate at least can be evaluated. We are not trying to suggest anything other than that. Senator Durack —Why didn't you support the Opposition's referral of the whole Bill to a committee when we moved for it before? Senator SIDDONS —For a very good reason. I acknowledge Senator Durack's interjection. I think it has now become abundantly clear to all parties that the Opposition was happy to refer the whole of this trade practices legislation to a committee for no other reason than it wanted to delay amendments of the trade practices legislation per se. It was prepared to support the sending of the whole of the legislation to a committee but when the legislation was split it was not prepared to support this part of the legislation going to a committee. We can only assume that the reason for the Opposition's agreement to refer the whole of the legislation to a committee was its concern for the other part of the legislation and not for this part. I think that has become abundantly clear. Senator Durack —We can assume that you are concerned only about this part and not the other part. Senator SIDDONS —One could say that. I accept that. In that sense the Government has at least flushed out the situation. We always were of the opinion that it was urgent to get trade practices legislation amendments through the Parliament. In spite of that attitude we said: `Look, we will block the whole of the legislation rather than let the section 50 (2C) amendment go ahead without any debate'. I will be interested to hear what the Opposition says about our amendment. I do not accept Senator Gareth Evans's comment that he could drive a bus through the amendment. One just cannot pull companies off the shelf and say: `Right, we will now lodge a bid in some other company's name'. It is not as easy as that, particularly when talking about amounts like $2 billion. I believe paragraphs (c) and (d) of the amendment would have the effect of allowing the existing law to apply to a current takeover bid. That is the purpose of them and I believe the amendment would allow that to happen. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(3.24) —The Opposition will not be supporting this fairly patent attempt to try to indicate that the amendment is somehow in line with the Opposition's grandfather clause by putting in the first limb, which is in the same terms as the Opposition's amendment, and then adding another limb which raises an entirely different subject whatsoever. I have tried to explain over and over again that what the Opposition had in mind in moving an amendment in the same terms as paragraph (c) of the amendment was that when a specific takeover proposal is lodged in a proper legal manner the law as it is at that time should apply to that particular proposal. When people make takeover offers they have a knowledge of what the law is. They make the takeover offer in the knowledge of the state of that law. That is the law that should apply to those takeovers which are on foot in a legal way. Senator Siddons talks about a takeover offer as though it is some sort of stream of consciousness in his mind or Mr Holmes a Court's mind and one does not know where it all begins or ends. If one thinks about it in those terms, what is the significance of the period of six months or 12 months? We know that Holmes a Court has been talking about a takeover of Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd for several years. Under that frame of thinking, that could go on for some more years. It becomes an absurdity. The only point the Opposition has ever made here is that when a person makes a takeover bid in a formal legal sense, when he takes that step, that takeover bid should be judged and determined in the light of the law as it is at the time. If there is, as there is, a facility for that offer to be withdrawn and another one lodged after the law has changed, so be it if that suits the person or company concerned. It may or may not suit the person or company concerned. There may have been particular reasons why they wanted to proceed with that takeover bid knowing what the state of the law was then. There may be particular reasons why they would want to take advantage of the law if it changes, if they can and if the market stays much the same. This sort of market changes daily. These judgments are made by the people concerned in this takeover game and it is not for us to speculate on their judgments. As Senator Gareth Evans has already said, this seems to be simply some desperate attempt by the Australian Democrats to ensure that the particular takeover proposals that are being made by Bell Resources Ltd are to be judged under the Trade Practices Act. As far as I know everybody agrees-even the Democrats-that the existing Trade Practices Act is not a suitable vehicle for judging the takeover of a monopoly or the bare transfer of monopoly power or whatever one likes to call it. The law needs to be changed. Whether it is replaced by some other law is a matter that we could continue to debate in this chamber, but everyone agrees that the existing law is quite unsatisfactory and that we should be proceeding to remove that law in those circumstances. People can decide, given the state of the law then, whether they want to proceed under the changes we make or to carry on under the law as it stood at the time they made the takeover bid. That is all the Opposition has said in relation to this matter. As to the sort of additional limb that Senator Siddons has suggested, the only difference between it and his previous amendment is that this one is for six months and the previous one was for 12 months. There are some other things as well, but the essential difference is that one of time. Senator Siddons can keep on trying to bait the Opposition or tempt the Opposition by changing the days. He may come back next time with six days or something. He might come back and come down like an auction system. He has bid for 12 months. Now it is six months. Will he bid three months, or six days, or three days, or what? The fact of the matter is that this whole exercise exposes a total misunderstanding by Senator Siddons of what the Opposition's amendments mean. We shall not move away from the principle that we have espoused throughout this debate. This amendment raises a completely different proposition and an absurdity. The Democrats are worried about Mr Holmes a Court's being able to proceed with a takeover offer for BHP, but he will be around. He has been around for several years already indicating this desire. What will another six months matter to him? It will not have any effect on what I assume to be the Democrats' purpose. Therefore, for those reasons the Opposition will not be supporting this additional amendment that the Democrats have proposed. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Siddons's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 49 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 43 —— Chipp, D. L. Sanders, N. K. Macklin, M. J. (Teller) Siddons, J. R. Mason, C. V. J. Vigor, D. B. Archer, B. R. Knowles, S. C. Aulich, T. Lewis, A. W. R. Baume, Michael MacGibbon, D. J. Baume, Peter McIntosh, G. D. Black, J. R. McKiernan, J. P. Bolkus, N. Maguire, G. R. Brownhill, D. G. C. Messner, A. J. Carrick, Sir John Newman, J. M. Childs, B. K. Parer, W. R. Coates, J. Puplick, C. J. G. Coleman, R. N. Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Cooney, B. Reynolds, M. Crowley, R. A. Robertson, E. A. Devlin, R. Ryan, S. M. Durack, P. D. Sheil, G. Elstob, R. C. Short, J. R. Evans, Gareth Tate, M. C. Foreman, D. J. Teague, B. C. Georges, G. Townley, M. Giles, P. J. Vanstone, A. E. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Watson, J. O. W. Hamer, D. J. Withers, R. G. Jones, G. N. Zakharov, A. O. Kilgariff, B. F. Question so resolved in the negative. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment. Adoption of Report Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) proposed: That the report from the Committee be adopted. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(3.39) —I move the following amendment: Leave out all words after `That', and insert `the Trade Practices (Transfer of Market Dominance) Amendment Bill 1986 be referred to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs'. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Jones) —The question is: That the amendment be agreed to. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(3.39) —If the motion is legitimate, I speak to it to indicate that it is unacceptable. Senator Elstob —On a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President: The Minister has not, in my opinion, moved for the adoption of the report, and an amendment cannot be moved until after the adoption. Senator GARETH EVANS —I have moved the motion for the adoption of the report. The question had not been put. Is this an appropriate point-and not on the third reading-to move that motion relating to the referral to the Committee? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —It is. Senator GARETH EVANS —If it has been moved does Senator Siddons want to speak to the substance of it? Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(3.41) —Yes, I want very briefly to speak to my amendment. During this debate Senator Gareth Evans said that he had no idea what was in the public detriment. I believe that that is an outrageous statement for a Government Minister to make. We agree that there could be some argument in determining the public detriment guidelines, and that only. For that reason I believe that the Trade Practices (Transfer of Market Dominance) Amendment Bill should go to a committee so that some consideration can be given to it and there is some clarification of what is a public detriment issue and what is not. We could easily list some of the public detriment matters, such as tax. What about negative gearing and the tax considerations there? What about our foreign debt, the increased debt for no gain in our productive resources? What about de facto foreign control of industry? Surely these things are in the public detriment or potentially could be? What about restructuring plans, assets stripping, closing plants and investment plans? Which areas will new investment go into? I would have thought that, very clearly, all these things are in the public detriment or could be and it would be a very appropriate thing for the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs to report on. That Committee could take this brief and consider the matter, I would think, in the space of about a month and come back and report to the Government. I make no apologies for this last effort to get some sanity into the situation that we have had to witness over the last few days. As far as the Australian Democrats and I are concerned the last and largest part of the farm is about to be sold off for $3.5 billion. After this has gone who knows who will run the country any more. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(3.44) —I have a great deal of sympathy with the purpose of this motion. I have always been a strong advocate of the benefits of public examination of legislation by Senate committees, and the fact that a particular Bill is agreed as being desirable does not mean that there would not be benefit in public committee examination of whether other consequential changes should not be made to the legislation. In this particular case, though, there are other factors at work. The consequence of agreeing to this referral to a committee would be that the present provisions giving the Trade Practices Commissioner the right to inquire into a takeover of an existing monopoly would remain in force until the committee reported, which I think would inevitably be several months at least. The trouble is that the criterion which the Trade Practices Commissioner would use in examining the proposed transfer of control of the existing monopoly-in this case the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd steel monopoly-would be whether the proposed transfer of control was in the public interest, and this would be a requirement that would be almost impossible to satisfy. In practice, in the past, the Trade Practices Commissioner, despite the wording of the Act, has tended to look at whether there is net public detriment, and this would be perfectly appropriate in an examination of the change of control of a monopoly. Nevertheless, in such an important takeover as that of BHP, the Trade Practices Commissioner might well feel bound by the wording of the Act, and the majority of my Party, therefore, did not feel that a committee referral was desirable. Nor, for that matter, did BHP think a Trade Practices Commissioner inquiry, using existing criteria, was appropriate, though I suspect that BHP at the time was considering this only as an alternative to a full public inquiry. In the event, of course, it got neither. I cannot understand the lack of interest by the Government in the very important matter of the transfer of ownership of a monopoly. Under the Trade Practices Act there is full examination of an acquisition leading to a new monopoly, and included in this would, of course, be the source of funding of the new owner as well as the proposed activities of the new monopoly. Yet when an existing monopoly is to be transferred to new ownership, the Government seems to have almost no interest. Yesterday, Senator Gareth Evans argued that a secret inquiry by a Cabinet committee was an adequate substitute for a public inquiry. This is absurdly naive. There are many objections to such an inquiry, not least the lack of relevant competence of the Ministers concerned who are dealing with a highly complex area. In this case they were dealing with a man who has been publicly described by a Victorian Supreme Court judge as making, in another context, `highly misleading if not deceptive statements'. To trust such an important decision to naive Ministers is an absurdity. They are about as competent as the Victorian Football League commissioners who thought they were selling the Sydney Swans to Dr Edelsten, only to find that the real controller was someone quite different whom they had never heard of. Worse still, the Cabinet committee hearing was in secret, so of course there are inevitably rumours about the `under the counter' deals that were done. This is inevitable if such inquiries are held in secret. We still have not heard any statements on the undertakings given at the secret hearing, nor what was