Monday, 4 May 1987 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: The costs of raising children are rising and the value of government provided economic assistance to families is declining. Families raising children are providing a vital function to society and are deserving of government provided economic assistance. Your petitioners therefore urge the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to: 1. Restore family allowance payments to their 1976 real money value. 2. Provide for the regular and automatic indexation of family allowance payments. 3. Increase the value of the Dependent Spouse Rebate to $1851 per annum and convert it to a cash payment given directly to the non-income earning spouse. 4. Amend the Family Income Supplement Scheme so that its value is increased, its eligibility provisions widened and its withdrawal provisions eased. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Chaney (from 42 citizens), Coleman (from 223 citizens), Giles (from 44 citizens) and West (from 5,984 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully shows: That we strongly support ``The A.C.T. Smoking and Tobacco Products Advertisements Prohibition Bill'' introduced by Senator Evans, because it represents the first positive national step towards the eventual elimination of widespread serious ill health caused by smoking tobacco. by Senator Vigor (from 45 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. This petition of concern to Australian citizens asks that: If, there is to be legal process against alleged war criminals resident in Australia, the foundations of justice should be clear and equitable. 1. Let the term, ``war crime'', be first clearly defined. 2. Let specific prosecutions be swiftly launched against those individuals alleged to have committed them, thus releasing the rest of their co-nationals from unwarranted slur and suspicion. 3. Let an Australian tribunal hear the charges. Nobody should be deported to face the ``tender mercies'' of any foreign government. 4. Let the presumption of innocence until proved guilt be clearly established. 5. Let all evidence obtained from the Soviet or any other communist government be set aside and totally disregarded. 6. Let all the costs of any person charged and found not guilty be paid by the Commonwealth Government so that innocent people are not financially ruined in the course of establishing their innocence. And your petitioners as in duty bound ever pray. by Senator West (from 12 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the honourable members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that: (1) Australians are offended by taxation evasion and welfare fraud which has the effect of increasing the taxation burden of honest Australians. (2) The community has shown its overwhelming support for the Government's decision to proceed with a national identification system known as the Australia Card. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable Senate will: Continue the fight against taxation evasion and welfare fraud and restore fairness and equity to the tax and welfare systems by supporting the Australia Card Bill. by Senator Robertson (from 63 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That there is widespread community concern about the proposal to irradiate food in Australia. Your petitioners, most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should: (1) Block the introduction of food irradiation into Australia and (2) ban the import of Cobalt-60 and Caesium 137 and Caesium 134 to be used to irradiate food products. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Vigor (from 59 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The Plant Variety Rights Bill 1986, now before Parliament, should be withdrawn because: 1. There is growing concern about the economic concentration of the seed industry and the loss of traditional food plant varieties in overseas countries with this legislation. 2. Genes, seeds and other plant genetic material should remain a public resource. 3. The demand for uniformity, imposed by P.V.R. legislation, reduces genetic variability and could lead to the loss of traditional genetic material. 4. P.V.R. will discourage the free exchange of information, seeds and genetic material and is therefore likely to adversely affect Australia's public breeding programmes. 5. Our choice of food, its quality and nutritional value will increasingly be determined by the interests of large overseas companies rather than those of the Australian consumer. 6. There is no requirement in the bill for superiority or for merit testing of varieties to protect the interests of our farmers. 7. The Bill can be interpreted to allow the registering of ``discoveries'' of previously unknown Australian native plants, many of which may have great social and/or economic value. 8. P.V.R. will mean higher costs for the farmer and the consumer and an increased burden on the Australian taxpayer. Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament recognise the widespread community opposition to P.V.R. and promote alternative incentives for plant breeding in Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Powell (from 394 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned shows: That even though the ACT House of Assembly requested that the ACT be declared a nuclear free zone the Federal Government has refused to allow this to occur. Your petitioners request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should: Resolve that the Government should declare the ACT a nuclear free zone as requested by the ACT House of Assembly. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Vigor (from 67 citizens). Petitions received. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —Pursuant to my notice of intention given last Friday, I now withdraw Business of the Senate, Notice of Motion No. 3, standing in my name for four sitting days hence concerning an amendment to the petroleum products subsidy scheme. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the failure thus far of the Federal Treasurer (Mr Keating) to respond to a Question without Notice relating to foreign ownership of the media, asked without notice on 23 February 1987; (b) regrets the Federal Government's apparent uncertainty about the operation of the foreign ownership guidelines in the light of the Herald and Weekly Times takeover; (c) urges the Government not to take further steps along its preferred path of concentrating media influence among a handful of powerful proprietors; and (d) acknowledges that there is a clear need for a Parliamentary inquiry in 1987 into all aspects of media ownership and control. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) deplores the settlement terms offered to victims of the Dalkon Shield by the A. H. Robins Company; (b) notes with anguish the fact that thousands of Australian women have had to seek redress for their injuries and suffering in United States courts; and (c) calls upon the Federal Government to tighten product safety standards and to introduce class action legislation which will give consumers an effective channel of redress for harm caused by deficient goods. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes that the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority is to establish a program to assist young autistic children in 1988; (b) also notes that in 1985 a program designed to help autistic Canberra children was abolished through spending cuts caused by the 1985 May mini-Budget; (c) draws attention to the plight of Canberra children who have been without such a program due to the poor planning and administration of the Federal Labor Government; and (d) calls upon the Government to give some assurance that there will not be a similar attack on services for handicapped children in ACT schools. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. National Companies and Securities Commission-Annual Report and Financial Statements 1985-86-together with the Auditor-General's Report-pursuant to section 52 of the National Companies and Securities Commission Act 1979. 2. Government response to the recommendations of the Report of the Joint Select Committee on Telecommunications Interception. 3. Proposal to install traffic control signals within the Parliamentary Zone-pursuant to section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974. 4. Tasmanian World Heritage Area Council-summary record of the first meeting-Hobart- 14 March 1985. 5. Tasmanian World Heritage Area Council-summary record of the second meeting-Launceston-18 April 1986. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I inform the Senate that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, will be absent from Australia from 3 to 25 May 1987. During his absence the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, will be the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to the Prime Minister's 1984 policy speech in which he said: And above all, that every Australian family has the opportunity to maintain and improve its standard of living. I also refer the Minister to the fact that during Mr Howard's period as Treasurer the dependent spouse rebate almost doubled-from $555 to $1,030, a 16 per cent real increase after inflation-but that under the Hawke Labor Government the dependent spouse rebate has not moved at all in dollar terms, representing a 25 per cent real decline. Will the Minister guarantee that the Government will not further increase the taxes on families by restricting eligibility or otherwise reducing the value of the dependent spouse rebate? Senator Coates —Is that your priority? Senator BUTTON —Everybody in the community, with the possible exception of Senator Chaney, is aware that the Government is devoting a lot of attention to the May economic statement. The Prime Minister and others have said that the May economic statement will have to restrain significantly Government Budget outlays, and that will be done. The details of that statement will be available to all members of the Parliament on 13 May and not before. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question which follows Senator Coates's interjection: `Is that your priority?'. I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: Is the Government giving any priority to the declining situation, in relative terms, of Australian families with dependants; in other words, is the Government giving attention to the fact that the relative position of families with dependants has worsened under this Government? Is it trying to ensure that that worsened position is not further damaged by the mini-Budget? Indeed, will the mini-Budget endeavour to improve the situations of those families with dependants? Senator BUTTON —As a result of $9 billion being taken from our national income-- Senator Chaney —It is a question of relativity. Senator BUTTON —Yes, I understand, but let me answer the question. As a result of that the Government has to embark on expenditure restraints of one kind or another. We will approach that task with the greatest emphasis being given to the question of fairness in how we go about it. Of course, in considering the element of fairness, the interests of families have to be given considerable emphasis. I will say no more than that. Senator McINTOSH —I direct my question to the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to an official news release of 12 April 1987 announcing that an Australian Government aid team would visit Mozambique to make a first-hand assessment of that country's emergency humanitarian needs. Has the aid team reported to the Minister? If so, can he report the findings to the Senate? Senator GARETH EVANS —An Australian team visited Mozambique from 13 to 18 April to assess the country's emergency humanitarian needs. The team comprised an officer from the Australian Development Assistance Bureau, a non-government organisations representative and an officer from the Australian High Commission in Zimbabwe. The object of the visit was to assess the situation following the rapid deterioration of economic and social conditions in Mozambique caused by years of drought and recently intensified guerrilla activity, which have led to severe food and other shortages and large scale displacement of people. The Australian team's interim report confirms the seriousness and complexity of the deteriorating emergency situation in Mozambique. In late February a United Nations mission estimated the number of people affected and displaced by fighting and drought at 3,500,000. Current estimates place the number somewhere in the range of 4,500,000 to 6,800,000-that is to say, up to 50 per cent of the total population. Included in this number are at least one million people who, because of the security position, are virtually in- accessible to relief effort. A report to the Minister detailing possible options for further Australian assistance to Mozambique is currently in preparation. The estimated cereal food aid requirement for the 12 months commencing in May 1987 is 673,800 tonnes, of which about 410,000 tonnes have now been covered by donor pledges. In addition, there remain major uncovered requirements for non-grain foods-for example, milk products and edible oil-and basic incentive consumer goods such as clothing, blankets, shoes, soap and salt. Australia is already providing food aid in the form of 4,700 tonnes of rice and 19,280 tonnes of maize valued at more than $5m. The maize is obtained from Zimbabwe through a swap for Australian wheat and is channelled through non-government organisations. Australia is also providing cash for relief programs in Africa through international agencies and an Australian NGO, Austcare, totalling more than $2m-$300,000 of which will be applied directly to Mozambique. Mozambican refugees in nearby countries will benefit significantly from allocations of almost $1.5m for other emergency aid in southern Africa. This year, Australia is also providing $400,000 to an NGO rehabilitation rural development project in Inhambane province in Mozambique. Senator MESSNER —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance in his capacity as representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and the Treasurer. Has the Minister noted the publication over the weekend of a Business Council of Australia analysis, based on the Government's 1983 economic summit model, forecasting nominal wage growth of between 7 per cent and 8 per cent for the current year and for 1988, compared with only a 4 per cent estimate for the major Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development trading countries? Does the Minister agree that that would result in a 3.5 per cent to 4 per cent gap between Australia and the OECD countries, compared with the Government's estimate of only a 1.5 per cent difference? Will the Government be revising its wages differential estimate upwards in the light of the BCA findings? Does the Minister agree that a wages outcome such as that predicted by the BCA, which is consistent with that expected by Syntec, would, as the Reserve Bank has warned, dissipate the competitive gains of depreciation, add substantially to inflationary pressures and further discourage desperately needed investment? Senator WALSH —I am aware of the publication; indeed, I have a copy of it with me. Among other things, it states: Examination of the range of evidence available on recent and prospective wage experience indicates that: By excessive standards of much of the `seventies' and early `eighties', wages outcomes have been more moderate in the last four years. That is, of course, a statement of fact, and the Government notes with some satisfaction that the BCA has recognised that wage outcomes, following those of recent years, have been much more satisfactory than they were in the late 1970s and early 1980s. We all know who was Treasurer at that time, of course. Senator Messner referred to the BCA projections being based on the summit wage price model. I am informed that the model is no longer appropriate because the move from wage indexation has broken the nexus between prices and wages that is explicit in that model. The BCA's bulletin recognises the significant achievement of the Government's wages policy. It noted that real wages since 1983 have fallen by 3 per cent in real terms while real wages amongst our major trading partners have increased by 5.3 per cent. The BCA points out, quite correctly, that international competitiveness relies on relative movements in nominal labour costs and productivity-to which should be added, I suppose, changes in exchange rates-but that Australia's experience has been inadequate on this score and the nominal unit labour costs gap between Australia and its trading partners must be closed. That is a statement with which the Government does not basically disagree. There was, of course, a huge gap which needed to be closed at the time we came to government following the wages explosion of particularly 1981 and 1982 when nominal wages increased, if I remember correctly, by 11 per cent in one year and by 14 per cent in the next. The Business Council of Australia is, however, wrong when it suggests that the relative earnings gap since 1983 is almost as wide on average as it was in the early 1980s. The BCA's own figures show that the gap in nominal earnings growth between Australia and its trading partners more than halved between those two periods. That is, it was 2.1 per cent on average between 1983 and 1986 compared with 4.7 per cent on average between 1980 and 1982 inclusive. The gap was some 10 percentage points in 1982, derived principally from the 14 per cent wages explosion which took place in that year when the then manager of the economy decided that wage outcomes should be determined in the market-place instead of by some central wage fixing mechanism. There was a 10 per cent gap in 1982. The gap in 1986 was reduced to around three percentage points. Senator ELSTOB —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer to the interview by Mr Paul Kelly of Mr Ian McLachlan in the Weekend Australian regarding the National Farmers Federation Budget strategy proposal. The National Farmers Federation apparently considers that its proposed savings would allow the Budget to be balanced and would permit tax cuts of $5.6 billion through the abolition of fuel excises with the benefits being distributed accordingly to the extent of an individual's petrol usage and through a sustained fall in interest rates. I ask the Minister: Is this analysis correct, and what other economic implications would there be if the National Farmers Federation's proposals were implemented? Senator WALSH —I have a copy of the NFF statement which was issued on 30 April and which forms, I think one could say, the backbone of the Kelly profile on the NFF President, Mr McLachlan. I say at the outset that it is a fairly tatty piece of propaganda containing numerous factual errors. I guess that the only thing that is consistent about the NFF President is his consistent opposition to this Government, even if that requires him reversing his own position from time to time. The statement, among other things, calls for a cut in funding to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Special Broadcasting Service of $577m. That figure has been built into its achievable list of expenditure cuts. We are not quite certain yet, but total spending on the ABC and the SBS this financial year will fall about $100m short of that. In other words, the National Farmers Federation has written in as a saving $100m more than will, in fact, be spent. That proposition would also entail the complete withdrawal of the only wireless and television service which a large number of the people whom the NFF purports to represent have available to them. So as well as cancelling the wireless and television service to the people the NFF claims to represent, it is still left with a $100m credibility gap after it has abolished the organisations entirely. The statement also calls for a tax on gold, something which the NFF in November last year was vigorously campaigning against on the grounds that it would hurt farmers. This demonstrates again that the only consistency about the NFF is the consistency of its opposition to this Government's policies or what it thinks this Government's policies might be. The NFF also calls for the scrapping of pension indexation to save $100m a year. The NFF has spent the last few years vehemently campaigning against the assets test, which saves much more money much more equitably. Those demonstrations of ignorance and inconsistency are trivial compared with the proposal to cut $5.8 billion off government spending on health and to forgo $5.6 billion of revenue from the petroleum products excise. The NFF claims that the abolition of the petroleum products excise would reduce the consumer price index and, consequently, interest rates by around 7 per cent. The correct figure is just over 2 per cent on the first round, rising ultimately, perhaps, to as much as 4 1/2 per cent. If the health cuts were concentrated on those services in the health function applied to people other than pensioners, the consequential increase in the CPI from the total withholding of all other health services would be about 6 per cent. In other words, the short term effect of the NFF's brilliant economic strategy would be an increase in the consumer price index of nearly 4 per cent and therefore, according to NFF logic, an immediate increase in interest rates of 4 per cent, and a long term CPI increase of around 1 1/2 per cent. One further point which should be noted is that, after the $5.8 billion has been abolished from health spending and the CPI has been boosted by 6 per cent and interest rates too-according to the NFF-by 6 per cent, there would still be a significant shortfall in the present cost of providing pharmaceutical, medical and hospital services to pensioners and veterans. In other words, the NFF's proposal requires a significant cut-in the order of 10 per cent-in funding for those groups. Moreover, what the NFF's health policy would do-this is on the question of the wider economic implications-would be to substitute private spending for government spending. Its suggested outcome would be very close to the system operating in the United States of America. It is worth noting that in the United States total spending on health is around 11 per cent of GDP. In Australia, it is around 7 1/2 per cent. If we were spending 11 per cent of GDP on health, as the United States does, we would be required to spend an extra $9 billion, which would give the CPI another big kick along-probably of the order of another 9 per cent, depending on the particular areas in which the expenditure or the substitution took place. Moreover, few people would argue that the United States health service's outcome is any better than ours, and most regard it as worse. Finally, NFF President McLachlan is quoted as believing that fiscal policy is too important to be left to politicians. I suggest that it is much too important to be left to right wing ideologues and ill-informed amateurs. Senator POWELL —Can the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations explain why at least 10 community youth support scheme projects in Victoria are to have their funds reduced by some $115,000 from November this year, despite Prime Minister Hawke's assurance in 1981 to maintain CYSS as an effective labour market scheme and in spite of an 11.9 per cent increase in CYSS funding for the 1986-87 financial year? Is the Minister aware that these cutbacks are a reduction in funding to ongoing CYSS projects in areas which traditionally have suffered the highest unemployment rates in Victoria, and will lead to a loss of youth worker positions and a reduction in services for young people trying to enter the labour force? Does the Minister agree that these cutbacks are a downgrading of the Government's Priority One youth policies and demonstrate a lack of commitment by the Government to CYSS as a vital program in the link between young people and the labour market? Senator WALSH —The opening sentence referred to an assurance given by Prime Minister Hawke in 1981. He was not Prime Minister in 1981. Quite a few things have changed since then, but two have particular relevance to the question of public expenditure. The first is the discovery in March 1983, when this Government took office and Mr Hawke was Prime Minister, that we faced a prospective Budget deficit of nearly $10 billion. Secondly, in the last two years we have had a collapse of export prices of such size that it has wiped about $9 billion off annual national income. Whilst some political parties believe that fairies inhabit the bottom of the garden and that there is a world of unlimited resources, I suppose it is acceptable enough for them not to take any of those important changes and facts into account when determining fiscal policy. Political parties which do not believe that fairies inhabit the bottom of the garden have to be a bit more realistic. In regard to the specifics of the question, since the 10 CYSS projects have not been named in the question, I am not in a position to say even whether it is true that funds have been reduced. However, I am informed that there is sufficient flexibility in the standard grants system, in which grants range from $50,300 to $130,000, to take account of the variable needs of projects. Mr Willis has asked CYSS State advisory committees to report to him on how the 19 projects-I presume that is the 19 projects in Victoria in total, but I am not sure-can be brought on to standard grants for the next funding period which will commence on 1 November 1987. I also note before closing that in total CYSS funding in the present Budget-that is, for 1986-87-was increased by some 12 per cent nominal, and that since this Government has been in office it has increased total funding for CYSS by around 100 per cent. So even though Mr Hawke was not Prime Minister in 1981, I do not think anyone could accuse him of having not maintained the spirit of the assurance that he gave at that time. Senator BOLKUS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer the Minister to a report in this morning's Canberra Times of the Chairman of the Australian Federation of Employers, Mr Andrew Hay, saying: . . . the business community would be reluctant to endorse a tax reform package from the Opposition that failed to set rates of income tax under a 30 per cent ceiling. Has the Minister seen any figures which would indicate who the beneficiaries would be if a tax package with a 30 per cent ceiling were to be implemented? If so, who would in fact be those beneficiaries? Senator WALSH —I have seen the report to which Senator Bolkus referred in the Canberra Times today citing Mr Hay. I do have a breakdown here of some tax statistics by post code which demonstrates who the beneficiaries would be from a tax rate of 30c in the dollar, and I table the statistics concerned. As I said, it is based on post codes and that does not necessarily tell us anything about individuals, but it is well known that there are particular parts of Australia where average incomes are very much higher than they are in other parts. Therefore, anything which reduced the maximum tax rates would, on average, favour the people who live in those localities far more than it would favour people anywhere else. It is not an exhaustive list of post codes, incidentally, but what it shows is that there are very few post codes where the average rate of tax is above 30 per cent. It follows necessarily from that that those few post codes cover the areas where the greatest beneficiaries of cutting average tax rates at that point reside. In Victoria the post code numbers are 3142, 3186 and 3101. The districts are Toorak, Brighton and Kew. Mr Hay, of course, has a Toorak address, as does that other extra-parliamentary pretender to the leadership of the Liberal Party, John Elliott. This demonstrates a fairly simple example of whose interests they are seeking to represent. If a person has a Toorak class of income, he would benefit. If he does not, he would not; indeed, he would lose out in the exercise. In New South Wales the two post codes with average tax rates above 30 per cent are Turramurra and Spit Junction. There is also the 6009 post code in Western Australia, which would be quite familiar to Western Australians, and that is Nedlands, which covers, among other areas, the suburb of Peppermint Grove, which is said to have the highest rate of per capita income and wealth of any local government authority in Australia, probably by a margin of a couple of hundred per cent. Finally, not the lowest but one of the lowest by postcode average rates of tax and, therefore, average income is the provincial centre of Wagga Wagga in New South Wales, which has a rate of 22 per cent. Ironically, it is the scene of one of the more successful rallies-successful in terms of numbers-conducted by the Bjelke-Petersen regime which demonstrates, of course, that the policies that Bjelke-Petersen is pushing, ironically, would harm the people of Wagga Wagga much more than they would harm the people of almost any other place in Australia. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE —I refer the Minister representing the Treasurer to the recent increase in prime interest rates by major banks in the United States of America as well as public statements by that country's Federal Reserve Bank that the US dollar will be defended by tighter monetary policy. Does the Minister agree that events in the United States could have very damaging consequences for the Australian dollar if foreign funds are switched from Australia to the United States? Does the Minister envisage the need for an increase in Australia's already high interest rates to maintain the differential which has attracted the large amounts of foreign currency needed to cover the current account deficit? Senator WALSH —I hope I got enough of the question down to be able to give an adequate answer. Firstly, I will not speculate about how much interest rates might move in any particular direction. Certainly some of the presumptions in Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle's question are reasonable. But in respect of the United States, not only has it been clear to many people for at least a couple of years but also it has been authoritatively written that the United States dollar is overvalued. If I remember correctly, predictions were made by Lester Thurow of an overreaction and a fall of 50 per cent in the value of the United States dollar which, measured against the Japanese yen, is in fact about what has happened. Thurow did not make it clear whether he was referring to the yen or the trade weighted index but a fall of something like that against the Japanese yen has in fact happened. Whether the declining market price of the United States dollar, which probably reflects a more realistic estimate of its value than the price at which it had previously been exchanged, will impact adversely on Australia is, I think, a matter for rather complex judgment. Superficially, it might be expected that the movements would be in the way Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle suggested. The United States is seen to be a much less attractive area in which to lodge liquid funds and that is the reason why the US interest rate has been pushed up-to make it somewhat more attractive to counteract the disincentive of the recent very substantial decline in the exchange rate of the US dollar. Whether one more than offsets the other is very much a matter for judgment. Senator GILES —My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. It relates to recent changes in the Veterans' Entitlements Act which allows war widows to continue to receive benefits after remarriage. In particular, it has been claimed that war widows are becoming victims of some unscrupulous elements who seek, ultimately, to exploit the deceased husband's war service. Can the Minister please comment on these claims? Senator GIETZELT —The Senate will be aware, having passed the Veterans' Entitlements Act, that there was an acceptance by government of the need to recognise, in legislative form, the right of war widows to remarry and an acceptance of the principle that the benefit was a compensation payment for loss of husbands due to war service. There has been some criticism of this from various quarters of the veteran community despite the fact that it was unanimously recommended by the advisory committee that was established by the previous Government to examine the veterans' legislation in its various forms since 1920. However, I reject the notion that a deceased husband's war service has been cheapened by the Government's decision to allow war widows to retain their benefits on remarriage. That has been effective since 29 May 1984. Some suggestions have been made that war widows have become hot property as a result of that concession adopted by the Government. I totally reject that for a number of reasons. I can understand that a war widow, having lost her husband due to war service, may not want to experience the long periods of loneliness that flow from such a loss. The opportunity to remarry does not in any way affect her compensation, as this Government recognises that it is a compensation for the loss of earning capacity of a husband. Any suggestions that veterans or other persons are somehow taking advantage of war widows in that respect is utterly rejected. It is a suggestion that ought to be condemned, particularly having regard to the fact that the War Widows Guild has campaigned over many years for that right to be recognised in legislation. Therefore, in those circumstances, I reject entirely any suggestion that some people are taking advantage of war widows, by seeking marriage, or of various groups who now receive a benefit that I believe should have always been enshrined in legislation. Senator BOSWELL —I refer the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce to his statement on 14 October last year when he admitted that competition in the Australian fertiliser industry would decrease once the subsidy on imported fertiliser was removed while a bounty, the cost of which is borne by the rural sector, is maintained on locally produced fertiliser. Is the Minister aware of the staggering cost increase of around 20 per cent in the price of fertiliser that has occurred since he entrenched this inefficient system? Is he aware of the damaging effects this is having on the depressed grain, bean and peanut industries in Queensland? Will he look at ways of reducing the cost of fertilisers, such as lowering the bounty rate on nitrogenous fertilisers and ending Australian National Line's costly monopoly over sea transport of rock phosphate? Senator BUTTON —A number of things are under review and need to be looked at in relation to fertiliser prices, and that is being done on a continual basis. As I said in October last year, however, the Government is not about subsidising imported fertilisers when we have significant current account trading difficulties, as Senator Boswell, amongst others, continually reminds us. We do not need reminding. There are a number of suggestions in the question and I will certainly look at them. I was able to reflect that they are under examination, but Senator Boswell adopted more alacrity than usual in his question and I did not get it all down. Perhaps that is the result of his elevation to the position of representative of the National Party's shadow Minister in this chamber. I will endeavour to get a more detailed answer in due course. Senator MAGUIRE —I refer the Minister representing the Treasurer to Senator Chaney's question earlier today about Government policy and the financial position of Australian families. Does the Minister take the view that the creation of over three-quarters of a million new jobs in under four years has had a profound effect on the welfare of Australian families? What are the major policy differences between this Government and the Opposition in respect of the treatment of families? Senator WALSH —There is absolutely no doubt that families have been major beneficiaries of the three-quarters of a million new jobs that have been created since this Government came into office, just as families were the major losers as a result of the quarter of a million jobs destroyed by John Howard in the last year that he was Treasurer. Senator Messner —Rubbish! Senator WALSH —What is rubbish? Employment fell by a quarter of a million jobs-that is, the number of people employed fell by a quarter of a million-because of the inept economic policies of John Howard when he was Treasurer. The number of people in jobs fell by a quarter of a million and the unemployment rate peaked at almost 10.5 per cent. Senator Chaney —On a point of order, Mr President: The Minister, in responding to this question, on the one hand claims that John Howard caused the loss of jobs, yet on the other hand he follows his Leader, who says that the destruction of standards of living under this Government has nothing to do with the Government, that it is a change in the terms of trade. Some debating is involved in this question. I take a point of order merely because, of course, the question is out of order-it sought an expression of opinion. It is quite clear from standing order 99 that questions shall not seek an expression of opinion and nor shall they ask for a statement of Government policy. So on two grounds the question is out of order. Mr President, I suggest that you ask the Minister not to debate the question which in any event was offensive on its face. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order but I remind the Minister that although the question asked for an opinion it also asked for a statement of Government policy. I ask the Minister to answer that part of the question and not debate the wider issues. Senator WALSH —Government policy on wages and employment is to achieve satisfactory wages outcomes through policies which are workable-that is, the accord-as distinct from policies that are not workable, such as a wages freeze. A wages freeze, without any means of implementation, would mean that there would be no general agreement about wages outcomes. Strong unions and those with industrial muscle would attain very large wage increases for other reasons. The others would fall well behind and a significant number of their members, most of whom are likely to have families, would probably lose their jobs. Finally, one of the very important matters which apply to the welfare of families is the continuation of Medicare. I gave some economic reasons earlier in Question Time as to why a Medicare-type policy should be sustained. However, in terms of the direct impact on families, if Medicare were abolished, health costs to individuals or to the average family would increase in the order of $15 a week and the consumer price index, as I mentioned earlier, would immediately jump by almost 6 per cent. That would have catastrophic consequences for inflation, interest rates and employment; in other words, catastrophic consequences for those economic realities which affect the welfare of families. Senator KNOWLES —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation. Will the Minister confirm that the Department of Transport has asked Skywest Airlines Pty Ltd, the previous coastal surveillance contractor, to continue the service until the end of September-that is, three months after the end of its present contract? If so, has Skywest agreed to provide a cover until the new operator, Amann Aviation, is ready to take over? Has Amann given a firm starting date? If Skywest is unable to fill the gap, does the Government plan to use the air force to ensure there is continuing surveillance of the vulnerable northern coastline? Senator GIETZELT —I am afraid that I must advise Senator Knowles that I have no particular brief on that question. I will seek a view from the Minister. Senator BOLKUS —I ask the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs: Is it a fact that the French military use Darwin as a transit stop en route to New Caledonia? If so, is not this transit facility an important support mechanism for France's actions in that country? In view of France's blatant disregard for international resolutions on self-determination for New Caledonia, will the Australian Government withdraw this transit facility? Senator GARETH EVANS —Non-scheduled flights by French aircraft do occasionally use Darwin as a transit stop for refuelling en route to New Caledonia. There have been three such stopovers this year, each of one hour's duration, by UTA and Air France aircraft under charter to the French Government. Clearance has been sought for one more. There were three such flights in 1986. The purpose of the flights has been to transport military personnel on rotational deployments. The Government would not consider the stopovers in Darwin as an important support mechanism for France's activities in New Caledonia. France does have alternative routes available to it and I understand that the majority of troop rotations have taken place without stopovers in Australia. We have, of course, frequently expressed our concern at French policy toward New Caledonia. It is a matter of regret that the French Government has not taken into account these concerns and those of other regional countries. Despite these and other differences Australia does, however, have a very substantial and broadly based relationship with France. The Government wishes to maintain it as it is appropriate to two friendly countries. The infrequent proposals for refuelling French aircraft carrying military personnel in transit to New Caledonia will be examined on a case by case basis. However, I can assure Senator Bolkus that the implications of any transit proposals for the internal situation in New Caledonia will be an important factor in decisions which are taken on them. Senator LEWIS —I direct my question to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. It concerns his announcement, which I welcome, that he is appointing a consultant to assist in the preparation of a Cabinet submission in response to the recommendations of the report of the Royal Commission on the Use and Effects of Chemical Agents on Australian Personnel in Vietnam, as well as criticisms by the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia and others of that report. What particular expertise on the Vietnam war or chemical agents does the former senior adviser to the Prime Minister, Mr Bob Hogg, have that suits him to undertake this task? What is the cost of this consultancy? Finally, was the consultancy advertised? Senator GIETZELT —The Senate will be aware that there has been continuing public concern about the use of herbicides and pesticides in the Vietnam war. This culminated in the Government's decision, at the request of the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia and other veterans' organisations, to have a royal commission inquire into the use of chemical agents in Vietnam. The report of the inquiry was subsequently presented to Parliament in 1985. Arising out of that report, the Vietnam Veterans Association has made further submissions to the Government which require consideration. In adopting the report the Government asked the Department of Defence and the Department of Veterans' Affairs to respond to the recommendations made by Mr Justice Evatt. On a recommendation by me, the Government agreed to my appointing a consultant to oversee a submission to Cabinet based upon the recommendations from my Department and the Department of Defence-in other words, to co-ordinate a general response. In those circumstances it was important to select an individual who was acceptable to the Vietnam Veterans Association and in whom it had some confidence. Several names were suggested. The Public Service Board and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet were consulted. Finally, it was agreed in Cabinet about a week ago that Mr Hogg would be appointed, largely because of his acceptability to the Vietnam Veterans Association and, secondly, because of his experience in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and in working with the Government since 1983. My recollection-I am almost 100 per cent certain-is that the consultancy fee is $35,000. He is to report to me within 12 months or as soon as practicable in order that there will be a co-ordinated approach by the Government as to how best to respond to the recommendations of the Royal Commission. Senator CHILDS —My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and it relates to the facilities that successive governments have normally afforded to Opposition spokespersons on veterans' affairs. The Minister will be aware that, through recent upheavals in the Opposition ranks, the new spokesperson appointed is Senator Austin Lewis. Does the Minister intend that the former spokesperson, Mr Fischer, have any special privileges? Senator GIETZELT —Quite a number of Ministers have new shadow Ministers. Within the last two decades a practice has grown up of recognising the right of the official Opposition to have shadow Ministers, and also to have additional resources in the form of travel rights and extra staff. Naturally, I am pleased to have Senator Austin Lewis as my shadow Minister rather than have the shadow Minister in the other place, as happened previously when Senator Lewis had to receive his riding instructions from Mr Fischer. So there is a new situation, to which I have agreed this morning as a result of representations by one of Senator Lewis's staff members. Senator Lewis will be afforded full access to the Department of Veterans' Affairs and all of the other functions for which I have portfolio responsibility. That is how it should operate. However, having said that, one cannot afford to grant the same sorts of opportunities to all the other ad hoc groups that from time to time may request access to the same sorts of resources; there are some restrictions placed upon that. I must say that Mr Fischer has my complete sympathy for what has happened to him in recent times. He is responding to what I believe to be the insensitivity of Ian Sinclair, his Leader, in giving him such portfolio responsibilities as veterans' affairs, Aboriginal affairs and immigration. It is quite schizophrenic of the National Party of Australia to encompass such a divergence of responsibilities in view. In fact they are almost incompatible and I imagine that he will have some difficulties working with people such as Bruce Ruxton of the Victorian Returned Services League. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Why is health care clearly the fastest rising item in what appears to have been a disastrous 9.3 per cent inflation rate indicated last week by the strike-affected official cost of living figures? What is the composition of and justification for the apparent 18.5 per cent rise in health costs over the 12 months to March indicated by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, which has lifted it to approximately double the appalling national inflation rate, which itself is four times higher than those of our trading partners? What does the Government intend to do to halt this incredible and damaging rise in health care costs, which is in addition to the recent 25 per cent rise in the Medicare levy that is not included in the cost of living statistics, under a Medicare system that is depriving so many low income groups of access to public hospital beds because of the 100,000-long waiting list resulting largely from the Government's failed health policy? Senator TATE —The latest figures available to me from the Australian Bureau of Statistics are those released for the March quarter of 1987 for the consumer price index. As Senator Baume will know, the CPI figure is incomplete because Sydney data is missing. But for other cities the health component has increased. The major reason for the increase was increased private insurance contribution rates which reflected changes in private hospital charges. That seems to be the major component. The ABS also noted increases in the prices of toiletries and personal care products in the quarter in all cities. As Senator Baume should know, these products are included in the health and personal care group. However, I am advised that the CPI figure for health is in line with that of all other CPI groups. What Senator Baume is trying to do in his blustering way is to divert people's memories from the Fraser years in which from 1981 to December 1983 the CPI figure for the health and personal care groups increased by 68 per cent. Between 1981 and 1983, the CPI for health and personal care groups increased by 68 per cent. Senator Button —Could you say that again, as I did not hear? Senator TATE —I do not want to repeat the figures, because that would be boring-- Senator Button —Please do, I did not hear you. Senator TATE —I will. Between 1981 and 1983, under the former Government, the CPI for health and personal care groups increased by 68 per cent. Health care under Opposition policies represented the fastest growing cost to the community-more than housing, more than food and more than clothing. That, of course, could be expected to occur were the Opposition unfortunately ever voted into office. Senator CROWLEY —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. The Minister will be aware of recent changes in the Australian Capital Territory ordinances regarding domestic violence and its management, which seem to be drawing considerable support from the community. Can he say whether discussions between the Federal Government and the State governments on this matter are either proposed or under way? Are any steps being taken to move to uniformity between the States with regard to the management of domestic violence, and especially to determine whether the Australian Capital Territory changes are optimal to manage this wholly unacceptable occurrence of domestic violence in this country? Senator GARETH EVANS —If that is a dorothy dixer, it is one about which I do not know. I will have to seek further instructions from the Attorney-General. Senator NEWMAN —My question is also directed to Senator Gareth Evans, in his capacity as Minister for Resources and Energy, and I hope that he knows the answer to this one. Will the Minister confirm that last month in Hobart, after a visit to the mines on the west coast of Tasmania, he told journalists that there may yet be further areas of Tasmania to be locked up? How much more restriction is this Labor Government intending to place on the mining industry? What is the extent of this further threat to the industry at a time when the balance of payments is wholly unacceptable? What investment does he expect to be made by an industry that is facing threats such as he expressed in Hobart? Senator GARETH EVANS —I did not say anything of the kind. Senator Newman should not believe everything that she reads in the newspapers. Senator NEWMAN —Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. Does the Minister deny that on 10 April, on Australian Broadcasting Corporation news, he said that a very significant part of Tasmania is properly subject to conservation restriction of one kind or another, and that there may be a case for extending some of those restrictions in some parts of the State? Senator GARETH EVANS —I cannot remember what I said. Opposition senators interjecting- Senator GARETH EVANS —All these matters depend on context. As I recall, that particular context related to the mining industry and the regulations that exist, largely as a part of Tasmanian law, in relation to large areas of the west coast. There is the continuing question of whether those State regulations are appropriate, as has been thought in the past, or whether some extensions are necessary. I certainly did not say that there was a case for further extending restrictions, and I certainly did not say that as it affected the mining industry. I indicated, in the context of the continuing debate about Lemonthyme and the Southern Forest, the strong desire that none of the activities involved there should in any way impinge on or inhibit mining exploration activity in those areas. I am anxious that the mining industry should continue to develop in the whole of the west coast area, as seems likely with the new round of current exploration and development activity. It is particularly necessary as we face the longer term future of the Mount Lyell closure which must come about sooner or later, although thankfully its demise has been further delayed. All of