said about the financial arrangements, despite the fact that the original reason for non-disclosure-the hearings before the Victorian Supreme Court-is now no longer relevant. But even when the disclosures are made-if they ever are-they will inevitably be incomplete and there will be lingering suspicion about what was not revealed. Such a Cabinet committee inquiry is the worst possible way to tackle such a complex issue. But because of the grossly inept handling of the whole matter by the Government, that is all we and the public will get. When the tumult and the shouting over this particular takeover have died away, I believe we need a Senate committee to look into whether a public inquiry into the transfer of ownership of a monopoly is justified and, if so, who should conduct it and what criteria should be used. The committee might also usefully look at whether any control should be exercised over the activities of a monopoly to see that it is performing in the public interest. It is all very well for the Trade Practices Commissioner to decide that the establishment of a new monopoly is in the public interest, but what happens if it does not perform as promised? At the moment we can do nothing. I think an investigation on the lines I have suggested would be a very important task for a Senate committee. One of the problems is that we would not have the power to compel the Government to take action if any action was recommended. This Government rather likes monopolies, particularly labour monopolies, and stoutly resists any attempt to ensure that the activities of the monopolies are in the interests of the public rather than themselves. This is the reason I was rather attracted to having such an inquiry conducted while we had government legislation before us, because then we have some power to make the Government take action that ought to be taken. Nevertheless, the majority of my Party felt the disadvantages of this course outweighed the advantages and I am prepared to abide by its decision, though I repeat it is very important that we have a Senate committee inquiry because there are real problems with monopolies; in particular those of the change of control of an existing monopoly, and how we ensure that established monopolies continue to operate in the public interest. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(3.48) —The Government opposes the amendment to refer this legislation to a committee. I think there is no better language in which to do so than that employed by Senator Haines in this place on 13 March when speaking for the Australian Democrats. She made a point concerning what would be the effect of a referral to a committee, as far as the section 50 amendments were concerned, and I am not talking about the Democrats continued resistance to the referral of the rest of the Bill to a committee. Senator Haines said in relation to the effects of the section 50 amendments: At the very most what it would do with regard to section 50 in the current Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd-Holmes a Court battle is to delay the introduction of that section for so long that Holmes a Court would do a John Elliott- an interesting bit of foresight- and indeed do what he has done himself in the past-withdraw from his bid and wait it out. That is clearly the implication of any such manoeuvre as far as this current battle is concerned. The second point I make is that I resist pretty vigorously Senator Siddons's suggestion that I had said during the course of this debate that I had no idea what was a matter of public detriment as far as takeovers were concerned. I said no such thing. I have no idea what it is that Senator Siddons has misunderstood, misheard or misread. The only two sorts of things that I can recall saying that bear any resemblance to that assertion are, first, that the question of net public benefit, which is the test under the present section 50, is not a test that is ever likely to be satisfied so far as a bare transfer of monopoly power situation is concerned, for reasons that I argued at length earlier in this debate, and secondly, that the Government has considered public interest and public detriment issues in the context of the Bell-BHP exercise-not naively, with respect to Senator Hamer, but with a great deal of dedicated attention from some people who have demonstrated rather more confidence in government than anyone on the other side has so far managed to do, excluding, of course, Senator Hamer, who has not been given the sufficient confidence of his colleagues to have a chance of showing his hand in government. Having considered these various issues, we were not satisfied, on all the information and evidence available to us, that there was anything that justified government intervention-anything, that is, by way of possible overriding public detriment or to the public disbenefit. I hope that clarifies the record on that. The third and final thing I say with respect to Senator Hamer's suggestion that the general issue of the appropriate inquiry procedures for bare transfers of monopoly powers be the subject of some reference to a committee is that, speaking personally, I would have no difficulty with such a suggestion once, as he said, the heat and dust from this exercise has died down. As we know, there is a procedure in Britain for treatment, consideration, of exercises of this kind-not incidentally public inquiry procedures. There is enormous misapprehension about the possibility and utility of public inquiry procedures when we are talking about highly confidential commercial matters of this kind. That is not the way it works in Britain or indeed anywhere else of which I am aware. There is the capacity to do various things publicly, but certainly no obligation to do so. Many of the most relevant stages of these sorts of inquiries are in fact conducted behind closed doors and, to my knowledge, the facts and detailed circumstances are not made public. There is a case for considering what sort of machinery might be appropriate and what sort of criteria might be appropriate for consideration of these matters-criteria and machinery that are neither overdiscretionary on the one hand or overinclusive on the other. Those are the twin dilemmas that we can fall into in this area. We do not want a set of ground rules that operate to completely drag the takeover process to a halt, because it is the lifeblood of our mixed economy system in many ways; nor, on the other hand, do we arguably want a system that depends totally on exercises of subjective discretions and perhaps does not ensure that these public interest considerations will be taken into account. Maybe there is a case for having some kind of committee inquiry into the general policy issues, but there is no case at all, for the various reasons that have been mentioned, for further delaying the passage of this legislation and the getting on to the statute books of a reform which has been universally agreed to be necessary. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(3.53) —I would just like to make the Senate aware that we have had a lot of discussion from the Liberal Party of Australia of the advantages and principles of sending Bills to committees. This discussion has been at great length and generally accompanied by a somewhat vicious attack upon the Australian Democrats for not agreeing to the proposal. I draw the attention of the Opposition to the fact that it has chosen not to support the reference of this legislation to a committee on the basis that it does not think the actual data requires it. The next time that we have the run-around of a reference to a committee for the purposes of the Opposition's delectation, I will stand up and remind it of that operation. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(3.54) —The Opposition does not support the motion to refer the Trade Practices (Transfer of Market Dominance) Amendment Bill to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. The Australian Democrats think they are being awfully smart at present by saying that, because the Opposition moved a motion to send all 74 or 75 clauses of the Trade Practices Amendment Bill to a standing committee, it should be in favour of sending this Bill, which represents only one part of one of the 74 clauses of that earlier Bill, to a committee. This is logic-chopping of the most extreme kind. As I have said over and over again in this debate, the Opposition was not opposed to each and every one of the clauses, or even the words, of the Trade Practices Amendment Bill that we debated previously. In fact, we never had any objection to the particular amendment to section 50 which has now been extracted from that Bill and made into this Bill. All of the arguments that I advanced in favour of my motion to refer the previous Bill to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs related to the other aspects of the Bill, in particular its technicalities, complexities and legal issues that arose, and to the large number of representations that had been received by various organisations in relation to those provisions. None of the arguments that I advanced at that time related to the simple issue of principle contained in this Bill to amend section 50 to remove from it any trade practices inquiry being required or possible in relation to the bare transfer of a monopoly or, as the Bill refers to it with nice legal accuracy, the transfer of market dominance. As I have said, this Bill represents not even one but only part of one of the 70-odd clauses of the previous Bill. It deals with an issue of principle that does not require the attention of a Senate committee. It does not deal with tech- nicalities. It is a very simple issue. I do not know what point there would be in referring this Bill now to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, as the Senate has already given it a second reading. The Senate has dealt with a number of amendments from the Democrats, and indeed from the Opposition, that went to issues of principle. Nothing in any of the amendments that have already been raised is the subject of any of the representations that have been received about other aspects of the Bill. Nothing in them presents any question of legal complexity. The Senate's having had a second reading debate on the Bill and supported it as a matter of principle, and having had a Committee stage debate in which it dealt with all the amendments that anybody has been able to think of so far, what would be the point of sending the Bill to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs? What would the Committee deal with? All the issues of principle have been resolved properly in this chamber. We might have asked it to investigate the issue of principle, but that has been decided by the Senate. Any amendments anybody has thought of have been decided by the Senate. This is purely and simply a last desperate attempt by the Democrats to prevent this Bill going through, to keep open the possibility of a trade practices inquiry for as long as it would take the Senate committee to deal with the Bill. Who knows how long that would take? I do not know whether the Committee would have the time to deal with it in the next few weeks or months, as Senator Siddons suggested. Anyway, the Democrats do not want it to be dealt with in a couple of weeks or even in a couple of months. They would love it to be held up indefinitely. That is what they have been about here with all their amendments and the attitudes they have been expressing in this debate. This is simply a last ditch effort by the Democrats to somehow or other hold up the decision-making process under the takeover legislation for the particular takeover which is so notorious at the moment. We have never suggested that it is necessary for a Senate committee to look at this proposal. If the Democrats feel so strongly about this matter why did they not support our previous motion to refer the whole Bill to a committee? They have said that they have no problems with the rest of the Bill although they have proposed a number of amendments to it. Perhaps their attitude is-it certainly was then-that they do not see any point in any part of the Bill being sent off to a committee. If they had wanted this matter sent to a committee they could have sent this clause to a committee with the other Bill, for instance. Clearly, they have dreamt up this idea of sending it to a committee now, at the tail end of the Senate's consideration of this legislation, simply to delay its operation as long as they possibly can. As I have said, the Opposition is in favour of this reform of the Trade Practices Act, which everybody agrees is necessary, including the Democrats. We want to see it passed so that the numerous interests now involved in this question will know what the Parliament thinks about the matter. What Parliament is going to do with the issue has been a problem for many weeks for everybody engaged in the exercise, not least the Trade Practices Commission. It cropped up in an unfortunate way. It was most unfortunate that this issue should have arisen as it did. The least that Parliament can do in these circumstances is to make a clear decision and let everybody know what we think the laws should be in relation to this matter which is the subject of such enormous public interest and activity, legal proceedings and heaven knows what else. We can make a contribution to this matter by making up our minds in the Parliament and letting people know what we think the law ought to be and laying down what the law is. Everybody can then have all these issues resolved on a certain state of the law. That is what has been bedevilling much of this question for the last few weeks. Nobody has known the state of the law is the view of the Parliament. So it is most important that we should make this decision and let everybody know where they stand. Let that be done as soon as possible. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a third time. Debate resumed from 9 April, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(4.06) —The Senate is now considering the second of the two Bills amending the Trade Practices Act which deals with all the other matters contained in the Trade Practices Amendment Bill that we had before us earlier in this sitting. That Bill had been read a second time. We had embarked upon the Committee debate and detailed consideration of the clauses of the Bill. We had considered a number of amendments and at least one of the Opposition's amendments had been agreed to. The Government also had proposed some amendments to that Bill. I understand now that the situation is that the amendments the Government had proposed have been incorporated into this Bill, the Trade Practices Revision Bill 1986, so it differs to that extent from the previous Bill. The amendment which the Opposition had moved and which was agreed to at the Committee stage has been included in this second Bill so it differs further from the Bill we dealt with previously. The Opposition had no objections to those changes. The Opposition would have supported the Government amendment, although I do not think we had actually reached it. Several other Government amendments had been passed. One that had not been dealt with is now included in this Bill. As I said, the Opposition has no problem with that and would have supported that Government amendment anyway. When we come to the Committee stage of the Bill I will be proposing that we go straight to the clauses relating to the next amendment that is on the master list of amendments proposed by us and the Australian Democrats. Subject to those qualifications, the Trade Practices Revision Bill is on all fours with the Trade Practices Amendment Bill 1986 which we have debated already. The Opposition is as opposed to that Bill as we were to the previous legislation As I said, we opposed the previous legislation even though there were some clauses in it to which we did not object. Clearly that is the case with this Bill. An amendment which the Opposition moved in Committee has been included in this new Bill; as are other Government amendments to which we have no objection. The fact is that this Bill, as a whole, imposes great new regulatory burdens and costs on business. It will create great new ministerial discretions to which we are opposed in principle. The Bill does not contain any form of review of such discretions. The Opposition has listed a number of amendments. The Bill presumably will be supported by the Australian Democrats. They have supported the Bill before. They even opposed its going to a committee for consideration because they are so anxious to see it passed. We will move the same series of amendments to this new Bill as we moved to the previous one. Despite the fact that we see the Bill being passed by this chamber and proceeding to the Committee stage, I hoped to save time by not going over old ground. We accept the reality of the situation. I make it perfectly clear that the Opposition opposes this Bill in principle. Therefore, we will vote against the second reading motion and we will continue to maintain our opposition to the Bill and to a large number of specific clauses which we will identify in the Committee debate and to which we will move some amendments to try to change some of the more objectionable features of the Bill. Looking at the Bill as a whole, I reiterate that it is thoroughly un- desirable legislation. It greatly increases the complexity of the law and creates a lot of unnecessary and onerous burdens for the business community. As I pointed out previously, this is very strange at a time when the Government's rhetoric has been designed to persuade the business community that the Government has great sympathy for the burden of regulation imposed by governments and parliaments in the past. This Hawke Government, so its rhetoric goes, will relieve the business community of some of those burdens. Here is another classic example of the hypocrisy of the Hawke Government, which is kidding the business community that it is sympathetic to its very great and justified complaints about regulatory burdens and their cost and is also trying to indicate that it will do something about the problem. Another typical example of the way this Government operates is that it set up a committee to review business regulation. That committee made a report recently to which I referred in the previous debate on this legislation. The report was tabled in January this year. It identified the extent of business regulation. It identified no fewer than 16,400 Commonwealth personnel who are engaged in or supporting those engaged in business regulation of one form or another under a great variety of Commonwealth legislation by either laws of this Parliament or regulations that have been made under those laws. It provided that the cost to the taxpayer of employing those 16,400 public servants was $700m per annum. Debate interrupted. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 4.15 p.m., under Sessional Order I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(4.15) —I wish to use this adjournment debate to draw the Senate's attention to an extremely serious occurrence which was reported in numerous newspapers on Thursday. I refer to the Snowy Mountains ski tube fire. It was caused by a spark from an oxy-acetylene torch igniting poly- urethane foam which was used to stabilise steel supports in the tunnel where there is a weak section of rock. This accident could quite easily have resulted in the loss of many lives. The response from the New South Wales Minister for Planning and Environment, Mr Carr, was that the most urgent question was why welding work was allowed near such a highly inflam- mable and toxic substance. I disagree only in emphasis with Mr Carr. I agree with the seriousness of the problem. The most important question was why governmental authorities allowed the use of polyurethane in the first place, especially in such a restricted and confined space, knowing the nature of the material used, the type of construction, the restricted nature of access and the type of equipment used in the construction of the tunnel. I believe that government authorities, including health, construction and building authorities, and the supervisors directly involved were mainly to blame. The inquiry will test that. As a senator who has experienced a fire involving a welder in a room-in this case it was a similar substance, a polystyrene ceiling-I have ardently campaigned for its total abolition, or at least to ensure that adequate protective materials be incorporated in the construction because of the highly toxic nature of these sorts of materials when ignited, especially when, for example, on ignition the residue falling from the roof would stick to the skin, causing very extensive burning. A project of this magnitude-$40m in the first stage-should have been thoroughly vetted by government authorities prior to approval being given for commencement. To allow the use of such a volatile material as polyurethane must raise serious doubts about the efficiency and effectiveness of the local government and government authorities involved in supervision. Fortunately, as I mentioned earlier, there was no serious injury but had this tunnel been operative many lives could have been lost due to the toxic fumes and burns. A further matter which must be raised was why this material, polyurethane foam, which is proven when ignited to produce toxic gases, including cyanide and nitrous oxide, was allowed to be installed in such a restricted place. Following, is the further question of whether the foam was to be placed in support of a concrete pour or was to be placed there permanently. Far