these things are complex issues. I certainly would have made very clear in any interview the complex balance of factors that are involved. If Senator Newman chooses to cheapen and trivialise this sort of debate for some perceived political advantage, that is her view of the world. It is not mine. These are complex issues. They demand a more sophisticated approach than Senator Newman has shown herself capable of in this chamber. Senator BOLKUS —Has the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs seen recent reports that the International Atomic Energy Agency has kept secret more than 250 reports of breakdowns at nuclear power stations? I ask the Minister: Will the Government investigate the validity of these reports with a view to reappraising the IAEA and its alleged independence in this area? Senator GARETH EVANS —The reports to which Senator Bolkus refers appear to be based on an article which appeared in the West German magazine Der Spiegel about three weeks ago. Those reports are inaccurate and misleading. The IAEA set up in 1983 an incident reporting system to share information with all participating countries on safety significant events and situations in nuclear power plants world-wide. Only those members of the IAEA which participate in this scheme receive the information collected by the IAEA. The scheme is not secret. As Australia does not operate nuclear power reactors, it is not a member of the incident reporting system. Responding to the Der Spiegel report, an IAEA spokesman has said that since 1983, 260 incidents had been reported to the organisation, none of which had given any cause for concern. Reports on them had, however, given scientists of all nations the opportunity to learn of such problems and to work out solutions for the future. The Department of Foreign Affairs will seek from the IAEA additional comment on the recent media reports. Aside from the incident reporting system, or IRS, the Agency's power reactor information system, or PRIS, contains full operating data for around 90 per cent of all civil nuclear power plants in the world. Information is not systematically collected for other types of nuclear installations. This data is regularly published in summary form and distributed to all member states, most recently in the report entitled `Operating Experience with Nuclear Power Stations in Member States in 1984'. More general data on the safety of nuclear installations is published annually in the Agency's nuclear safety review. The IAEA's safety reports for general distribution are the subject of regular and detailed review by the new Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation. We are satisfied that these reports present a fair, balanced and objective view on the basis of the information made available to the IAEA by member states. The Government is confident that the IAEA discharges its safety as well as its other responsibilities in a highly professional and effective manner. Senator DURACK —I ask the Minister for Resources and Energy: Has the Government held any discussions with the States about arrangements for the sharing of any resource rent tax revenue for petroleum developments that occur in areas subject to joint Commonwealth-State off-shore authority? If such discussions have been held, has any agreement been reached? If no discussions have been held, why not? Senator GARETH EVANS —This is essentially a matter for the Treasurer and for resolution in the context of the Premiers Conference rather than something for my own subject portfolio. There may have been some preliminary contact between officers but I am not aware of any full scale, ongoing negotiations. I will refer the question to the Treasurer, whose responsibility I think it is, and seek further information for Senator Durack. Senator DURACK —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. As the debate on the resource rent tax will commence presumably later today or tomorrow, will the Minister ask for some clarification of this matter to be available for the debate? Senator GARETH EVANS —I shall prepare myself for the expected onslaught in the Committee stage and will do my best to have my loins appropriately girded. Senator VIGOR —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction. Have urgent representations been made to the Minister regarding structural deficiencies in Telecom Australia's Sydney complex which is under construction? Will the project be able to proceed to its original size without the injection of large amounts of money to remedy the current problems? Why has it taken so long for details about the lack of reinforcement between columns and floors to emerge? Who will bear the brunt of the costs incurred in dealing with the structural problems in the building? Senator RYAN —I am advised that the Minister has not received any representations concerning Telecom's Sydney complex. There is a problem of reinforcing with certain areas of the columns in the Telecom Plaza building. These problems have been identified recently. The Minister has been informed that there is no technical reason why the building should not proceed to its original size. It is the builder's responsibility to rectify the problems and to construct the building in accordance with the contract documents. Senator GARETH EVANS —On 23 March, Senator Sir John Carrick asked me a question about legal safeguards possibly existing in relation to the publication of intelligence information. The question bore on the responsibilities of both the Attorney-General and the Minister for Defence. I have put together a long composite answer based on information supplied to me by their two departments. I seek leave to incorporate the answer in Hansard. Leave granted. The answer read as follows- (1) There are a number of legislative provisions in the Commonwealth sphere prohibiting the unauthorised disclosure of confidential official information. Section 70 of the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914 prohibits unauthorised disclosure of information by Commonwealth officers or former Commonwealth officers where there is or was a duty not to disclose that information. Section 79 of the Crimes Act prohibits, among other things, disclosure by a Commonwealth officer or former Commonwealth officer, of certain matters including information which by reason of its nature or the circumstances under which it was entrusted to him or for any other reason, it is his duty to treat as secret. The definition of ``Commonwealth officer'' in the Crimes Act is wide enough to include officers employed in the Commonwealth's intelligence and security agencies. So far as officers or former officers of ASIO are concerned, s.18 of the ASIO Act 1979 makes it an offence for a person to communicate, other than in accordance with the section, any information that has come to his knowledge or into his possession by reason of his being, or having been an officer of the Organization, being information that was acquired or prepared by or on behalf of the Organization in connection with its functions or related to the performance by the Organization of its functions. In addition to these legislative provisions, officers of a number of the intelligence organisations enter into undertakings as to confidentiality. The nature and enforceability of this kind of undertaking is a central feature of the Wright case. (2) Since the 1950's, successive Australian Governments have concluded a number of arrangements with other governments for the exchange of security-related information. A feature of these arrangements is the understanding that information communicated in confidence will be given appropriate protection and will not be communicated to a third party without the prior consent of the originating agency. Where an Australian agency supplies confidential information to a foreign intelligence agency, unauthorised disclosure of such information by an officer of the latter agency would be governed by the law of the relevant foreign country. More specifically, the measures available to all governments to provide for the reciprocal protection of exchanged national security classified information comprise three categories: (a) instruments of treaty status entered into between the governments, or instruments of less-than-treaty status concluded between departments or agencies of the governments; (b) security assurances which are limited to a specific (and usually Defence related) project. This procedure is usually applied during a major equipment acquisition project to enable a foreign company to tender for the supply of equipment to the ADF; (c) a general understanding between relevant senior officials that the information is provided in confidence for a specific use or purpose only. These available measures are usually applied to the entire range of exchanged national security classified information, and are not limited to the exchange of intelligence information. The first two categories of available measures contain four fundamental principles. These are that the information received: (i) shall be afforded a standard of physical and legal protection not less than that applied to it by the originator; (ii) shall not be used for a purpose other than that for which it is or was supplied; (iii) shall not be communicated or released to a third party without the prior written consent of the originator; and (iv) shall be accessed only by those persons who require knowledge of the information to carry out their duties and who possess a security clearance to the appropriate level. Since the 1950's, successive Australian Governments have concluded a number of treaty status and less-than-treaty status instruments for these purposes with a range of other governments and their relevant departments. The administrative processes to achieve conclusion of these instruments is both lengthy and time-consuming. Reviews of the adequacy of the provisions and implementation of these instruments is conducted on an as-required basis. (3) It would be premature to contemplate what legislative reforms might be necessary in the light of the Wright case until those proceedings have been concluded. The current position is that the decision at first instance of Powell J. is the subject of an appeal to the N.S.W. Court of Appeal. The PRESIDENT —I have received the following letter from the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney): Dear Mr President, Pursuant to Standing Order 64, I give notice that today I propose to move- `That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need to maintain the effectiveness of the secondary boycott provisions of the Trade Practices Act as a readily available remedy for abuses of trade union power.' Yours sincerely, (FRED CHANEY) Senator for the State of Western Australia Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.07) —On behalf of the Opposition, I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need to maintain the effectiveness of the secondary boycott provisions of the Trade Practices Act as a readily available remedy for abuses of trade union power. This matter of urgency is brought forward at a time when there is widespread public concern about the extent of trade union power in this country, the potential for its abuse and its actual abuse. It is also brought forward at a time when the Government is sending out clear signals that it proposes to attack the existing legislative provisions in the Trade Practices Act which have served Australia so well. It is the very clear view of the Opposition that it is not the wish of the Australian people that there should be changes to the law in this area; certainly there should not be changes which will reduce the capacity of employers not to deal with their employees harshly but to deal with those elements of the trade union movements which choose to interfere in circumstances where there are no issues between employer and employee. The report of the Hancock Committee of Review into Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems refers to the Trade Practices Act and describes what sections 45d and 45e do in the following terms: These sections confer rights of legal action on third parties injured by industrial action taken by parties with whom they are not in dispute. In other words, what we are dealing with is a situation where people get involved in supposedly industrial disputes and yet there is no dispute between the employer and the employee. If one wants to understand why the trade union movement and the Australian Labor Party want to get rid of sections 45d and 45e, it is interesting to see what Mr Peter Duncan, a Labor member of Parliament from South Australia, said in the House of Representatives on 19 November. He said that it was no credit to the Australian Democrats that they had joined with the Opposition in defeating the Government's earlier attempts to repeal sections 45d and 45e. Senator Mason —Would the Opposition join with the Australian Democrats? Senator CHANEY —Let me say to Senator Mason that, provided we can rely on the Australian Democrats in the difficult issues that we have coming up, in particular this attempt to weaken the strength and force of sections 45d and 45e, I am quite happy to put it in whatever terms he likes. One of the most important issues that face the Opposition and the Australian Democrats is whether they will be prepared to prevent the Government from making yet another attempt to reduce this important weapon in the armoury of decent industrial relations. Let me remind the Senate of what was said by Peter Duncan, because I think it does bring out why it is that these provisions are so important. Peter Duncan referred to the fact that he would be pressuring Australian Democrat senators to support the Government's attempts to repeal sections 45d and e. He went on to say: If these sections had been in force in the early 1970s the green bans which were so successful in stopping socially disruptive development would never have succeeded. These sections not only prevent the trade union movement from supporting other unions, but also prevent it from supporting other community movements. There can be no direct trade union action in support of the Daintree campaign, there can be no direct trade union action in support of consumer protection, there can be no trade union action in support of moves against anti-social developments while sections 45d and 45e remain in force. Whatever one's view of Daintree and whatever one's view of consumer affairs, I think there would be a nearly universal view in our community that it is not the place of the organised trade union movement to use its industrial muscle to take government out of the hands of the parliament and the government of the day and to use that muscle for reasons which are quite unrelated to the direct working conditions of employees. It is that that the Opposition stands forward defending today. We believe that it is essential that there should be some effective weapon against the use of secondary boycotts in a situation where employer and employee may be in complete harmony and accord, yet outsiders seek to disturb the business activities of both employer and employee for some interest that has nothing to do with the particular business or the particular employees. I suppose the sections are best understood in terms of a couple of cases-and there have only been a couple-where the sections have been used right through to the point where damages have been obtained, and those are, of course, the Mudginberri case, which is well known to everybody, and the more recent case which involved the Plumbers and Gasfitters Employees Union of Australia. In the more recent case there was a strike by plumbers and gasfitters which was opposed by this Government because the plumbers and gasfitters were seeking wage rises which were outside the Government's wage arrangements. The strike was condemned by everybody. It was very expensive for Australia and it prevented buildings from being completed, at enormous cost to building owners and no doubt to builders too. The only thing that brought that industrial action to an end was the use of section 45d, because once the Federal Court became involved and said `You are in breach of the law and we impose a penalty of $280,000, and if you keep up this illegal behaviour we will impose a penalty of $140,000 a day', suddenly reason became more apparent and the strike came to an end. The Mudginberri case is, of course, a more dramatic example, because in an abattoir in an isolated part of the Northern Territory we had a situation where the employer and employees were operating completely within the terms of an award of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. That award gave them the right to agree to the method of payment, and they chose to work on the basis of payment by results. The abattoir and the employees were satisfied with what was being done. It was a case of an outside body, in this case the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union, coming in and seeking to upset that because it had wider political and industrial objectives. It is that sort of outside interference with the work place which we believe is totally wrong, which we legislated to prevent in 1977, and which the present Government is now seeking to expose again to the hard, cold wind of something called industrial reality. In other words, if a union has the power and the industrial clout, it should be allowed to use it for any purpose. It is quite clear, from the reports which have come out following the Government's consideration of its proposed new labour legislation that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, is proposing to restrict access to the courts to secure the rights which are guaranteed by sections 45d and e-the right to carry on business without interference from some third party. He is doing that because, of course, the trade union movement is opposed to those rights existing and for the sorts of reasons that were outlined by Mr Duncan. We see him, in fact, behaving in the way that Premier Unsworth was seeking to behave in your State of New South Wales, Mr Acting Deputy President. You will recall that Mr Unsworth, who does not have to deal with sections 45d and 45e because that is Federal legislation, proposed to introduce legislation which would have prevented employers from having access to the courts to exercise what civil remedies they have got in the case of unlawful strike activity. You will also recall the introduction of legislation into the New South Wales Parliament and the firestorm of objection that erupted in your State. Employers, the com- munity generally and the Liberal and National Party opposition in New South Wales were totally forthright in their condemnation of the Unsworth legislation and, as you would know, the Premier had second and wiser thoughts. We would say to Mr Willis and to the Hawke Labor Government that they should have second and wiser thoughts over this proposal to reduce access to the courts on the part of employers, particularly where those employers have been subject to hijacking by third parties who are not part of the work force of that particular enterprise. We all know that industrial relations is a difficult matter and that industrial relations in the end is about encouraging good relations at the work place. But we also know that people can be encouraging good relations at the work place and yet be subverted by the actions of people who have nothing to do with the business concerned. The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button), who is at the table, has been spending a lot of his time over the last 3 1/2 years encouraging the Australian car industry, for example, to increase its productivity to try to become competitive with the rest of the world. He knows that that requires a lifting in performance in industrial relations as in other areas of the management and work of the work force in that industry, and yet he also knows that whatever attempts are being made-whether it is in Ford, Mitsubishi, Nissan, General Motors or Toyota-to run industrial relations well, if some third party which has nothing to do with that business comes in and interferes with it, all of that good work can go for nought. Indeed it did so when the storemen and packers stepped in and cut off the supply of axles to the motor vehicle manufacturers in this country and caused a slowdown in production at a time when the motor vehicle industry is in dreadful straits. It is for these reasons that the Opposition has been very condemnatory of the attempts by the Government to propose restrictions of the use of common law actions and, in particular, to condemn attempts by the Government to remove sections 45d and 45e from the law, or to restrict access to them by putting some condition precedent in the path of action. We make those objections against a backdrop of experience with the Trade Practices Act provisions. A good trade unionist, the Assistant Whip in the Senate, Senator McIntosh, has just put up his fingers and indicated that only twice has it been used but, in fact, some 80 injunctions were obtained under the Trade Practices Act over 1984 and 1985 and in every case the use of the injunction mechanism under that section brought about a return to industrial sanity and a return to work. The whole point is that in the great movement of industrial relations in the day to day dealings between employers and employees, no one is arguing that there should be a daily, weekly or constant recourse to law. We are arguing that in a situation where trade union power can be and is abused there should be a right of recourse to law and the use of the Trade Practices Act since the 1977 amendments is clear proof that that will not be abused by employers; rather it will be used when other industrial measures have failed and ready access to the courts to enforce rights under section 45d and 45e have proved to be extremely valuable. The concerns that we express are the same concerns as members of the public feel. Eight out of 10 members of the public believe that the unions are too powerful. The surveys which were done by the Hancock Committee of Review demonstrate exactly the same concerns as the more recent surveys which show that the great majority of trade unionists, the great majority of Labor voters and the great majority of Liberal voters believe that trade unions have too much power and limits should be placed on those powers. When Mr Hancock's Committee made an inquiry, it found and reported the following: An overwhelming majority of members of the general public supports the imposition of some form of penalty for non-compliance with `rules'. Eighty-one per cent of people believe there should be an ability to penalise unions. We are not putting forward some sort of Liberal Party view which is not broadly supported; indeed, we are representing the genuine view of the Australian people and the genuine view of most Australian trade unionists. It is unfortunate that the Hancock Committee was unable to give us a clear recommendation on sections 45d and 45e. Apparently there was a conflicting view within that Committee. But it clearly set out what we believe to be the correct view when it referred to the `contrary view'. It stated: The contrary view differentiates sections 45d and 45e from other industrial laws as dealing with the interests of third parties. On this view, a party which is in no conflict over pay or conditions should have legal redress for its grievance and should not be expected to rely upon the forms of discretion and compromise which are appropriate to industrial relations. I quoted those words because at the heart of the concerns which have been expressed by the Confederation of Australian Industry, the concerns which have been expressed by the Business Council of Australia, the concerns which have been expressed by the Opposition, and the concerns which in the past have been expressed by the Australian Democrats, is the understanding that if we totally mix up the legal remedies with the back and forth of industrial relations, we will wind up in no-man's-land. If the Government succeeds in its efforts, we will lose from the industrial relations system one of those few sharp edges in the system which enable the unreasonable elements of the trade union movement to be brought to book. We are not talking about procedures which have ever been brought in circumstances which are oppressive; we are talking about procedures which have been brought where there has been unreasonable behaviour which is contrary to the enterprise interest but also, in our view, contrary to the public interest. I have agreed to speak more shortly than the formal time permits because we want an opportunity for a number of honourable senators to contribute to the debate; in particular, the National Party wishes to have somebody speak in this debate, so I will not take my full time. I merely ask the Government to consider the very strong views which have been put to it by the Confederation of Australian Industry, which has pointed out that whilst it supports the greater part of the Bill which the Government will bring forward-and the CAI is in the unusual position of actually knowing what is in the Bill because it has been working on it as part of the National Labour Consultative Council-it makes it quite clear that the support which it is prepared to offer would evaporate if the Government proposes further changes to the operations of sections 45d and 45e. Given the high degree of co-operation that the Government has enjoyed from the CAI in this matter, I ask it to pay careful regard to that view. I ask it to pay regard to the views of the Australian Chamber of Shipping, which has made it clear that it sees this as one of the few areas where it has remedies against the abuse of trade union power. I ask the Government to look at the record of the use of sections 45d and 45e, and on this occasion to get out from under the control of its trade union masters. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(3.23) —It is rather remarkable that Senator Chaney, a very experienced Minister and one of the leading members of the Opposition, should in his first foray into the industrial relations area of which he is now shadow Minister, introduce into the House a topic which is adversary in its nature and inflammatory in its content and which makes an attack on the trade union movement, which no doubt he hopes to work with in time to come. Why should he choose as his first topic-one might understand it if he did it down the line a bit-to attack the union movement? Why should he do it when the strike at HSV7 in Melbourne is perhaps foremost in the public mind? Perhaps we should look at the background of that industrial action to see what it is about that action that has moved Senator Chaney to say that more power ought to be rallied against the union movement. A quick history of that dispute is as follows: For three weeks prior to Good Friday, there were numerous rumours throughout Channel 7 that there would be considerable sackings in that establishment. In the light of that, the employees and the union approached Channel 7 for details. It refused to talk with the union and it told the employees that no decision had been made and that there was no plan to sack anyone. The union and the employees became more and more apprehensive about that. Nevertheless, on Good Friday many of the employees-who were later to be sacked and who at that stage knew nothing about the fact that their names were on a list-worked for nothing for the station in support of the children's hospital appeal. On Tuesday there was still no admission by HSV7 that there would be any sackings. A mass meeting was held and people stopped work until some definition was given as to who would and would not be employed by that company. The next day, on Wednesday, HSV7 admitted that it would be sacking people and it did so, not by taking people in and telling them as kindly as it could, but by sending letters by courier stating that they had been dismissed. Among those dismissed was a person who had been employed by HSV7 and 3DB for 40 years. He was informed of his sacking by courier delivered letter with no thank you and no attempt in any way to express appreciation for the service he had given. A woman employed as a clerical officer and who was not a member of the union was asked to do work normally performed by someone who was on strike. She did that job. That night at 10.30 p.m. there was a knock on her door and she received a courier delivered letter informing her that she was sacked, after she had helped the company in that way. A person with almost 10 years service was also sacked. Many with 10, 25 and 30 years service were sacked-all by courier delivered letter with no expression of thanks or appreciation. That is what happened. Yet Senator Chaney comes into this chamber as the next step in this sequence, although he did not mention this matter, and says that the unions and those who belong to them should be further oppressed. I think it is quite unfeeling and almost quite callous that he should tell people in that situation that even more vigorous legal proceedings should be used against them than is the case at present. Why else would Senator Chaney come in and say these things? Senator Chaney mentioned the dispute at Mudginberri, which has come and gone, and the plumbers' strike, which also has come and gone. The current dispute involves HSV7. Senator Chaney chooses to come in and talk about the need for more vigorous proceedings against people who in a number of cases no doubt will now find it very hard to keep their homes, to keep their families together and in fact to survive in some sort of decent fashion. Why should the Leader of the Opposition in this place as his first foray into this field attack workers who are quite defenceless? As I understand it, there was no allegation, in the early stage at least, that any of the 78 people who were sacked and who worked so well for HSV7 had in any way transgressed, had not performed his services well or had in any way deserved to be sacked in the way he was. Senator Chaney talks about the need for laws to control unions, but he does not specify the numerous laws that are already in place. At common law there is the action of intimidation, the action of conspiracy and the action of inducing breach of contract. It is very interesting to look at this area. Common law proceedings in effect stop people from effectively taking industrial action against their employer no matter how they are treated by the employer, no matter what danger they face and no matter what conditions they are asked to work in. One would have thought that, if there was to be balance in this debate, Senator Chaney may have spoken of the great hardship that still exists in this community; for example, amongst the outworkers who for years have performed work of a hazardous nature for something like $2 an hour. One would have thought that Senator Chaney would look at the migrant women who work for long hours. One would have thought that he would look at the poor provisions in Commonwealth employees' compensation legislation under which amounts that are less than a livable wage are awarded to people who are injured in service through no fault of their own and are thrown out of work. One would have expected the Opposition spokesman on industrial relations, who no doubt hopes to become Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, to have spoken about all sorts of areas that would have been relevant to his task and that in some way would have kept going the sort of co-operation that this Government has established between employees and employers. Senator Chaney talked about strikes. Let us look at the research that has been done. Dr Beggs is a senior lecturer in the Department of Statistics in the Faculty of Economics and Commerce at the Australian National University. He and those with him have spent the last couple of years doing economic policy research in Australia. They found that the level of strikes in this country had more than halved in the period 1983 to 1985 compared with the period 1959 to 1983, during which period the coalition was mainly in government. The figures showing that industrial disputes have gone down since this Government has come to office have been cited again and again in this chamber. Indeed, they are worth citing again. The average number of working days lost per annum under the Fraser Government, of which Senator Chaney was a prominent member, was three million. Under this Government, less than half that, 1.4 million-- Senator Chaney —How many under Whitlam? Senator COONEY —Senator Chaney is going back into history. Why not go back to Bruce? He is tilting at windmills that the Opposition has built in the past. The remark by Senator Chaney clearly shows that the Opposition does not want to fight on the basis of the record of this Government. He wants to fight us on the record of Mr Whitlam's Government. He is not game to fight us on the record of the present Government because he knows that he will be done like a dinner if he does that. When challenged about the record of the Government he was a member of, Senator Chaney refused to take up the challenge of comparing its record with that of the present Government. He knows that he cannot beat us by comparing the records of the present Government and the Fraser Government, of which he was a prominent member, but he challenged us to compare the record of his Government with that of Mr Whitlam's Government. That is nothing more than a frank admission that his approaches and policies cannot touch those of this Government; otherwise he would have answered the proposition that was put forward. The average number of annual working days lost per 1,000 employees under Mr Fraser was 590.6 and under Mr Hawke the figure is 239. Senator Chaney does not want to pursue that record. He wants to talk about penalties. He wants to tie the unions up. Taken together, the common law of intimidation, the common law of conspiracy and the common law of inducing breach of contract in effect prohibit strikes. In addition, he wants to add sections 45d and 45e of the Trade Practices Act and, no doubt, the Industrial (Commercial Practices) Act and another amending Bill which were passed in Queensland. This is disgraceful legislation which may well have been the proper subject of an initial address by a man who aspires to become a Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. But Senator Chaney said not one word about this legislation which in effect stops people from taking industrial action no matter how bad things are. Under the legislation about which Senator Chaney has not said a word, a person may be working in a factory where there is a terribly dangerous situation and the most devastating threats to life and limb but he is not allowed to stop work, go on strike or take industrial action until not only the employer but also anybody else who is likely to be affected by the action is given seven days notice in writing. How many people could be maimed and killed in the meantime? There is provision in the legislation that the giving of evidence may be deemed to involve a simple matter, at times, of reading newspapers. It goes against the general thrust of how matters have been established in law up till now. This legislation has been made law in a State of this country and the shadow Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations sits mute about that. Instead, he wants to attack unions, those bodies which together with their members are trying to maintain proper living standards. Unfortunately, when living standards and wages fall, when people find it difficult to get a job and when there is tremendous vulnerability in the community, the one bleat we hear from the Opposition is that the secondary boycott provision in section 45d of the Trade Practices Act should stay in place. Mr Acting Deputy President, that is the sort of attitude that was adopted by the English Parliament in 1799 and 1800 when it brought in the Combination Acts. That is the mentality of the Opposition. No matter what happens to people in the work force on the factory floor, its main concern is that the people who make use of the labour of those people can do so without restraint. As I said, one would have hoped that in the initial speech on this matter Senator Chaney would have talked about safety provisions in factories, wage standards and the fundamental conditions that all workers are entitled to have. But no, Senator Chaney relies on section 45d, a technical provision in the sense that it defines-- Senator Parer —It is very practical. Senator COONEY —It is a technical provision in the sense that, in the way in which it is framed, it requires a legal mind to interpret it. It is hard to interpret. It makes legislative provision for common law concepts manifest in industrial torts. It has been pursued to conclusion on two occasions. At other times it has been used to gain injunctions which in turn have led to the resolution of an industrial dispute. There is no denying that. But from the whole range of industrial issues, employer-employee relations and the various areas touched by industrial law such as the standard of living, safety, compensation and good relationships between worker and management-I would be interested to hear what Senator Chaney says about this-why did he choose in his initial speech to deal with section 45d, which is a provision which allows employers and others to act when industrial action is taken against them in certain circumstances? The Trade Practices Act deals with fair trading and consumer protection, which is proper and right. It has a commercial bent. Into that commercial context have been introduced sections which really deal with industrial issues. I suggest that it is uncomfortable to have in an Act which is directed towards commercial fair play and consumer protection two sections which are essentially directed towards the obtaining of proper industrial relations. It would be more comfortable to have such a provision placed amongst industrial legislation in those happy circumstances where employers and employees sit down together. Under those circumstances things would be much better dealt with than they are now where section 45d is placed in a context aimed at obtaining fairness between commercial rivals and ends up by suppressing union activity on the basis of commercial, not industrial, considerations. The other point to make is that unions, as Senator Chaney has said, are very much in the news. The approach taken to them by many people, including Senator Chaney, is one of oppressing them, of trying to denigrate and libel them. In fact, the great reforms that have taken place in the areas of safety, working conditions and giving everybody a decent wage have taken place through the unions. If we did not have unions, the sorts of laws and approaches we have witnessed from, say, HSV7 and elsewhere would soon lead to a deterioration in industrial relations. We would be back to the days of sweated labour, poor conditions and conditions in which safety was irrelevant. I have said on several occasions during this speech, and I finish with it, that it is a pity that at this point, instead of trying to achieve some reconciliation between the various elements that make up the industrial relations scene, Senator Chaney chose in his first address as the shadow Minister for industrial relations to attack one player in that field, thus setting up an antagonism which I hope, if he ever becomes a Minister, will not persist; but unless he changes his approach it certainly will. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(3.42) —The urgency motion that we are debating today was put down by the eminently reasonable Senator Chaney. That is the way he has been described in his approach to industrial relations matters by all sections of the media and some sections of politics. The motion states: The need to maintain the effectiveness of the secondary boycott provisions of the Trade Practices Act as a readily available remedy for abuses of trade union power. Certainly, as I have said, Senator Chaney is an eminently reasonable man and there is no doubt in most people's minds that the industrial relations policy of the Liberal Party of Australia will appear considerably less strident and more reasonable with Senator Chaney selling it. But, as we all know, there is an old quotation which says: `Speak softly and carry a big stick'. I wonder whether that is likely to be the net result of Senator Chaney's being put in charge of the Liberal Party's industrial relations policy. It is important to remember that there is some division within supporters of the Liberal Party as to how its industrial relations policy should be framed and sold. For example, it is important to remember that in right wing employer groups and organisations such as the H. R. Nicholls Society we find some people who have in the past formulated the Liberal Party's industrial relations policy and who have a very simple minded view of industrial relations. Their belief is that you use the courts at every opportunity to break the power of the trade unions. Recently I received a copy of the Business Review Weekly. One of a series of cover stories on the right wing push to crack union power contained the following statement: The Society- that is, the H. R. Nicholls Society- is committed to pushing industrial battles into the law courts, deregulating the labour market and thwarting the Hawke Government's proposed changes, following the report of the Hancock Committee, which would further entrench the existing industrial relations structure and deliver more power to the arbitration system. Nothing less than the overthrow of the entire system of industrial relations and the abolition of the Arbitration Commission will suit some union busters. That is a quote, not from some socialist rag, but from the widely respected Business Review Weekly. Gerard Henderson, ex-adviser to John Howard, a member of the H. R. Nicholls Society and pet ideologue of the right wing push, demonstrated the level of respect that the people whom Senator Chaney must inevitably consult have for the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission when he described the proposed new labour court as `nothing more than the old Conciliation and Arbitration Commission dressed up in legal drag'. From my memory of most lawyers, they get up in drag wherever they are, but that is what he said. He considers it of very little importance. Let us contrast that approach with the approach of Charles Copeman in the Robe River dispute, an approach that was quite contrary to the more responsible approach of organisations such as the Business Council of Australia, which sent me-and I presume other senators-its draft industrial relations statement headed `Towards an Enterprise Based Industrial Relations System' of 24 March 1987. In the covering letter to me the Council stated: As indicated in the documents, we believe the directions we wish to follow are in the interests of all Australians in terms of both long term living standards and personal satisfaction of individuals at the work-place. Principally we are hoping to achieve a totally different attitudinal approach to human relations in business organisations. I certainly hope that the eminently reasonable Senator Chaney pays attention to what the Business Council of Australia has to say in this regard. Points 2.4, 2.5 and 2.6 of this background paper are worth mentioning in some detail. Under the heading `Employer attitudes' is the statement: The Council believes that negative and exploitative attitudes to employees by all levels of management in the past have frequently reinforced `them and us' assumptions. These, in turn, have been reinforced repeatedly by destructive attitudes and actions on the part of unions. In the point headed `Work Practices' the Business Council states: The beliefs and practices which dominate the present industrial relations system have allowed many inefficient and unproductive work practices and attitudes to develop and persist. This has diminished the capacity of individuals to contribute constructively and to derive satisfaction from their work. Under point 2.6 headed `Political Conflict and Industrial Relations' the BCA states: The polarisation encouraged by historical attitudes and practices has seen conflict in enterprise relationships intrude into the broader political arena. In turn, this has reinforced the problems at the enterprise level. The result has been a pre-occupation with politics and power, rather than productive achievement, mutual support and understanding in relationships at work. I commend those comments to anybody who wishes to see industrial harmony operate in Australia. Senator Chaney —What do you do about a Norm Gallagher? Senator HAINES —I suppose that what one does about a Norm Gallagher fits in with what one does about a Charles Copeman. At both ends of the political and industrial spectrum we have renegades for whom disruptive action is the norm, if honourable senators will pardon the unintended pun in that case. I commend too the approach made by the Metal Trades Industry Association-again, an eminently reasonable and responsible employer group-which is responding in a positive way to the industrial relations challenges facing Australia. It has produced in its `Compact' a document which similarly identifies the need to develop a co-operative framework for unions and employers to resolve wage, work practice, productivity and technology matters. It is important that the eminently reasonable Senator Chaney and the new `go it alone' Liberal Party machine work out to which of the tunes I have mentioned today they are marching-the even, measured approach of organisations such as the Business Council of Australia and the Metal Trades Industry Association or the goose-step of the H. R. Nicholls Society. Senator Chaney —But they support this motion. Senator HAINES —So do we, Senator; there is no problem with supporting the motion. If the Government calls it to a division, Senator Chaney will find us bringing up his numbers sufficiently for the motion be passed-that is, with a minor amendment that we would like to insert. As I said, not only we but also the BCA do not believe that it is only trade unions that cause the problem; sometimes, it is hardline employers. If honourable senators are prepared to accept that, the motion before the Senate today will be eminently reasonable. If the Liberal Party does believe in a consensus-based industrial relations system, I would not have thought that there would be too much trouble with some of the recommendations of the Hancock Committee of Review into Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems. For instance, they emphasise the importance of solving disputes at the enterprise level and the importance of the public interest being given a prominent role in resolving industrial disputes. In the past, we have fought hard against the repeal of sections 45d and 45e of the Trade Practices Act, and have defeated attempts by the Government to remove them. We did so because we believed that innocent third parties should not be victimised or harmed by a dispute between other parties. We have believed that small businesses, in particular, should not have their operations affected by the irresponsible actions of either a union or another company behaving provocatively, leading to a confrontation with the two parties locked in dispute. That is our primary concern about sections 45d and 45e and it is the primary value of section 45d. That is not to say that we believe that each and every dispute between a company and a union is due to irresponsible behaviour by a union; far from it. Our concern here is not to apportion blame for the primary dispute, but to argue that it is inappropriate for one or more innocent third parties to be damaged by a secondary boycott undertaken by a union to pressure another company to give in to its demands, whether or not those demands are justified. There is no doubt that we support the essential principle of the Opposition motion, which is that there is a need to maintain the effectiveness of the secondary boycott provisions of the Trade Practices Act as a readily available remedy for abuses of trade union power-with, as I have said, the additional proviso about recalcitrant employers. The motion that we are considering places the entire blame for this sort of behaviour on recalcitrant unions. Therefore, the issue is whether the effectiveness of the provisions relies on their being in the Trade Practices Act, and it is from that that some of the concern about the Government's proposal stems. The provision requiring that all avenues of arbitration and conciliation have to be exhausted before there can be resort to be courts relates primarily to common law action. When I was contacted by a number of representatives of employers' groups, I was a little puzzled about the way in which they used the term `common law action'. Frequently, they were referring to sections 45d and 45e of the Trade Practices Act, which do not involve common law action. When, on one occasion, I mentioned that to a journalist, he said: `Oh well, to all intents and purposes sections 45d and 45e of the Trade Practices Act are statutory law'. I said that I thought it went a little further than `all intents and purposes'. There appears to be some confusion in the minds and hearts of those who are concerned about the Government proposals about the difference between common law actions and actions under sections 45d and e. Common law action covers, for instance, such matters as conspiracy to cause damage. I imagine that some employers will not be particularly happy with the Government's proposals, but it is difficult to talk about them in any intelligent manner as we have not yet seen them. The Hancock Committee said about sections 45d and 45e that it could reach no recommendation on whether they should remain or be repealed. We do not want the effectiveness of those sections removed. My understanding-which, like Senator Chaney's, is based on rumour and media reports-is that the Government intends that the substance of sections 45d and 45e be retained, that the new labour court be made responsible for the enforcement of these provisions and that recourse to sections 45d and 45e or their new equivalents will have to await a certificate by the new Commission confirming that all avenues of conciliation and arbitration have been exhausted. I suspect that what is actually exercising the minds of some individuals is not the change of jurisdiction but the change of personnel. From my conversations with some individuals, there appears to be a concern not so much about who has jurisdiction but about the people who are currently likely to be given the new jurisdiction. That is a separate matter and should be more openly discussed. I do not know whether that matter has been raised with Senator Chaney-- Senator Chaney —It is the maintenance of a true court that is not tied up with other processes. Senator HAINES —All that I can say is that some comment has been made to me by some employer representatives that it is the individuals rather than the jurisdiction that is the problem. We have no inherent problem in giving the labour court jurisdiction in this matter, but I stress that no decision has been made and we shall not make any decision or reach any judgment on the method by which the new sections 45d and 45e can be invoked until we have seen the precise legislation. If the recourse to those sections is so delayed that the essential value of gaining an injunction under them is frustrated, quite simply we will not be able to support the new legislation. I want to make that point quite clear now. However, that is a matter on which we cannot decide until we have seen the legislation. The Mudginberri dispute, in which section 45d was invoked to break a long term picket, was an example of that provision being used after a dispute had been running for quite some considerable time-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Morris) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator KNOWLES(Western Australia)(3.57) —Today's matter of urgency before the Senate states: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need to maintain the effectiveness of the secondary boycott provisions of the Trade Practices Act as a readily available remedy for abuses of trade union power. Unfortunately, we have just heard Senator Haines talking-about what, I am not too sure, but certainly not about secondary boycotts that prevent the continuation of good relations between some