more serious questions must be considered if it was to be there permanently. In fact, polyurethane resins can be produced in forms varying from hard, glossy solvent-resistant coatings to abrasion and solvent- resistant rubbers, fibres and flexible to rigid foams. Of all applications the foams have been found to be the most useful. The more flexible foams are also employed in upholstery material for furniture, as rug backing, insulation and crash pads. The more rigid foams are employed as the core in structural and insulating laminates and as insulation in refrigeration appliances and vehicles. Polyurethane and polystyrene are used in a number of common household goods, such as foam padding in lounge suites, rugs and bean bags. Many people, when purchasing such items, do not realise the potential danger of this material should a major fire occur. Fire involving polyurethane raises once more the whole question of flammability and of allowing the use of gaseous materials in furnishings, including carpeting in hotels, convention halls, and all places where large numbers of people congregate. I believe that the Insurance Council of Australia Ltd in particular-because it is in a prime position to provide warnings or to load premiums in instances where materials which, upon ignition, give rise to gaseous materials which are of great risk to the public-has been derelict in its duty about not giving adequate warnings, as have building construction authorities. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(4.21) —The Government appears to have used undue pressure to force a public servant to change embarrassing evidence he gave before a Senate committee. The public servant, Mr Sergio Sergi, told a Senate Estimates committee last night that 300 copies of a four-page brochure on the Maritime Museum cost $73 each because of delays by the Department of Finance. He told the Committee that the original cost of the brochures that Mr Hawke will take overseas next week had escalated by almost $50 each because the Department of Finance had questioned the Cabinet submission involved and had delayed allocating the necessary funds for almost two months. Today the Government forced him to change his evidence and to apologise to the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh. In a blatant example of silencing a public servant the Government today denied that the cost of the 300 brochures had increased as a result of any delays by the Department of Finance. Today in the Senate Senator Ryan claimed that Mr Sergi had been `confused under pressure' when he blamed the Department of Finance for the expensive delays that he said frequently occurred. Mr Sergi, who had previously been the senior private secretary to the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, Mr Cohen, was not at all confused or under pressure at the time. After he made his allegations last night Senator Puplick asked him if he would like to reconsider what he had said as `I do not want you to cut your throat in public'. There was no hint or suggestion of pressure on Mr Sergi when he stuck by his allegations. Mr Sergi said: `I realise it sounds absolutely ridiculous at more than $70 a copy'. He claimed that if the brochures had been produced in February, when the Museum was first told Mr Hawke wanted them, they would have cost only $27 each, including the expensive design work for the cover which could be reused. However, approval of the funds was delayed because `the Department of Finance was questioning a Cabinet decision' leaving only 10 days in which to produce the brochures. The Government now claims that the reasons for the cost escalation had nothing to do with the Department of Finance's delays. The Government is accusing a senior public servant of lying and has made him the sacrifice for its own waste and inefficiency. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 4.23 p.m. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 796) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 12 February 1986: (1) Does the Australian Government contribute $1.947m per annum to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) general budget. (2) What other countries contribute and what are their respective contributions. (3) What monitoring is made of expenditure of the IAEA by the Australian Government. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Australia's 1986 contribution to the IAEA regular budget was $2,034,000.52. Assessments are made annually by the IAEA using the United Nations base rate of assessment, scaled up to reflect the smaller number of countries which are members of the IAEA, and the differential scale of contributions which applies to the safeguards component of the IAEA regular budget. The scale of assessment is considered each year by the IAEA Board of Governors, on which Australia is a member, and is approved by the Agency's annual General Conference. (2) Assessed contributions for 1986 for the 112 IAEA member countries are set out in the table which follows. Assessments are partially made in United States dollars and partially in Austrian schillings, so that the total assessment in each case is the sum of the two amounts: Member State US dollar amount Austrian schilling amount Afghanistan... 2 109 85 114 Albania... 2 109 85 114 Algeria... 20 361 1 106 475 Argentina... 124 369 5 957 945 Australia... 388 043 20 783 505 Austria... 185 259 9 922 460 Bangladesh... 7 497 255 340 Belgium... 317 945 17 029 081 Bolivia... 2 109 85 114 Brazil... 213 095 11 660 549 Bulgaria... 29 538 1 532 043 Burma... 2 384 85 114 Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic... 90 127 4 827 141 Cameroon... 2 109 85 114 Canada... 763 570 40 896 605 Chile... 14 633 595 794 China... 306 673 7 404 874 Colombia... 20 740 936 248 Costa Rica... 3 464 170 227 Cuba... 15 970 766 021 Cyprus... 2 109 85 114 Czechoslovakia... 187 764 10 056 550 Democratic Kampuchea... 2 109 85 114 Democratic People's Republic of Korea... 9 177 425 567 Denmark... 185 259 9 922 460 Dominican Republic... 4 819 255 340 Ecuador... 3 464 170 227 Egypt... 13 604 595 794 El Salvador... 2 109 85 114 Ethiopia... 2 109 85 114 Finland... 117 665 6 302 083 France... 1 612 259 86 352 171 Gabon... 5 007 268 179 German Democratic Republic... 342 981 18 369 934 Germany, Federal Republic of... 2 115 464 113 303 669 Ghana... 4 083 170 227 Greece... 64 172 3 319 426 Guatemala... 3 739 170 227 Haiti... 2 109 85 114 Holy See... 2 503 134 090 Hungary... 59 878 1 957 610 Iceland... 7 510 402 269 India... 91 343 3 064 086 Indonesia... 24 480 1 106 475 Iran, Islamic Republic of... 94 970 4 851 469 Iraq... 17 976 1 021 362 Ireland... 45 063 2 413 570 Israel... 57 581 3 084 018 Italy... 926 298 49 612 258 Ivory Coast... 4 819 255 340 Jamaica... 3 653 170 227 Japan... 2 556 082 136 903 013 Jordan... 2 109 85 114 Kenya... 2 109 85 114 Korea, Republic of... 28 165 1 532 043 Kuwait... 62 588 3 352 154 Lebanon... 3 739 170 227 Liberia... 2 109 85 114 Libyan Arab Jamahiriya... 65 091 3 486 288 Liechtenstein... 2 503 134 090 Luxembourg... 15 021 804 538 Madagascar... 2 109 85 114 Malaysia... 14 597 766 021 Mali... 2 109 85 114 Mauritius... 2 109 85 114 Mexico... 148 434 7 404 874 Monaco... 2 503 134 090 Mongolia... 2 109 85 114 Morocco... 8 834 425 567 Namibia... - - Netherlands... 440 617 23 599 344 New Zealand... 65 091 3 486 288 Nicaragua... 2 109 85 114 Niger... 2 109 85 114 Nigeria... 29 117 1 617 156 Norway... 125 176 6 704 352 Pakistan... 13 278 510 681 Panama... 3 464 170 227 Paraguay... 2 109 85 114 Peru... 11 887 595 794 Philippines... 18 717 766 021 Poland... 206 836 6 043 058 Portugal... 29 882 1 532 043 Qatar... 7 510 402 269 Romania... 36 385 1 617 156 Saudi Arabia... 212,798 11,397,402 Senegal... 2,109 85,114 Sierra Leone... 2,109 85,114 Singapore... 13,568 766,021 South Africa... 72,049 3,404,540 Spain... 478,170 25,610,646 Sri Lanka... 2,384 85,114 Sudan... 2,298 85,114 Sweden... 325,457 17,431,350 Switzerland... 272,882 14,615,511 Syrian Arab Republic... 4,819 255,340 Thailand... 14,615 680,908 Tunisia... 4,819 255,340 Turkey... 53,657 2,723,632 Uganda... 2,109 85,114 Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic... 325,457 17,431,350 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics... 2,611,158 139,852,942 United Arab Emirates... 40,056 2,145,391 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland... 1,156,621 61,948,289 United Republic of Tanzania... 2,109 85,114 United States of America... 6,258,769 335,217,999 Uruguay... 7,479 340,454 Venezuela... 84,497 4,596,129 Viet Nam... 4,769 170,227 Yugoslavia... 72,988 3,830,107 Zaire... 2,298 85,114 Zambia... 2,109 85,114 Total... 24,477,000 1,288,813,000 (3) The Australian Government through its Mission in Vienna, relevant Departments in Canberra, the AAEC and the Australian Safeguards Office closely monitors the IAEA's program of work and budget. Australia is an active participant in the Agency's Administrative and Budgetary Committee, and in the Vienna IAEA branch of the Geneva Group, the informal grouping of the 13 largest western contributors to UN specialising agencies and organisations, which meets to review funding levels, program priorities, management improvement, and related issues. (Question No. 822) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 11 February 1986: (1) How many statutory authorities currently exist under the auspices of the Minister's Department. (2) What are the names of these authorities. (3) What appeal mechanism, if any, exists for the general public to lodge a complaint against these authorities. (4) If it is proved that any member of staff of any of these authorities is guilty of incompetence, what action, if any, could be taken by a member of the public to sue the authority for compensation; if it is not possible to sue the authority, why is that the case. (5) How many cases concerning these authorities are currently before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and what is the delay at present between the listing of a case and its hearing before the Tribunal. (6) If any statutory authority under the Minister's Department cannot be sued, will the Minister consider amending the relevant legislation to make this possible. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question. (1) and (2) Two: Australian National Airlines (trading as TAA) and the Independent Air Fares Committee (IAFC); a third: the Federal Airports Corporation (FAC), is awaiting proclamation. (3) The Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act applies to each organisation. The Ombudsman Act does not apply to TAA, but does apply to the other two. The Civil Aviation (Carriers Liability) Act also provides certain protection against personal injury or loss of or damage to baggage on TAA aircraft. (4) The Attorney-General's Department has advised that, unless an authority is statutorily protected, it is liable for the torts of its servants committed in the course of their duty. Where employees, acting in the course of their duty are incompetent and, as a consequence, loss is suffered by a member of the public, it will commonly be found that the act or omission which was seen as incompetent was also tortious. For example, incompetent driving would probably be tortious. In the absence of a denial of liability the negligent giving of erroneous advice is tortious where the advice is given by a person having a duty of care to one who suffers foreseeable damage as a result of reasonably relying on that advice. Many other forms of incompetence would also be tortious, but each case would need to be considered on its own facts. None of the authorities listed in the answer to parts (1) and (2) of this question is statutorily protected against general liability in tort. (5) None. (6) Not applicable. (Question No. 830) Senator Mason asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 12 February 1986: (1) How many statutory authorities currently exist under the auspices of the Minister's Department. (2) What are the names of these authorities. (3) What appeal mechanisms, if any, exist for the general public to lodge a complaint against these authorities. (4) If it is proved that any member of staff of any of these authorities is guilty of incompetence, what action, if any, could be taken by a member of the public to sue the authority for compensation; if it is not possible to sue the authority, why is that the case. (5) How many cases concerning these authorities are currently before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and what is the delay at present between the listing of a case and its hearing before the Tribunal. (6) If any statutory authority under the Minister's Department cannot be sued, will the Minister consider amending the relevant legislation to make this possible. Senator Gietzelt —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) If the honourable senator is seeking the number of statutory authorities in my portfolio, the answer is 7. (2) Repatriation Commission Veterans' Review Board Soldiers' Children Education Boards (each State) Seamen's War Pensions and Allowances Committee Director of Australian War Graves Australian War Memorial Defence Service Homes Corporation (3) Apart from the provisions of the Ombudsman Act 1976, the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1980 and the Human Rights Commission Act 1981, there are no general statutory provisions permitting the public to lodge a complaint against these authorities. Representations can be made, of course, to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs or direct to the statutory concerned. Affected individuals have the right to seek review of decisions relating to disability, war widows and service pensions under Repatriation and Seamen's War Pensions and Allowances legislation. (4) Except as outlined below, a member of the public whom the law recognizes as being owed a duty of care by a statutory authority may sue the relevant authority, the Commonwealth and/or the staff for compensation for a breach of that duty. The Repatriation Commission and the Seamen's War Pensions and Allowances Committees are protected against civil or criminal proceedings (other than proceedings for perjury) in respect of any statements made or opinions expressed in the course of determining a claim for pension (see section 47B of the Repatriation Act; section 8B of the Seamen's War Pensions and Allowances Act 1940). Section 107VZM of the Repatriation Act gives members of the Veterans' Review Board the same protection and immunity as a Justice of the High Court in the performance of their duty. The protection given by the above legislation is necessary to the work of the repatriation determining authorities. (5) As at 28 February 1986 there were 334 cases before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. 