employers and employees. We are talking not about those companies with good relations between employers and employees, but about the third parties, the secondary boycotts, picketing, bans and other industrial action by employees of one company to pressure a third party or target company. For example, they prevent that target company from obtaining goods from its suppliers, or from delivering goods to other companies. We are not talking about the matters to which Senator Haines referred. The debate is really about the Government's proposal to create one law for trade unions and another for the remainder of the community. Trade unions already have a privileged place in the community, and this Government wishes further to enhance that privilege by removing them from the responsibility of common law. The secondary boycott provisions of the Trade Practices Act, sections 45d and 45e, were inserted into that Act by John Howard when he was Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs in 1977. They provided for speedy injunctive relief for businesses, large and small, that have militant unions threatening to send them into the bankruptcy courts. The Mudginberri dispute was the classic example of union thuggery. It was eventually thwarted by the company's ability to take action through the courts-and, more importantly, win. What the Government wants is to remove that right and extend the process of conciliation by a new labour court, while the unions bleed their employers to death. Common law actions and proceedings in the Federal Court under sections 45d and 45e are the only effective recourse employers and ordinary Australians have against unjustified actions-and this Labor Government wants to take it away. It is clear that the Government has caved in yet again to the Prime Minister's mates and the union movement so that they can get back to their full-blooded union thuggery and the holding of Australians to ransom which was prevalent during the years Mr Hawke was the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Australians in all walks of life are sick and tired of being held to ransom by strong militant unions which are happy to bash the last breath out of employers by excessive demands that are then transferred to consumers in the form of the removal of services in the first instance, and higher prices in the second. As a Liberal, I repudiate the despicable philosophy expressed in the Hancock report which declared that unions were `centres of power' and that it was wrong to assume that every `subject' was equally dominated by the state and its arms of enforcement. In other words, unions are too strong to be made to obey the law and nothing should be done about it. The Hancock report did not even mention section 45d-as if any serious examination of our industrial system could fail to do so-but its thrust is to weaken its use. That is certainly also the intention of this Labor Government. The Liberal Party strongly upholds these vital sections of the Trade Practices Act because they work to bring order and justice to our industrial system. The reasons why this Government wants to nullify sections 45d and 45e is that they are working far too well for its liking. They have brought the weight of proper civil law to bear against union thuggery-and about time. I stress also the notable successes of section 45d, which has been used to protect small rather than large business. Civil law remedies for the first time have given small business a weapon against irresponsible union power. Penalties such as the $1.76m fine brought against the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union over the Mudginberri dispute back in 1985 are the types of penalties that are understood by unions. Such penalties are expected by Australians who want the enforcement of law and order. A survey in 1985 showed that fines were the most popular option-this was supported by 47 per cent of Australians-and that 34 per cent favoured the abolition of the offending unions. In contrast, only 28 per cent of Australians believed that strikes were a proper industrial weapon and only 14 per cent supported work bans. This Government of consensus abandons and disregards public opinion immediately the Prime Minister's mates in the Australian Council of Trade Unions blow the whistle. The success of section 45d in protecting smaller enterprises is not only to be measured by spectacular cases like Mudginberri. Last June, Mr Justice Smithers of the Federal Court of Australia, in declaring illegal an agreement between the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union and Borthwick, Thomas and Sons (Australasia) Ltd against a small livestock firm noted: Compliance with orders made under section 45d has been quite marked. That says it all. Unions have learned that this aspect of civil law has teeth and it had better be obeyed. This is what industrial justice is all about and what the Australian Labor Party wants to dismantle. The Business Council of Australia and the Confederation of Australian Industry, in reacting to the Hancock report, opposed the idea of a separate labour court which would interpose between recourse to civil law. Let us put an end to the tired old myth that unions represent the weak against the strong and the poor against the rich. Australians know better. They know that unions are not fulfilling that role at all. Eighty-three per cent of Australians are now opposed to compulsory unionism. Seventy-eight per cent say that unions have too much power-a figure that has risen from 49 per cent in 1971. According to a Sun-Herald poll last September, 75 per cent of union members say that they had benefited a little or not at all from union membership. Forty per cent said that they had not benefited at all. The Liberal Party will free our industrial relations system of much of its legalism as we will encourage employers and employees in small businesses to reach their own agreements without the threat of secondary boycotts. We will at the same time reverse the trend of the Hawke Government and the weak-kneed attitudes of the Hancock report by upholding the rule of law that is even being made to work today because of our legislation of 1977. It was significant that the supposedly right wing moderate Australian Labor Party Government of New South Wales recently proposed to legislate that recourse to civil action by employers be subject to approval of the State Arbitration Commission. It has pulled back for a while because it realises the weight of public opinion that exists in this respect. However, we should be warned of its clear intentions, along with those of this Labor Government. This Government cannot even argue that it has brought real industrial peace through its subservience to the unions. We heard Senator Cooney say a little while ago that industrial problems had decreased since this Government has been in office. The facts are that in 1985-86 the number of lost working days increased by 10.7 per cent on the number for the previous year and by 13 per cent on the number for 1983-84. I remind my good friend Senator Cooney that they are years when this Government was in office. So we have seen the number of lost working days increase. This should be set beside a 60 per cent reduction between 1981 and 1985 in the number of industrial disputes in Canada and the United States, nations where employers and unions use and respect the civil courts and are not hampered by any specialist, in-house labour court. This is not the first time that this Government has tried to get rid of bans on secondary boycotts. It tried to do so in 1984 with the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill. Now it is about to try again. Enough is enough. The civil law courts and the Liberal reform of section 45d give Australians some protection which unions, this Government and the industrial relations club would like to take away from them. The secondary boycott provisions of the Trade Practices Act must be maintained and unions, therefore, kept and treated within the law. Our policy on industrial relations is quite clear. A summary of our policy is prosperity through productivity, more jobs, industrial harmony, work place flexibility and reduced union power. No-one out there in the real world believes that to be unfair. The Government is saying that it is unfair, that we cannot reduce union power. What rot! We can reduce union power and we will reduce it. Back in the easy days before the First World War, Justice Higgins upheld the arbitration system as a device that would subdue prussianism in industrial matters. Ask the small business community, ask its workers and ask the public whether it has worked. The simple fact, ignored by this Government and the Hancock Committee, is that an absence of firm, legal constraints on union behaviour is a guarantee of continued prussianism which today we would call plain thuggery. That is what we have been seeing in the last few years. What does subdue thuggery is section 45d and the civil courts. For this reason, the Liberal Party will fight for this right of employers to be upheld. For this reason clearly the ALP wants to abolish it. The people of Australia are the people who decide. I think the people of Australia have seen quite enough union thuggery going on in regard to secondary boycotts. They do not want to return to a position where companies do not have the right of recourse to civil courts. That right must be maintained. It is not up to this Government to take away the rights of companies such as Mudginberri, as we saw in 1985 and even with the plumbers and gasfitters, to take on whatever they want to take on, as they have in the past. We maintain that reduced union power and, as I have said before, prosperity through productivity, more jobs, industrial harmony and work place flexibility are the important aspects of a good industrial relations policy which will bring harmony to the work place, not disunity. Senator McKIERNAN(Western Australia)(4.11) —This afternoon the Senate is discussing a matter of urgency raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney), who has been described in the media as an eminently reasonable man, in his new role as shadow Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. He has proposed what the Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Haines, has described as an eminently reasonable motion. It reads: The need to maintain the effectiveness of the secondary boycott provisions of the Trade Practices Act as a readily available remedy for abuses of trade union power. It may be a matter of urgency for Senator Chaney. I wonder why that is so. With all the restructuring that has gone on in recent weeks and months in the Opposition and in the Liberal Party, perhaps it really is a matter of urgency for Senator Chaney and the Liberal Party. It might also be a matter of urgency for those people to whom Senator Haines referred as the New Right in Australia. I wonder whether this afternoon's urgency motion is an initiative of Senator Chaney, the Liberal Party or the New Right, or could it be a defensive action on behalf of Senator Chaney? It did not come as any surprise to me that such a motion came before the Senate this afternoon because, as usual, I referred to this morning's newspapers to check on what is happening in the big, wide world outside the cloistered confines of this House and this city-- Senator Haines —You don't believe what you read, do you? Senator McKIERNAN —I noted with interest on pages 8 and 9 of today's Australian newspaper, under the heading `Clubbing together for the sake of the unions'-no doubt Senator Haines read it also-a comment by Gerard Henderson, who Senator Haines had cause to mention in her contribution this afternoon. In a long, rambling article Mr Henderson called for, among other things, business, big and small, to fight any attempt by the Government to repeal sections 45d and 34e of the Trade Practices Act, to prevent employers from taking immediate legal action under those sections and to remove the secondary boycott provisions from the purview of the Federal Court. I wonder whether it is really a mechanism on behalf of that eminently reasonable senator and Liberal Party spokesperson on employment and industrial relations to defend the position that he has taken. We must know where Dr Gerard Henderson stands in the whole scheme of things. Senator Haines referred to an excellent article in the Business Review Weekly of 22 August last year by Pamela Williams. Under the heading `union busters-Their tactics and targets' there was a series of comments on the guru and his disciples, the guru in this case being H. R. Nicholls. The article spoke of the H. R. Nicholls Society. Incidentally, H. R. Nicholls wrote an article when he was 80 years old which criticised the then President of the Arbitration Court. The article by Pamela Williams had some very interesting things to say about Dr Gerard Henderson, whose article appeared in this morning's Australian newspaper. Under the heading `Dr Gerard Henderson', the article stated: Opposition Leader John Howard's senior adviser, Gerard Henderson, started his climb to power though the ranks of the National Civic Council 15 years ago. Now keen to play down the link, Henderson worked part-time for B. A. Santamaria while he finished his university education. He wrote his thesis Mr Santamaria and the Bishops while working for federal politician Kevin Newman in Tasmania and later developed his views on industrial relations while working in the arbitration inspectorate in Melbourne. Finding himself with plenty of time on his hands in the inspectorate, he read through old cases, including the history of Justice Henry Bourne Higgins and his 1906 Harvester judgment on what constituted a fair and reasonable level of wages. This judgment, which has so enraged the economic dries, has played a strong role in drawing together the participants in the H. R. Nicholls Society . . . Henderson subsequently wrote an article for Quadrant magazine on the `industrial relations club'- it is quoted frequently; Senator Knowles referred to it quite recently- which did little to endear him to the pragmatists in business and the system, but earned him a job with John Howard. There is considerable unease in the Liberal Party and some business circles about the degree of influence Henderson exercises over John Howard, particularly on industrial relations. One parliamentary Liberal describes him as an extremist who pulls Howard's strings- I wonder whether any more strings have been pulled this afternoon by Dr Henderson- Henderson's Quadrant article has been reprinted recently in a new book, Wages Wasteland, launched by John Stone. The book also carries a critical article on Justice Higgins by H. R. Nicholls Society founder and Western Mining Corporation executive Ray Evans. In discussing industrial relations, union power and the settlement of industrial disputes we must examine where we are in Australian society today and who exercises influence over what happens today in the arena of industrial relations. Undoubtedly, the H. R. Nicholls Society, on behalf of the New Right in Australia-I think that Senator Parer may know something about that also-is having an unwholesome degree of influence over what is happening in our society today. Certainly, it is able to get article after article published in not only the Australian but also other reputable newspapers. There is a list of individuals who jump on any platform at any time propagating the beliefs of a section of the rich and powerful in society. Their aim is to influence public debate through the media and through the Liberal Party, as we have seen and can see on a daily basis from the number of opinions that are represented on the front bench of the Liberal Party today. I will not deal in any great depth or detail with what Senators Chaney and Knowles had to say. However, a number of questions need to be answered in this whole issue of industrial relations, such as: What is legitimate trade union action? What are unjustified actions? What are excessive demands? Qualifications must be put upon those. The previous Opposition representative for employment and industrial relations matters, Mr Neil Brown, QC, MP, issued a Press statement on 14 April which stated: Common law actions and proceedings in the Federal Court under 45d and e are the only effective recourse employers and ordinary Australians have against unjustified union actions. I repeat: `Unjustified union actions'. The record corrects some of the figures which Senator Chaney gave in response to an interjection by Senator McIntosh. Section 45d of the Trade Practices Act has been on the statute book since 1977-10 years-and section 45e has been there since 1980. In that period there have been a total of 129 actions taken under both sections of that Act. I can give honourable senators the number per year: Five in 1977, 20 in 1978, four in 1979, nine in 1980, and so it goes on. Senator Sheil —They are injunctions; they are not actions. Senator McKIERNAN —Hang on, Senator Sheil; I have not finished yet. There were 129. I can in turn give the honourable senator the details of the number of actions taken under each section. There were 117 actions under section 45d, eight under section 45e and four joint ones under sections 45d and 45e. Senator Sheil should now listen carefully. The number of injunctions granted was 66, just over half of the number of applications. If that is the most effective way of controlling industrial relations in this country, I will eat my hat. With 129 applications in 10 years, there is no way that the use of this legislation is justified. Out of those 66 injunctions that were issued, how many actually reached the damages stage? The answer, of course, is two-two out of 129. We have talked about Mudginberri and the case of the Plumbers and Gasfitters Employees Union of Australia has been referred to as well. There were three other permanent injunctions granted- Senator Chaney —What about the interim ones? Senator McKIERNAN —As distinct from interim injunctions, which we can deal with in detail if Senator Chaney so wishes. In 1978 there was the case of Tillman's Butcheries; in 1979 a case involving a company named Wribass; of course in 1985 the case of Mudginberri; and in 1987 the plumbers case, which makes a total of four. How really effective have sections 45d and 45e been in the resolution of industrial conflict in this country? I have a list here. If I were to go through each of the 129 cases on it, I would need an extension of time. But honourable senators can take it from me that the vast majority of cases, which will prove the figures that I have just spoken about, were settled, not through the use of the Trade Practices Act but by negotiation between the parties or on the direction of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Senator Parer —How many were settled without 45d? Senator McKIERNAN —Great play is made of the Mudginberri dispute. I have no doubt that my friend and colleague, and opponent, from Queensland, Senator Parer, will make some note of that in his contribution later on, but I think even he will have to admit that the Mudginberri dispute was not settled by the use of the Trade Practices Act. The return to work and the withdrawal of the pickets were not achieved by the use of that piece of legislation. They were achieved through the good offices of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) and the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. In winding up I express some thoughts and fears about what is happening in our society and about the influences that are being brought to bear at the moment in the arena of industrial relations, influences expressed in today's paper and in recent publications by people such as Gerard Henderson, Mr Copeman from Robe River and John Stone-standard-bearers of the New Right who today have an undue influence on the Liberal Party in Australia. Those people are elected by no one and are accountable to no one except to serve their own rich and powerful friends, to serve the powerful individuals and corporations which seek to impose their own economic fantasies on the community. Another friend of mine, who on this occasion is not an opponent and who will be entering this place next year, John Halfpenny, described Dr Henderson as a Rasputin, and we all know what Rasputin got up to. But a better description not only of the individual but of the collective mob of the New Right, was also given by John Halfpenny when he referred to the New Right as Australia's version of the Ku Klux Klan. Indeed, if anybody in this chamber or anywhere in the community wants to impose an ideology such as that practised by the Ku Klux Klan or the New Right of Australia, he will need his head examined. Such is the case with the H. R. Nicholls Society. It would pay members of the Opposition, and the Liberal Party in particular, to read up on what H. R. Nicholls was about and to see what influences and what opinions Nicholls had not only in the arena of industrial relations in the latter part of his life, when he was probably verging on senility, but also about women in the work force, and compare his influence and thoughts then to what happened in the Liberal Party in very recent times over equal opportunity. I also have a word of warning for those on the right of the political spectrum, particularly the National Farmers Federation. If the views of the H. R. Nicholls Society are going to filter through to that organisation, it should note that Nicholls had something very powerful to say about the role of farmers in Australia today. Senator PARER(Queensland)(4.26) —We are debating today the matter of urgency introduced by Senator Chaney in respect of the secondary boycott provisions of the Trade Practices Act. Senator McKiernan came in here and, with tongue in cheek, wondered why we are debating this matter. It is patently obvious why we are debating this matter. Newspaper reports and reports that are leaking out of the Hawke Labor Government would indicate that the aim of this Hawke Labor Government is to emasculate sections 45d and 45e of the Trade Practices Act. By way of explanation for those who do not know, I point out that these sections relate to secondary boycotts and they enable those affected by the blatant abuse of trade union power to seek remedies through the courts. It has been reported that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, has proposed to restrict dramatically the use of the courts to settle industrial disputes, while at the same time strengthening sanctions under a new labor court and industrial relations commission. A newspaper report stated that: The radical proposal, which would prevent the use of common law in resolving industrial disputes until all conciliation and arbitration procedures under the Labour Court and commission were exhausted . . . Now that is blatant emasculation because it is well known in the practical sense that if so-called conciliation and arbitration can be extended on and on, it is only a matter of time before whoever is being affected by standover tactics by militant trade unionists will be brought to his knees. In 1977 when the then Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, John Howard, introduced this piece of legislation, the then President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions was reported to have threatened Mr Howard, stating that if the secondary boycott provisions were proceeded with, there would be blood in the streets. The question must be asked: Why the threat? Why the continued opposition to it by the ACTU in general and by militant trade unions in particular? The answer is simply that they have got away with trampling on the rights of individuals for so long that they believe they are above the law. Militant union leaders-and I emphasise `militant union leaders', Senator McKiernan, and not the ordinary decent union leaders-have been able to threaten any employer and subsequently his employees with ruin unless that employer or the employees agree to their demands, however unreasonable. The vast majority of Australians, including trade unionists themselves, are fed up with the power and the abuse of that power by certain unions. As honourable senators will be aware, there have in fact been a series of surveys carried out by Newspoll last year and more recently by the Roy Morgan Research Centre which showed that something like eight out of 10 people believe that unions in Australia have too much power. Fifty-four per cent believe that they have far too much power. A poll of the Business Council of Australia showed that 83 per cent of all Australians wanted voluntary unionism. Among trade unionists the figure was a surprising 77 per cent. It is not that people do not think that reasonable trade unions are a good thing which, if they need, can get together and associate; it is simply that they have seen the abuse of that power. This section of the Trade Practices Act was brought in to curb the abuse of monopoly power. From what we hear, this Government is trying to get rid of it for the second time since it has been in office. The Liberal Party does not oppose the right of individuals to freely join unions. I see my friend Senator Robert Ray on the other side of the House. I am sure that he will get up and have a fly at me about this. I make it quite clear that he will be wrong. We object to compulsory unionism and the resultant, inevitable monopolies which flow from this compulsion. In a recent matter or urgency debate in this chamber I quoted the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). On September 18 last year, he said: . . . neither under the law of the country nor under the policy of the Government, is there the practice of compulsory unionism in this country. He said it was not the policy of this Government; yet in debate Senator Robert Ray, who has just entered the chamber, put the lie to that statement when, as recorded on page 892 of Hansard of 18 March this year, he said: The Australian Labor Party's policy in this area of union membership has always been crystal clear. Preference for unionists is our policy and we are proud of that policy. I quote from clause 19, page 169 of our national platform, which states: The encouragement of membership of registered organisations through the provision of preference to unionists. When