26 of these cases were appeals by the Repatriation Commission, 308 were appeals by veterans or their dependants. There is currently a delay of 95.8 days between the Department of Veterans' Affairs receiving notification of an appeal and the date of its finalisation by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. (6) No. (Question No. 891) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 11 February 1986: (1) How many endangered species of birds are in Australia and its Territories. (2) What are they. (3) Which are most endangered. (4) Where are they located. (5) What action is being taken to prevent their extinction. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The official list of Endangered Vertebrates of Australia and its Island Territories, prepared by the ad hoc Working Group on Endangered Fauna of the Standing Committee of the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers, includes 28 species of endangered birds. (2) The species are as follows: Australia Province Petrel Pterodroma solandri Gould's Petrel Pterodroma leucoptera leucoptera Red Goshawke Accipiter radius Plains Wanderer Pedionomous torquatus Lord Howe Island Woodhen Tricholimnas sylvestris Lesser Noddy Anous tenuirostris Coxen's Fig Parrot Psittaculirostris diophthalma coxeni Princess parrot Polytelis alexandrae Ground Parrot Pezoporus wallicus Night Parrot Geopsittacus occidentalis Golden-shouldered Parrot Psephotus chrysopterygius Hooded Parrot Psephotus dissimilis Paradise Parrot Psephotus pulcherrimus Orange-bellied Parrot Neophema chrysogaster Plumed Frogmouth Podargus ocellatus plumiferus Noisy Scrub-bird Atrichormis clamosus Northern Scrub Robin Drymodes superciliaris colcloughi Western Whipbird Psophodes nigrogularis Purple-crowned Fairy-wren Malarus coronatus Carpentarian Grass-wren Amytornis dorotheae Thick-billed Grass-wren Amytornis textilis textilis Western Bristebird Dasyornis longirostris Eastern Bristebird Dasyornis brfachypterus Western Rufous Bristebird Dasyornis broadbenti litoralis Helmeted Honeyeater Lichenostomus melanops cassidix Black-eared Miner Manorin melanbotis Forty-spotted Pardalote pardalotus quadragintus Lord Howe Island Currawong Strepera graculina crissalis Australia's external territories Abbott's Booby Sula abotti Christmas Island Frigatebird Fregata andrewsi Cocos Buff-banded Rail Rallus philippensis andrewsi Norfolk Island Parrot Cyanoramphus novaezelandiae cookii Norfolk Island Boobook Owl Ninox novaesealandiae undulate Christmas Island Owl Ninox squamipila natalis Grey-headed Thrush turdus poliocephalus poliocephalus Norfolk Island Silvereye Zosterops albogularis (3) Which species are most endangered is open to some question, even amongst experts, and would depend partly on future land use and management policies of relevant State Governments and in Australia's Territories. The Paradise Parrot, Northern Scrub Robin and Western Rufous Bristlebird are all thought likely to be extinct. The Lord Howe Island Currawong has an estimated population of less than 50 birds and the Norfolk Island Parrot may number less than 20 individuals. These particular species are threatened by habitat destruction, as are small remnant populations of Coxen's Fig Parrot, Plumed Frogmouth, Helmeted Honeyeater and Black-eared Miner. The rarity of most of these species makes their precise status and management requirements difficult to determine. (4) The 28 bird species listed as endangered occur in widely scattered areas of Australia and in the External Territories though most now have quite restricted distribution ranges. Maps showing precise distributions for each species appear in the CONCOM list of Endangered Vertebrates of Australia and its Island Territories. (5) Conservation and management of endangered bird species in Australia are primarily the responsibility of State and Territory Wildlife authorities. The Commonwealth Government has legislative responsibility for the protection of endangered species only in areas under its direct jurisdiction, such as Kakadu and Uluru National Parks and the external territories. Recent action to protect endangered bird species in Australia's external territories include the declaration of two extensions to Christmas Island National park, proclamation of Norfolk Island National Park under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975, the establishment of a monitoring programme for Abbott's Booby on Christmas Island and a captive breeding programme for Green Parrots on Norfolk Island. Australia is a party to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. The Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service administers the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982 through which Australia's obligations under the Convention are implemented. Under this Act, overseas trade in fauna is closely controlled, or prohibited where species are seriously endangered. The Commonwealth Government also seeks to encourage and support research into endangered bird species through the Scientific Research and Surveys consultancy Program and through grants to State wildlife authorities under the States Assistance Scheme. Both programs are administered by the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service. (Question No. 922) Senator Short asked the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment the following question, upon notice, on 19 February 1986: (1) Has the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment received funding under the Commonwealth Employment Program for activities in the `environment' between January 1985 and December 1985; if so, what is the total amount of the funding. (2) What are the names of the sponsoring groups, for what amount and what was the specific activity involved. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. $3,885,267. (2) The Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment has sponsored the following projects: Name of Project Funds Location Aim $ National Tree Planting Project I 1,353,627 Collie (WA) Bendigo (Vic.) Tree planting and regeneration to combat salinity and soil erosion, establish shelter and shade trials, and improve wildlife habitat. Alice Springs (NT) Establishment of tree crops, fuelwood and shade trees for Aboriginal communities around Alice Springs. National Tree Planting Project II 2,021,601 Cairns (Qld) Rockhampton (Qld) Tree planting and regeneration to combat soil erosion and salinity, establishment of shade and shelter trials, and improvement of wildlife habitat. Port Pirie (SA) Tree establishment to reduce air-borne lead contaminated dust. Launceston (Tas.) Tree establishment trials on abandoned mining areas. National Tree Planting Project III 510,039 Hunter Valley (NSW) Tree establishment to combat soil erosion, establishment of shade and shelter trials, and improvement of wildlife habitat and water quality. Canberra (ACT) Placement of one person in CSIRO Seed Store to collect seed for native fodder tree trials.