there are closed shops, there is compulsory unionism-preference to unionists. Senator Robert Ray continued: This is not something new or secret. At least Senator Robert Ray, in all his statements on this matter, has been quite honest. But so much for the contradictory statements of the Prime Minister. Senator Robert Ray puts the lie to what the Prime Minister says. It is inevitable that with compulsory unionism monopolies develop. When people are forced to buy a product without competition the value of that product must be questioned. Inevitably monopolies lead to the power of a few over many and the abuse of that power can and does occur. Section 45d and section 45e of the Trade Practices Act are the only provisions which have been at all effective in curbing the abuse of union power. There have been a number of celebrated cases, but probably more importantly, the existence of the legislation has made those who would like to abuse power think about the consequences of their actions. That has been an invaluable part of the legislation. I recall that in the late 1970s the Seamen's Union of Australia stopped overseas vessels from transporting Australian coal to Europe, putting at risk trade with Europe which had been built up by hard work over a decade. Honourable senators may recall that the Seamen's Union of the day produced a cassette about Lake Berry- essa which was held up at Port Stanvac simply because the Seamen's Union of Australia insisted that it wanted Australian crews on all vessels taking our raw materials overseas. I would not have objected to that one little bit if the union's members had been prepared to be as productive as and to compete with other people who were prepared to man those vessels. Section 45D was invoked, the injunction was applied and the militant union backed away before the case reached a conclusion. Let me say categorically, that if it had not been for section 45D, that dispute would never have been settled. I do not know what notes Senator McKiernan has, but if they say anything different they are wrong. Senator McKiernan —Was that the Utah dispute? Senator PARER —That is correct, it was the Utah dispute. More recently we have seen the celebrated Mudginberri dispute. I know that Senator McKiernan will not be disappointed that I raise this matter. Honourable senators will recall that the owners of Mudginberri abattoir had made an agreement, in accordance with an award, which meant more productivity, more take home pay and an export contract. The workers and the company were delighted with the arrangement. The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union, however, was opposed to it because it put at threat one of its cherished, unproductive, restrictive work practices-the tally system. The union set up an illegal picket, not only to harass its fellow members who worked at Mudginberri but also to stop government meat inspectors from entering the premises. Without meat inspectors the meat could not be exported and the union leaders had no hesitation in telling the proprietor of Mudginberri that they would persist with their intimidation until he went broke. Neither the management, nor the employees at Mudginberri had done anything illegal. However, a militant union was illegally using naked power to achieve its ends-standover tactics that had been used over and over again on many industries throughout Australia. If it had not been for financial support, if it had not been for section 45D, the AMIEU would have been successful again. Section 45D was critical. This was a case that went to its conclusion with substantial damages awarded to Mudginberri against the AMIEU. Rather than behave within the common law and refrain from pursuing a course which could result in civil action for damages, these militant power brokers are now lobbying to neutralise and emasculate that law. That is the reason for this matter of urgency today. There are other examples of the use of secondary boycotts. More recently we have seen the Plumbers and Gasfitters Employees Union dispute in the building industry. It is inevitable that Labor senators will again accuse the Liberal Party of union bashing. In a recent debate on voluntary unionism in this chamber, which I initiated, I made the point, and I make it again, that we support the right of every individual to join, not join or resign from a trade union. That freedom of choice is a basic human right as spelt out in Article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations, which states: Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. No one may be compelled to belong to any association. However, this freedom of choice is not available to the majority of working Australians who must join a union to get a job. I am sure that Senator Robert Ray will have some words to say about this, but he cannot deny that in a closed shop situation, one must be a member of a union to get a job. By denying Australians this basic human right, trade unions have been able to build powerful monopolies of labour and hold this country, in many instances, to ransom. At this stage, the only means of curbing excessive union power and ensuring that unions act responsibly is sections 45d and 45e of the Trade Practices Act. If those provisions are removed or emasculated, we might as well all pack in and hand over control of the affairs of this country to the unelected power brokers-the militant trade union leaders. I make the point of saying `the militants' because the majority are not; but that does not detract from the point that the power is there and it can be abused by an irresponsible person who comes into it. Senator Cooney has been wheeled in here, as is often the case, to defend the indefensible. He is a man with great legal experience who, over the years, has defended among other people many blackguards and scoundrels. It is only fair that he should be brought in to defend the Government on this matter. Senator Haines has proposed an amendment to the matter of urgency. The Liberal Party has no difficulty with the amendment. We are not too sure of its relevance, but we do believe in an even-handed approach. Senator Haines —The Pendarvis-Laidley case is an example. Senator PARER —I thank Senator Haines. As I said, we do not disagree with the amendment brought in by the Democrats. In conclusion, I repeat that if we are to keep control over the monopolies and the abuse of power that comes with monopolies-power that is available, not used by all trade union people but by sufficient of them to cause enormous problems for this country in employment, in the balance of payments, in the current account deficit and in maintaining our export markets-it is absolutely vital that these sections of the Trade Practices Act remain intact and are not transferred to some other authority which might be set up simply to neutralise and emasculate what has been an excellent piece of legislation. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(4.41) —I assume that today's matter of urgency motion is Senator Chaney's contribution to May Day celebrations over the last two or three days. Typically, of course, it is not a matter of urgency. The matter will be debated later in this session when the Government introduces its massive reconstruction of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. In essence, most of these reforms are based on the recommendations of the Hancock Committee of Review into Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems. It is appropriate to note that there has not been a massive overhaul of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act for some 30 years. Liberal governments tended to ignore an overhaul and just tacked on items from time to time to deal with what they regarded as immediate problems. The Government is to be congratulated on undertaking a very wide-ranging inquiry, which has produced a magnificent report, the Hancock report, and then translating it into legislation which should appear in this chamber in the next three or four weeks. If there were to be a real urgency motion today, I would have thought that it would have been more appropriately directed at the anti-trade union legislation recently carried in Queensland-a massive attack on the trade union movement. Using Senator Parer's criteria today of what is good and bad about unions, I would expect him to support us on this question. If the Liberals are concerned about abuse of power, they might like to raise a matter of urgency on John Elliott's statements of recent days, which border on the edge of economic treachery. They may be worried about abuses, but I have never heard them talk about the abuses of the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation in Queensland-that unless one donates to the fund, one does not get tenders and contracts. I will not take that any further, Madam Acting Deputy President. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —I should hope not, Senator. Senator ROBERT RAY —Today's motion is intended to give the fledgling shadow Minister for industrial affairs a chance to show his wares on industrial matters. Much of it, of course, is a smoke-screen for the fact that the Liberals do not have an industrial relations policy. They normally bleat about deregulation of the labour market, oblivious to the consequences of such policies. As soon as they talk about a massive deregulation of the labour market, most employers drop off them. Most businesses do not want a total deregulation of the labour market. Because the Liberals have this conflict, they have to pick peripheral issues, such as the matter of public importance raised some weeks ago on compulsory unionism, and this issue today. They will never go to the central thrust of what industrial relations should be about in this country. I wonder whether the mover of the motion still subscribes to the Liberal secretariat's theory, as espoused in the secret document that came out recently, that the Liberal policy would eventually lead to a general strike. They themselves are saying: `We will be so confrontationist, and as a policy of confrontation we will provoke a general strike'. This urgency motion really only provides another vehicle for the well-established Liberal sport of union bashing. Menzies over the years perfected the art of kicking the communist can and reaped many votes as a consequence. Lamentably, for those opposite, these tactics no longer work. If one were trying to whip up support these days by attacking the extreme Left, the communist party and the revolutionary parties-it is hard enough to keep track of how many there are and how few members they have-no one would realise that no one takes them seriously. They are regarded as a joke by everyone-including themselves, I suspect. So the Liberals can no longer merely get through by kicking the communist can. So all that is left for the Liberal Party is, `All right, pull out from the bottom drawer the old tactic; let's get into some union bashing'. From listening to the Liberals over the years, one would believe that not one industrial dispute has ever been justified. They come into this chamber on this policy and try to be Mr or Mrs Reasonable on these things. But looking back through the history of the Liberal Party and their older brother, the National Party, I have not on one occasion heard any of them ever support a strike. Maybe I am wrong on that. They do occasionally support a doctors' strike. After all, doctors are earning only a mere $40,000 to $100,000 a year, and for them that seems to be justifiable action. While the Labor Party has made a major effort to understand the problems of business, it has not been reciprocated opposite with regard to trade unions. I admit that at various stages of the history of the Labor Party we did not take the concerns and the interests of business seriously enough, so we had to go out, meet with them, learn from them, and try to accommodate them within the political system. But when it comes to the trade union movement does anybody think that the Liberals or the Nationals go out and try to understand the day to day problems of trade unions or of the unionists? Of course not. It is much easier to do a bit of snide union bashing on the side than to try to understand them. It has been suggested that the mover of this motion is trying to establish his credentials in this area. Obviously, Mr Howard has decided that on this subject it is better to put in a boxer than a brawler so the Liberals can cover up their lack of policy. Even today I saw Senator Chaney described as a dry with a wet smile. I have always regarded him as a wet with a dry smile. Nevertheless, he has been put in their apparently as someone who is not terribly overtly publicly aggressive to try to wave over the deregulationists in the Party. I was very pleased to see that at least he made a stand today on the question of a wage pause. I think that was very commendable. Looking at the history of industrial relations in this country, we see that the amount of working days lost under the Fraser Government averaged three million a year. Under the Hawke Government the average is 1.4 million days a year. Put another way, the average number of working days lost per thousand employees per annum under Fraser was 590.6 and under the Hawke Government it has been 239. We have shown that we are far better at handling industrial relations problems than the Liberal Party has been. It is also interesting to note that a comparative study of strikes by Dr Beggs and Dr Chapman has found that Canada, Ireland, Italy, the United Kingdom and even the United States of America have higher strike levels than does Australia. They concluded that, especially in comparison with Canada, Australia has benefited from having a Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The Australian Labor Party makes no secret of the fact that it has consistently opposed sections 45d and 45e of the Trade Practices Act. We opposed that legislation when it was originally introduced by Mr Howard. We have had opposition to it in our national platform for the past 10 years. It also formed an integral part of our policy speeches in 1983 and 1984. In 1984 the Labor Government introduced legislation to take these matters out of the Trade Practices Act. The result, as many people in this chamber will recall, was a tied vote, at 23 votes all. The Government recognises that any attempt to remove these sections from the Trade Practices Act would again fail in the Senate. I think we can count well enough to know that there is no way we could get a majority for that particular proposal. The Hancock Committee itself indicated that it would like to offer some recommendation on this matter, but it was divided over this question. Whilst we can point in the Hancock report to probably 99 per cent commonality of view, on this particular contentious matter, on sections 45D and 45E, because of a divided viewpoint, the Hancock committee could not bring down a recommendation. It specifically said that it would like to bring down a recommendation to influence the Senate. It is the Government's current intention to include sections 45D and 45E within the industrial relations process and under the control of a labour court, for we say this: If we cannot remove these particular sections from the Trade Practices Act, by relocating them in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, we are far more likely to get a settlement of a dispute. For instance, we have heard much from Senator Parer today about the great Utah dispute. He told us how, in 1977, an injunction was granted. In actual fact, that dispute was eventually resolved in 1981-four years later. So much for using the Trade Practices Act, so much for the injunction-it rarely works. He also went on to discuss Mudginberri, that great highlight of the Liberals' life. I am glad he did not go into it in too much detail, otherwise he would have had to explain how the Northern Territory Government bought all that meat from Mudginberri and did nothing with it. It spent hundreds of thousands of dollars. He would have had to explain the terribly shoddy deal that it did with the Westpac Banking Corporation, which funded Mudginberri, and the owners of Mudginberri on the condition that the Northern Territory Government shifted all its bank accounts across to Westpac. Honourable senators opposite do not go into those slimy abuses of power that the Northern Territory Government was involved in. They just pick on unions. Honourable senators opposite are union bashers and nothing more. I agree with the statement put out by 70 academics on 20 April when they warned that `the future of a workable industrial relations system is now in serious doubt'. They went on to say that the provisions were being used as a first resort union busting technique. That is the situation that we have reached. Senator Parer, probably Senator Chaney and others would have us believe that using sections 45d and 45e is a last resort, and that was probably true until 1985. However, it is now becoming a first resort, and that was never intended. If honourable senators read John Howard's speech on the intention of introducing those two sections, they will find that it was not intended as a first resort but as a last resort. The factor that is most likely to poison industrial relations in the future is if there is the return of a Liberal Government, a National Government, a Liberal-National coalition or a coalition between the Liberals, the Nationals and the new Nationals or whatever else there might be at that time. What would such a government's approach be to the labour market? Would it deregulate to such an extent that only the strong unions would be able to protect their members and the members of weak unions would not survive? Would such a government continue with the Conciliation and Arbitration Act or would it have direct bargaining? We do not hear any answers from honourable senators opposite. It is almost as though all they are thinking about is the magic phrase `deregulate the market and everything else will follow'. That will not happen. As Senator McKiernan indicated today, it is true that much of the problem with the Liberal Party comes from the theoreticians outside the Liberal Party such as Peter Costello, Henderson and others who are apparently called the New Right. I will not go into New Right bashing which can be almost equivalent to kicking the communist can. However, to some extent I am distressed at the degree to which the Liberal Party people pay lip service to these ideas. I do not think that they think them through, and I do not think that they read the articles to the end. Instead, they just say `That seems all right, we might adopt that particular policy', without thinking through the consequences. I have reminded honourable senators opposite that on three major occasions the Liberal Party has attacked the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. The first occasion was 1903-04, the first time the Conciliation and Arbitration Act was dealt with. The conservatives lost power to the Labor Party because they refused to support that Act and the first Labor Prime Minister, Mr Watson, came into power. Again, in 1929 there was a massive attack on the Federal Conciliation and Arbitration Act, so much so that not only did the conservatives lose government but their Prime Minister also lost his seat. Between 1978 and 1983 we saw whole series of legislation designed with only one intent-the crippling of the trade union movement. Again, the conservatives were thrown out of office. If honourable senators opposite persist with these ultra right wing approaches of deregulating the labour market, they will not only lose the support of the Australian electorate but also will lose the support of many of their traditional friends in business who have often looked to the Liberal Party as their representatives in this Parliament. They do not want to go into a war which they have to fight while the Liberal Party sits on the sideline having passed the legislation because it is they who will suffer, not the Liberal Party directly until the next election. In conclusion, this urgency motion will be debated at length again, as I think the mover knows. As soon as the amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission come back into this chamber, we will probably have many weeks of debate surrounding this and other matters. As I have said, this is not a matter of urgency; it was produced just to give the new shadow Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations a bit of a run. However, I do not think it has gone particularly well. The Australian Labor Party's attitude on secondary boycotts, on sections 45d and 45e of the Trade Practices Act, is if we are not in a position to abolish them because we do not have the numbers in this chamber, we will at least relocate them in an area where industrial disputes can be more effectively settled in the future. At the moment, there is no way that the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission can deal with a dispute if suddenly someone takes an action under sections 45d and 45e of the Trade Practices Act. More often than not, that action becomes a key industrial dispute rather than the original dispute, which makes solving the original dispute so much harder. Relocation in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act will be a major contributor to settling industrial disputes. I know that employers, believing that they will lose a major weapon, have opposed that relocation. I think they have not given it enough thought. But, when they do, they will eventually support it. Senator SHEIL(Queensland)(4.55) —First, I thank Senator Chaney for curtailing his contribution in order to give me a chance, as National Party spokesman on industrial affairs, to support his motion of urgency on the need to maintain the effectiveness of the secondary boycott provisions in the Trade Practices Act as a readily available remedy for abuses of trade union power. I note that, as Senator Parer said, the Australian Labor Party, when it wants to bring people out to defend the indefensible, usually wheels out Senator Barney Cooney, Senator Robert Ray and Senator Richardson who are old battered and scarred warhorses. When we have this sort of debate dealing with trade union matters they always say that members on this side are aggressive and provocative. They defend the trade unions by using all the usual trite words such as `union bashing', `kicking the commo can' and `confrontationist'. In fact, all we are doing is bringing a bit of reason and sanity into the industrial relations area. I am quite prepared to accept that there are good and bad employers, just as there are good and bad unions. That is why we accept the amendment put forward by Senator Haines. I would say that the Labor Party is trying to make out that no one on this side understands the working man's problems. However, I have been an employer of reasonable size for 30 years now and I have never had slowdowns, work-to-rule campaigns, unsavoury work practices or strikes. My father, who for 25 years was manager of Mount Morgan Mines, never had any of those things happen to him. He had happy working relationships. I think a good case can be made for weekly employer-employee meetings at which any problems can be discussed. If that happened, I am sure that industrial relations would be good. So I accept that there are good and bad employers and good and bad unions. However, I confess that employers operate in an atmosphere of fear because of the threat of industrial action, particularly if there are militant unionists among the employees. The Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has been most pliant to unions over the years, and that is not strictly the Commission's fault. The Commission could not be brought in unless there was a dispute. As a result the unions created disputes by making exorbitant demands. The Commission had to concede to a certain number of those demands and before the decision had even been published the unions had lodged their next log of claims with the Commission for its next hearings. Senator Robert Ray brought up the recent Queensland legislation as if it was a union bashing assault which threatened the very existence of the trade unions. But it is not. The unions have taken to using the strike as their first weapon. The Queensland legislation is designed merely to stop the use of the strike as a first reaction to any industrial disputation, but particularly to disputations in export industries. I do not see it as any more of a problem than that. The Federal Government is determined to make an assault on the Queensland legislation. It is doing its best to think up ways of passing Federal laws that are in conflict with the Queensland laws so that the Federal law will prevail and the Queensland laws will be negated. I think that is an unsavoury use of the Federal power. I notice that Federal governments over the years have been expanding their powers more and more by passing different forms of legislation which comply with overseas agreements and then saying that their responsibility under these Acts has to be to take over the operations and government of the States. Queensland is at the sharp cutting edge of adopting commonsense union practices and I think it should be applauded by the rest of Australia. Queensland is against union vandalism, and that is what I call militant unionism. Senator McKiernan did not seem to know what a militant union was but if one is an employer being sent broke by illegal union activity, one knows very well. The 70 academics who have been referred to here today in my view are not showing the academic impartiality that one would expect of them. I despair somewhat for the students whom they teach. They are making out that sections 45d and 45e are attacking the very basis of established unionism and the right to engage in industrial unionism in pursuit of legitimate claims against their employer. What they are really doing is perpetrating a myth. Section 45d has been in existence 10 years and section 45e at least seven years. They have been used in all their glory only twice. That has been mentioned here today. The Mudginberri case was one and the Plumbers and Gasfitters Union case was another. Mudginberri involved an illegal picket. It was because a group of National Party Federal parliamentarians came across that picket when we were travelling up north that it was brought to the attention of the nation. The illegal picket was to stop meat inspectors going on to the property of the employer. There was no dispute between the meat workers and the employer; no dispute between the meat inspector and the employer; no dispute between the meat workers and the abattoir. As Senator Parer mentioned, the union there was opposed to higher pay for its members, higher productivity for the abattoir and increased export earnings for Australia. The plumbers and gasfitters strike was clearly illegal. I make the point that the fines that were imposed in those cases brought the disputes to an end. To complain that section 45d has led to imposition of massive fines on unions and is an attack on the very existence of unions is also to perpetrate a myth. The legislation merely makes it possible for employers to take out injunctions, not to impose fines. Senator Chaney —It is a tertiary boycott. Senator SHEIL —Yes. It is only when union leaders defy the ordinary courts that fines are imposed. The fines are not against industrial action; they are against contempt of court. In both the Mudginberri case and the plumbers and gasfitters union case the fines ended the disputes when the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and the Minister for Industrial Relations could not. I agree that all thinking people in Australia and particularly big and small businesses should fight any attempt by the Government to repeal section 45d and section 45e. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(5.04) —Pursuant to contingent notice of motion, I move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Haines moving an amendment to the motion. I have moved for the suspension of Standing Orders because I ran out of time during the primary debate on this urgency motion of Senator Chaney's-the eminently reasonable Senator Chaney-before I could formally move to insert the words `and employer' after `trade union' in Senator Chaney's motion. Senator Parer indicated in his contribution to the debate that the Opposition will not oppose such an amendment, I suppose essentially because of the neutral nature of the wording of section 45d and section 45e of the Trade Practices Act. In simple terms, section 45d provides that one person shall not conspire with a second person to prevent the supply of goods or services by a third person to a fourth person. If anybody can keep up with that he is doing very well indeed. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Haines, you are getting rather far away from debating the suspension of Standing Orders. Your motion might well go through unopposed. Senator HAINES —Thank you, Mr Deputy President. I was wandering into that area because during the debate I was asked why we would want to move this amendment and I was going to go on to say that the Laidely case was an instance which showed that there is no reason in principle why an employer cannot be in breach of section 45d. I abide by your ruling and shall not continue along that line. I ask that the motion be supported. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.07) —I indicate that the Opposition will support the motion and then the amendment. It is the Opposition's view that these matters should be even-handed. I think the Australian Democrats agree that the use of section 45d most often arises because of trade union secondary boycotts, but we have no intention of saying that what is not permissible by trade unions is permissible by employers. Question resolved in the affirmative. Amendment (by Senator Haines) agreed to: After `trade union', insert `and employer'. Question put: That the motion (Senator Chaney's), as amended, be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 27 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Baume, Peter Macklin, M. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Mason, C. V. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Messner, A. J. Brownhill, D. G. C. Newman, J. M. Carrick, Sir John Parer, W. R. Chaney, F. M. Powell, J. F. Collard, S. J. Puplick, C. J. G. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Sanders, N. K. Durack, P. D. Sheil, G. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Short, J. R. Haines, J. Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. Hill, R. Vanstone, A. E. Jessop, D. S. Vigor, D. B. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Walters, M. S. Knowles, S. C. Watson, J. O. W. MacGibbon, D. J. Withers, R. G. Aulich, T. Jones, G. N. (Teller)Bolkus, N. McIntosh, G. D. Button, J. N. McKiernan, J. P. Childs, B. K. Maguire, G. R. Coates, J. Morris, J. Coleman, R. N. Ray, RobertCooney, B. Robertson, E. A. Crowley, R. A. Ryan, S. M. Devlin, R. Sibraa, K. W. Elstob, R. C. Tate, M. C. Evans, Gareth Walsh, P. A. Foreman, D. J. West, S. M. Gietzelt, A. T. Zakharov, A. O. Giles, P. J. Alston, R. K. R. Black, J. R. Reid, M. E. Colston, M. A. Lewis, A. W. R. Richardson, G. F. Newman, J. M. Cook, P. F. S. Archer, B. R. Reynolds, M. (Senator Michael Baume did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Grimes). Question so resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Robertson)-by leave-agreed to: That Senator Harradine be granted leave of absence for the period 4 May to 15 May 1987 inclusive on account of ill health. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs) —I table the report `National Policy on Languages' and seek leave to have a statement by the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) relating to the report incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- NATIONAL POLICY ON LANGUAGES Statement by the Minister for Education Senator The Hon. Susan Ryan I am pleased to table the report `National Policy on Languages'. This report has been long-awaited and long regarded as a most important element in government policy development on a wide range of issues. I believe that all groups interested in this issue will be impressed by the comprehensive, thoughtful and practical approach adopted in the report. The report was written by one of my Ministerial consultants, Mr Joseph Lo Bianco. Mr Lo Bianco's consultations were exhaustive and his treatment of the issues is consistently intelligent and penetrating. His conclusions and recommendations would carry government policies forward across a broad front. Mr Lo Bianco deserves the highest commendation for his work. The Government will be closely examining his specific recommendations over the coming months in the lead-up to the Budget. Honourable senators will be aware that, in a speech on 26 April, the Prime Minister stated that the Government endorsed the national language policy. The Prime Minister stated further that the Government is committed to funding an integrated package in the August budget to implement a national policy on languages. The Prime Minister has asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and me to develop a detailed submission on the shape which that package should take. `National Policy on Languages' starts from the premise that English is the national language. The report examines in detail ways to improve the teaching of English and to ensure that all groups in the community have effective command of the English language, including adults who need literacy programs. This reiteration of the basic importance of proper teaching and learning of English is welcomed and endorsed by the Government. The report also rightly emphasises that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages are an irreplaceable part of Australia's national heritage. We do not intend to allow them to die out. My portfolio already has under way a major project on Aboriginal pedagogy, and we will now examine the recommendations in the language report to determine how our programs might best be developed in the field of Aboriginal languages. Our language policy stresses the importance to Australia of our developing the opportunities for students to learn at least one language other than English. That task matters to us for two particular reasons. The first is that we all have an interest in the maintenance of the community languages of the groups in our ethnic communities. Their languages are part of their heritage and part of our general Australian heritage. They enrich Australia and are an essential dimension of our multicultural society. The second reason is the importance to the national interest in improving our capacities in languages of national economic interest. Learning Asian languages, especially Japanese and Chinese, is a way of helping guarantee our economic and our trading future. The learning of Asian languages is an indispensable first step to improving our understanding of the region, our trade prospects there and the integration of segments of our economy with economic developments in Asia. When we develop proposals for discussions with the States on programs for teaching languages other than English, we will naturally seek to ensure that the States prepare balanced and integrated programs which take appropriate account of our two guiding concerns. I commend this report. All Australians have a direct, personal interest in how we handle the language issue. No question of national importance is unaffected by what we do in our language policies. A narrow or rigid approach to language policy could hobble our policies in many other fields. An imaginative, thoughtful and constructive approach-our approach-will help develop our programs and our potential for years to come. I wish also to remind honourable senators that we have recently appointed Joseph Lo Bianco, the author of this report, as a full-time Commissioner of the Commonwealth Schools Commission. Mr Lo Bianco will therefore be in the happy position of being charged with the implementation of the report which he himself drafted. Mr Lo Bianco has my full confidence, he enjoys the trust and respect of our ethnic communities, his reputation in the field of education is undisputed. His appointment should therefore be seen as another demonstration of the seriousness of the Government's commitment in this most important area of national policy. Senator GIETZELT —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(5.15) —I certainly welcome the statement by the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) that accompanies the report of Mr Lo Bianco, a consultant to the Government, entitled `National Policy on Languages'. This report is the response of the Government to the report of the Standing Committee on Education and the Arts of 2 1/2 years ago entitled `A National Language Policy'. I had the honour to be the first Chairman of that inquiry and to be involved in the initial discussion of its terms of reference, the prosecution of its public hearings and the gathering of evidence from every part of Australia. So it is with considerable pleasure on my part, and I believe on the part of many honourable senators who are involved in that inquiry, that I note the comprehensiveness of the Lo Bianco report and the full way in which the Government has endorsed it. I see that Senator Ryan is in the chamber. She has had the carriage of co-ordinating this matter on behalf of a number of Ministers and I congratulate her on the appointment of that consultant and on the outcome-the report brought down today on the Government's behalf. The Lo Bianco report is a comprehensive response to the Senate Committee's report. However, the two-page statement that accompanies it mentions the statement eight days ago by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) at a meeting in Melbourne at which he announced one thing about which I am very happy. He announced the Government's endorsement of the Lo Bianco report which amounts to the endorsement of the Senate Standing Committee's findings and the consolidation of so many representations received from all over Australia. I welcome that part. But in the second part of the Prime Minister's speech, referred to in this statement, he announced that the Government has deferred until the August Budget any commitment to the reordering of finances or making available new financial allocations to implement this national policy on languages. We do not see any specific quantitative commitments in the Government's decisions brought before the Parliament today. I entirely welcome the qualitative acceptance of all that I have summarised, but there is an absence of any quantitative or financial measures. It is reported in the Press that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Mr Young, and the Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, conscientiously took quantitative recommendations to the Cabinet amounting to some $22m, but the Cabinet turned these down. So we have in this report presented today yet again an absence of solid Government commitment to these important matters. In this financial year, in the last Budget a cut of $28m in the English as a second language program; the merger of the Special Broadcasting Service and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation; the abolition of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs; and the abolition of multicultural education programs in schools were announced. These matters have yet to be redressed and reversed. There is a direct absence of that in the statement that the Government has brought down today. I am also aware that a wide range of community groups met in February, and again more recently, to respond to the Lo Bianco report. That meeting of all the groups interested in language policy was co-ordinated by the Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia, and included not only the ethnic communities but Aboriginal communities, academics at the higher education level, linguistic associations, various specialised language groups-such as the Concerned Deaf Group and others with language disabilities-representatives from libraries, the media, translators and interpreters. They put forward some specific recommendations about the decisions involved in implementing the Senate Committee's report, as accepted and summarised by the Lo Bianco report. However, the Government has neglected to respond to any of the items submitted by FECCA. Opposition senators-and, I understand, the Australian Democrats-are concerned that those community groups have been neglected; that their views may have been, in part, represented to the Cabinet by the two active Ministers, but that the Cabinet turned them down. Therefore, we must now look to the Budget in mid-August to know what reordering of financial priorities and new programs will be provided to ensure that the policy is implemented. There is also the absence of a specific announcement of the Advisory Council on National Language Policy, but I shall come to that point a little later in my remarks. Essentially, the Lo Bianco report, which the Government has endorsed, builds on the foundation of the Senate Committee report. It is a conservative report, in that it takes stock of the language resources that already exist in Australia and of the language programs in which the Commonwealth is directly involved. It gives them a direction to ensure that those resources are conserved and extended. It is conservative in that it acknowledges that there is one national language in Australia, and that is English. It is conservative also, however, in that it recognises the importance of each individual language and allows each individual freely to retain and enrich that language alongside English. It is not a radical program of legislation for language rights; it is not a radical program that would endorse a particular Aboriginal or community language, from one or other migrant group, and put it alongside English as a language of right in Australia. The Lo Bianco report takes up the context in which so many senators were involved in the original Senate Committee report, by endorsing the fundamental status for English-the Australian version of English-that is our one national language. Because of that, the report makes the conservative statement that we must ensure that there are programs for every Australian to have access to a full knowledge of English. There is a proper recognition in the report that the States and Territories of Australia have a major initiative in language programs. By and large, the States control the curricula in schools, and it is in that area that there is a major focus on the importance of English for every Australian child, on English as a second language for those who come from families where English is less familiar or even absent, and on English being available at various levels of proficiency for adult Australians-for example, migrants on arrival, where even basic English may be absent, and at various levels of employment and professional work for the extension of English. The States have an important role in those areas, and that is recognised not only by the Lo Bianco report, with some 100 pages summarising the approach of each of the States and Territories, but by the recognition that there must be a reporting by the Advisory Council not only to the Commonwealth but to the States. It points out that the Commonwealth and States together must work towards the sense of direction that is the national language policy. I noted in the Minister's tabled statement a warm commendation not only of this report but of its author, Mr Joseph Lo Bianco. As the original initiator of the Senate inquiry, I have looked at the report as carefully as I can, and I wish to endorse all its remarks. I have full confidence in what Mr Lo Bianco has written. I welcome the fact that the Government has appointed him a full time Commissioner of the Commonwealth Schools Commission. I know that he will have a major continuing role in the implementation of this report. I trust that he will be intimately involved in the Advisory Council that is recommended, and now endorsed by the Government. In congratulating Mr Lo Bianco, I must also mention that hundreds of Australians contributed to his work. They are noted in the appendix to his report, and also in the appendix to the Senate Standing Committee report. Those hundreds of people, with great expertise and experience, made submissions to the Senate Committee and to Joseph Lo Bianco as consultant. I remind the Senate that it was on 25 May 1982 that I moved the reference of this matter to the Senate Committee. It is now 4 May 1987-a couple of weeks short of five years since then. We now have the Government implementing a major consultant's report responding to the findings of the Senate Committee. It is interesting that the two reports are about the same size and weight with about the same number of pages. The logo on the report tabled today has, in various languages, the word `Australian' written across it, whereas on the Senate report the word `Language', in various languages, is the logo across the cover. The structure of the Government's response is similar to that of the Senate Committee's report. I endorse that structure. I think it is appropriate and right. I notice that on pages 11 and 12 of the Lo Bianco report there is a direct borrowing of two key tables from the report of the Senate Committee's inquiry. There is one deficiency, however, in the Lo Bianco report. There is no index, which would be a useful addition. There is an index in the Senate report. These two volumes will be on the shelves of language policy planners in Australia for the next 20 years. They will be a reference for everyone involved in language policy matters. The similarity between the response to the Lo Bianco report and the response to the Senate Committee report is an endorsement by this Government of the advice given by the Senate Committee. Let me refer to three other matters before I conclude. There are three aspects of the Lo Bianco report, which is of nearly 300 pages, that I would like to note especially. Its structure is very logically and convincingly set out. It firstly talks about the rationale of looking at the development of Australia's language resources. It gives a history of language use and a set of concepts and principles, including those we have recommended in the Senate Committee report, as an introduction to the whole matter. The second part of the report deals directly with policy. It talks about the status of languages, whether they be English, Aboriginal languages, community languages, languages of trade and commerce or languages of intercourse in our region and in the world. It talks about language services such as libraries. It also talks about language interpreting and translating services and other such services. Finally, it contains an important section about an advisory council. The third part of the report, which is about 100 pages long, sets out the approaches taken in the States and the Territories. I endorse the structure of the report. I believe that it is the right approach and I am glad that the Government has also endorsed it. The second matter I want to refer to is the Advisory Council on National Language Policy, details of which are set out on pages 185 to 188 of the Lo Bianco report. I have read and endorse every word of those few pages. I believe that the Council is a practical and comprehensive instrument for giving advice to this Government, to future governments and to the States and Territories in regard to the wide range of issues which this matter encompasses. Even as a Liberal senator, as one who does not with to see any burgeoning of government or more and more councils and committees, I believe that, in practice, the price of actively endorsing a new program is to ensure that there is the wherewithal to achieve it, that there is a mechanism for consultation and advice. So I directly endorse the four standing committees and the two temporary committees which are to act under the auspices of the Advisory Council. I believe that they directly reflect the Senate's advice. I heartily believe that the detail as to the committees, the terms of reference for the Advisory Council, the suggested membership of the Council and the short term goals of the Council should be fully endorsed. In the present financial year's Budget $100,000 is set aside to enable such a council to begin its work. I have criticised the Government's response today on the ground that it lacks financial initiative-that is, any commitment of moneys to the implementation of the policy, which has been fully endorsed. I add criticism of the Government not announcing today who the members of the Advisory Council will be. Perhaps the Government wishes to hear the response of the Senate and the other place today and get some public response before going ahead with the appointment of the members of the Advisory Council. I hope that my remarks are taken into account. I urge the Government to press on urgently with the appointment of the persons in the format that is set out on page 187-and the sooner the better. There is money at hand to do so. In the Budget context there can be a fuller announcement as to the provision for the coming financial year. The appointment of the seven key persons-that is, the chairpersons of the Council, the four standing committees and the two temporary committees-will be vital. There are some two or three outstanding Australians who can fill each of those positions. From the ample number of leading experienced spokespersons there can well be found in the short term persons to fill these key positions. An eighth important appointment will be that of the executive officer of the Council. The Government should give the closest attention to finding the very best people in Australia to fill these positions and persuading them to serve Australia in these capacities. The third and final aspect of the report I wish to comment on concerns the school languages which are commended and envisaged as being most available for teaching and learning in Australian schools. Page 125 of the report lists the following languages which are, with very small exception, similar to the list I have advocated at various professional conferences on languages over the last five years: Mandarin Chinese, Indonesian-Malay, Japanese, French, German, Italian, Modern Greek, Arabic and Spanish. The report states: These combine Australia's external needs and domestic needs in a realistic way. The languages which particularly require promotion from this group, due to presently inadequate resource levels, are: Chinese; Japanese; Indonesian-Malay; Arabic and Spanish, although Italian and Modern Greek warrant some additional attention. In a subsequent period, French and German require bolstering as well. I believe that is a fair summary of the languages of priority. We need to ensure that there are resourced curricula for their teaching in schools. The Lo Bianco report calls them `languages of wider teaching'. I have no quarrel with that. They are languages of importance to Australia. I make the statement, as have many other honourable senators today in looking at this report, that we need to take stock of the Asian context of our region and the importance to trade and every other aspect of our regional context of ensuring that there are more Australians with a genuine knowledge of Chinese and Japanese, in particular. Some will quarrel with the fact that there is hardly a mention of Latin in this report. I understand that Latin is still a minority language. However I list those nine, 10 or 11 languages in order of pre-eminence, I am sufficiently grateful for my own experience in Latin-whilst I detested it at the time-to say responsibly that it is still a language of usefulness which should be taught in Australian schools for those who freely opt to take it. It will greatly expand such students' knowledge of English and other languages and will be a key to understanding much of Western history and philosophy. I think that Latin is still a useful language. Indeed, in a few Australian schools some 40 languages, such as Russian, Maltese, Dutch and even Latvian, are being taught. I say `even Latvian' simply because of the small number of families, relative to others, who speak Latvian. The principle endorsed in the report is the principle of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts; that is, it is the national responsibility, in league with the States, to ensure that resources are available for the teaching and learning of languages, especially those I mentioned initially. However, it is the responsibility of the school community, on the basis of all the available aspects being considered, to determine the language that that school will adopt as its second language or the languages that it will adopt as its second and third languages. English is of priority. Every Australian, including every school child, must have the best access to English, including methodologies of teaching, such as for teaching English as a second language. I welcome entirely the Lo Bianco report's endorsement that all Australians should have the opportunity to experience the learning of a second language. I would also include, if they wished to do so, the learning of an Aboriginal language. The Lo Bianco report sets out some 30 recommendations. They are precisely summarised from page 189 onwards and they summarise the findings of part 2 of the report. As far as I can see on a first reading, they are a fair response to the 117 recommendations of the Senate Committee. Whilst I cannot vouch for every one of them at this stage, as I have had only a short time in which to read the report, I can see from everything that I have read to this point that they are a very positive response to the Senate Committee. As I have said, the report of the Senate Committee on national language policy and the Lo Bianco report entitled `National Policy on Languages', which the Government fully endorses, will, I believe, sit together for the next two decades. I hope that the early appointment of the Advisory Council, the considerations of the Government in the preparation of the Budget and the liaison with the States and Territories will achieve the focus for which we have all called. I conclude by noting that what we speak about on this topic is wider than just a person's ability with a language. The report comes at a time when Australia is quite distinctive in the world in comparison with similar developments in other countries. Nowhere else in the world is there as evident the kind of potential for creative language resources that there is in Australia now and has been in the past five years. Australia has a distinctive approach, as the Government response endorses. What we are considering is the kind of resource that a language resource is. The issue is not just about knowledge; it is about power, power to be a part of Australia. It is also about individual fulfilment. I believe strongly in the Liberal principle of accepting and respecting every individual for who he or she is. The growing self-awareness of every individual, the growth of self-confidence in every individual and the ability to communicate for every individual are also of fundamental importance. I welcome the Government's response to the Senate Committee's report. I look forward to reading the Joe Lo Bianco report in even greater detail. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(5.45) —The report entitled `National Policy on Languages' is a very important one. It is probably the best summary that I have seen anywhere of the language as it exists in a country and how that language in all of its forms should be developed in the interests of that country. When we talk about language, we are not talking about just something that most people in the community probably remember as having had forced on them at school; we are talking about the means of communication, not only among ourselves as Australians but also between this country and other countries. Language will become increasingly important in the future; for example, as we develop our tourist industry. Tourism requires a range of basic language skills of our citizens. We are not talking about just the aesthetic value of a person having the ability to pick up a book written in some other language and to browse through it for his or her own delectation and amusement; we are talking about a person's ability to converse with people visiting this country in their language, so that they can feel at home and feel that Australia is a useful place of destination for their tourist dollar. We are also talking about the ability of our citizens who travel overseas to speak the languages of other countries and to develop our trade with those countries through basic skills that are a mere courtesy to another country if we want to do trade with it. When we consider the policy on languages, let it not be thought that we are talking about merely something to go on in schools to fill in the time between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. We are talking about something which is of fundamental importance to our economy and to a multicultural society as diverse as ours. We know a fair amount, from the literature, about the education needs of children in their native language-their mother tongue, as it is called in the report. We know how very important it is that the first language in which the child is taught be the language of the home and that, progressively, that person comes to learn a majority language, for example, English. The report indicates that almost half of all Australian students have no experience of studying another language for any period. We are, as a country, excessively proud of English; seemingly more so than the English are, because the situation in Great Britain is far better than that. By an accident of geography we have managed to become monolingual to an extent that no other country, except those which have chosen to cut themselves off from the rest of the world, is. When one looks, for example, at the material provided about school languages-Senator Teague referred to some of those-one sees that about 7 per cent of schools teach French; roughly 5 per cent teach German; 4 per cent teach Italian; 0.8 per cent teach Indonesian which is the first language of our region; 0.6 per cent teach modern Greek; 0.6 per cent teach Japanese-Japan is the country with which we do most of our trade; and 0.58 per cent, a very close runner to Japanese, teach Latin. I am probably among a number of honourable senators who had inflicted upon them at school Latin, classical Greek and Hebrew, all of which I soon found out were not spoken by anybody in the world; certainly not by anybody with whom we could do any trade. The last lot died out several thousands years ago. When I went to university I studied Japanese, on the grounds that it was the language which surely of all languages Australians ought to study. By saying that I do not by any means seek to denigrate the languages that I did learn at school. I must say that Latin comes in terribly handy when you want to read inscriptions on tombs. In fact, I found it very handy last year to do precisely that. But I am not at all sure that four years spent learning a language for that type of return is really what I would term an efficient use of resources. I am very much of the view that the predominant language which we should be seeking to teach our children in schools is Japanese. The other languages of the region, such as Indonesian, I think are extremely important and will in fact become much more important in the future. We are blessed in this country with having our basic language as English. It is the language of commerce of the world, the language of aviation of the world, the language of banking of the world and in fact is the dominant language in the world. That makes it pretty easy for us. I shudder to think what would have happened if the French or the Spanish had decided to stay here when they first arrived because, given our propensity not to learn anybody else's language, we would have had a dickens of a time doing any trade with the rest of the world. It so happens that we learnt the right language through no fault of our own. But I think that lulled us into a false sense of security, and unless we improve our game in this area we are going to be in increasing difficulties. One of the things that I was discussing over the weekend, before I got a serve from the Queensland Premier, is that when we are talking about the use of money which is raised by taxation, we must realise that nobody else in this country is going to fund languages taught by the schools. That teaching is going to be funded out of the taxpayer's pocket. If we do not have the taxpayers for that, all the pious words in the world will do us absolutely no good at all. Nobody in this country has ever shown the slightest interest in trying to teach languages to children, other than the schools of this country, other than the tertiary institutions and other than those institutions which have been funded totally out of the taxpayer's pocket. The only other major language teaching operation in this country is done by the ethnic communities to the people in their own communities as a continuation of their traditions. Yet we find this Government setting its face against that and capping the amount of money going to those ethnic schools, and in the next Budget we will probably see a total winding back of that effort. Essentially, we have an Opposition which is intent on massively cutting government expenditure, and languages will be an area that will probably go. The Government which is in power is now looking to see where it might cut funding, and of course it is picking on this area as being dispensable. Probably the one major political factor that has emerged in the debate in the last year has been the willingness of the ethnic community to come to the defence of ethnic languages, and hence coincidentally, to come to the defence of some reasonable language policy. If we do see some stabilisation in this area in terms of government funding, it will not be because of the political parties; it will be because of the efforts of those groups in the community which have got out there, campaigned pretty hard and brought home to the people in this place that they had better be careful about the type of operation they engage in when it comes to languages. There are some startling facts and figures in this report. I hope quite a number of people in the community will see fit to get a copy of it and read it. In its discussion of Aboriginal languages it points out that we are losing one Aboriginal language a year. It has got to the stage where one Aboriginal language a year is no longer used as a viable language and to all intents and purposes it becomes extinct. That is appalling, and hence it shows again the need to move, and to move rapidly, to get some resources, particularly so the linguistic anthropologists will be able to categorise and work with those languages and to systematise the transliteration of them. Where there are pockets of speakers we would thus have the ability to achieve some continuation of that language in terms of teaching and written material. The proposition that this report contains for moving beyond the current situation are, I agree with Senator Teague, conservative. That is one of the values of this report. One could go overboard and suggest all sorts of wonderful things that could be done in any area. Obviously, the practical constraints of expenditure do not allow that. One of the useful things of this report I think is that it is couched in terms that could be met, and I hope will be met, in the Budget this year. I am particularly interested in the proposal for the Australian second language learning program. I think it is a very sensible program, one which, in terms of the costings done in the report, is suggested in 1987-88 to cost $7.5m. I hope this Government will see it-now that it has this material and it has given such praise to this report-as a necessity to find some space within the education budget for this proposition. I am hopeful that the continuing funding in years to come-the $7.5m each year over the next triennium-will be fulfilled by whatever government comes in after the next election, whether it be an Australian Labor Party Government delivering the 1988-89 Budget, or whatever other lot is in power next year. Senator Messner —Liberal. Senator MACKLIN —A Liberal government, say the Liberals, and since Senator Bjelke- Petersen is reading some other material at the moment, presumably she is not going to say a National Party government. Whether it be a Liberal Party led conservative government or a National Party led conservative government, I hope it will find the $7.5m that is required for the 1988 and 1989 Budgets. It is important that that particular proposal be extended. Some of the other areas unfortunately are not costed, and I know it is relatively difficult to cost these. Given the amount of time that the author of the report had, I am not seeking to blame him in any way for that. But the area of teacher education is one that I think is also very important. I am a great supporter of the notion that teacher education in this area is best done in the country where the language is spoken. That is a much more expensive proposition. I am reminded of that program on the teaching of French which appears on the Special Broadcasting Service at about 8.15 p.m. It starts off with the very salutary point-it is a British Broadcasting Corporation program-that O level French in fact is a language which is not spoken in France; that O level French is a language which is spoken only in English schools and not by anybody else on earth. A lot of our language training in this country unfortunately falls into that category. If we asked a few people around here to venture a few words in the languages that they laboured over at school or university, I think we would find exactly the same type of thing, whether it be Italian, Indonesian or whatever other language. I believe that is a travesty. I am reminded of the fact that the Expo pamphlet which was produced at a great cost and taken over to France was, in fact, shredded. Once the people in the Embassy had read it, they were so appalled by it that they had to shred it before it was circulated because it was worthwhile only for stuffing pillows, or whatever is done with shredded paper. It certainly was not worth giving to people who actually speak French. It is appalling that we should have such bad translations going out of this country. It reminds me of some of the material we receive with watches which purports to tell us how to get our watches working in something which is ostensibly English but which in fact is probably much closer to the original Japanese. That is not good enough. I believe that a waste of money in this area is worse than anything. We have only small resources so let us put them in the area where we can do some good. If we are to have reasonable language teaching, we have to put resources into teachers. I am terribly sorry to keep harping on that point, as I do in every education debate. It is all very well to say that we have high technology coming along and that we should do something about it in the schools. I remind honourable senators that the only way to do anything about it in the schools is to do something with the teachers first, and that costs money. Teachers should not only have pre-service training in a language in the country of its origin, but also they should have regular, professional updating. Again, that would require a sojourn to those countries at least once every five years to upgrade their capacity, their accent and their understanding of the language in the country of origin. If we think we can get away with it on the cheap, we will. No one will actually drop dead if a teacher gets the wrong pronunciation, but its usefulness for Australia and for the things that I mentioned at the beginning of my speech-trade, the economy and tourism-will be diminished. Another area, and the last area to which I want to refer, is adult illiteracy. It is all very well to talk about the need to develop our language skills and their usefulness to our economy but we already have a massive literacy problem in this country. It is estimated that well over one million adult Australians cannot read their own names. I am not referring to people of ethnic origin, I am referring to people born and raised to speak English who cannot read their own names. That is extraordinary when one thinks about the loss of productivity to this country, but it is even more extraordinary when one thinks of the loss to those individuals; what we are doing to them; what they suffer in their own lives; and how their families suffer as a result. On any count, resources put into the massive problem of adult illiteracy in Australia would be money well spent. This has been pointed out in the report; the matter has been raised; the magnitude of the problem has been debated; and the various efforts of State departments have been alluded to. When we look at the paucity of resources going to this massive problem and at the work being done in this area, basically by volunteers-hundreds, probably thousands, of Australians give up their time on an unpaid basis to work on a one to one relationship with other people who cannot read or write English-we realise that we are being propped up in this area by a tremendous effort on the part of these Australians. But that effort is not enough and cannot be enough. The resources going to them for material is pitiable. The backup that those people get is non-existent, so they get burnt out and we lose them from that particular effort. It is a pity. With some backup and resources I am quite sure that those people would continue with their voluntary job and, thereby, would be able to give so much more to the community in terms of getting at least one more Australian to read and write and, hence, to develop directly his skills and, indirectly, the economy. At the end of the day a national policy on language is only as good as the resources that are made available to move that policy ahead. Presumably, the Government is studying this issue closely. We will see the outcome of that deliberation in August. I hope we will see resources made available to get this program under way and a continuing commitment to increase those resources at the levels necessary to make it viable and profitable. Without that this report will go the way of report of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts. It will be the best up to date, on the shelf report that we have on this issue to be gazed at and quoted from in speeches made by Ministers for Education, but there will be no action in the community where it matters. I hope that the Government will commence the implementation of this report. The Australian Democrats will strongly support it in any such moves. I am reminded of the fact that when Senator Chipp was elected in 1977, almost 10 years ago, in one of his speeches he raised the vital necessity of having a national language policy for Australia. We have been urging, supporting and arguing for such a policy ever since. We have here an excellent blueprint for such a policy. It is now up to the Government to take forward into action the work that has been done over so many years by so many people, including the excellent report produced by the Senate Committee five years ago and this report. The next step has to be action on Budget night when the people who have spoken in this debate and many others in the community will be reading the fine print to see what will actually happen. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(6.08) —As the National Party spokesman on education I rise to speak briefly on the report entitled the `National Policy on Languages', which is the Government's response to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Edu- cation and the Arts entitled `A National Language Policy'. With other speakers I agree that the Government's response is conservative. The Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) made a statement, as follows: National policy on languages starts from the premise that English is the national language. The report examines in detail ways to improve the teaching of English and to ensure that all groups in the community have effective command of the English language, including adults who need literacy programs. This reiteration of the basic importance of proper teaching and learning of English is welcomed and endorsed by the Government. That seems to me to be one of the very important elements in this report; namely, that the literacy rates of ordinary Australians are bad and that they have fallen. I accept the fact that it is the responsibility of the schools and the State governments to teach the children, but I do not believe that they are being taught the skills to allow them to express themselves properly and this, perhaps, is the basis of some of the problems. Page 195 of the report states: It is proposed that a concerted and well-planned campaign be implemented during 1988 to attempt to improve levels of adult literacy. I sometimes wonder whether the reading by looking scheme that was introduced to the education of our children some years ago has been helpful. It is amazing that some children can go through 10 years or more of school and yet be barely literate. I commend, as does Senator Macklin, the volunteers who help people with literacy problems. It is very hard to realise that over a million Australians cannot read or write their own names. They certainly need help in this regard. It is a long time since I was at school, but in those days grammar and spelling were so important. I like to think that I can spell well. I do not know whether honourable senators will agree with me when I say that I am literate. They might not agree with me at all. Senator Robertson —Don't tempt me! Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —Thank you. I hope the honourable senator was saying nice things. If one does not have proper training-- Senator Watson —Isn't this a reflection of what is happening in Queensland, as well as the rest of Australia? Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —I think it is something that needs to be looked at by the departments of education in every State. This problem does not occur just in Queensland. If Senator Watson went around the schools in Tasmania he would find that the same problems exist there. I am not holding it up as something peculiar to Queensland. I am trying to explain to the Senate in my own works why I think we have some of these problems. I do not know whether the school my daughter teaches at gives students spelling lists, but I know that the school my granddaughter attends does so. It is very important that children know how to spell. One must learn the basics. If one does not know the basics, it is a bit like being asked to play a Beethoven concerto when one has not learnt to play the scales. Another illustration would be asking someone who has not done the necessary training to run a four-minute mile. It is important that all teachers in all schools teach the basic skills and help children to express themselves, to write and to spell properly. I believe that all of those things are very important for good communication. One theory suggests that it is all right for children to spell phonetically, that they should be allowed to write stories spelling words the way the words sound. That is the way many young people write words. I had a letter the other day from a nice young man. The letter was certainly written phonetically. A section in the report deals with English as a second language for migrants and Aborigines. English should be taught to migrants, for it is the language they have to speak and deal with in their everyday lives. They have come to Australia to live and to work, and English is Australia's basic language. There is a great need for migrants and Aborigines to be able to speak English. If I went to Germany to live, I believe I would have to learn German because I would not expect other people to accommodate me if I could speak only English. I learnt French at high school, but when I visited the European Parliament a couple of years ago I found that I was unable to speak French, mainly because, I suppose, I had not been using it and I had forgotten what I had learnt at school all those years ago. The States are already working to ensure that the Aboriginal languages are being protected from extinction. The report says that it is intended to supplement funding of State and Territory governments by another $6m over a period of three years to ensure that Aboriginal languages do not die out. That is also important. There is a section in the report that deals with other languages. Page 26 of the report deals with languages other than English that are being taught in schools. It states: Only 17.3 per cent of all school students study one or more languages other than English at any one time. Fewer than one third of all Australian schools teach one or more languages other than English. Only 10 per cent of primary schools teach any language other than English. 15 per cent of all secondary schools do not teach any language other than English. I learnt French and Latin at high school. Senator Macklin and Senator Teague mentioned Latin in this debate. I must say that I liked Latin when I was at school. I do not know whether my teacher would have said that I was brilliant, but I was very disappointed when I did not get an A for Latin in my junior, because I liked it and I worked hard at it. Latin helps students with grammar, with parsing and in understanding how words are formed. It is important, but it seems to be dying out. I used to think that it was part of the universal language. Doctors used to use Latin when they wrote prescriptions. Now they write English, but what they write is nearly as bad as Latin because one can never read what they write. I have to question the wisdom of establishing the huge network of committees outlined in this national policy on languages, whose purpose will be to achieve the aims stated, such as promoting better literacy, and Australian students learning a second language. I have no argument with this, but I wonder whether it is necessary to have such an enormous number of committees when we are always talking about less government. We should be thinking about reducing bureaucracy, not increasing it. The real challenge will be to find an easy way to do this without spending a lot of money. I draw the Senate's attention to the fact that 20 years ago 40 per cent of secondary students learnt a second language. Today, only about 12 per cent do. Twenty years ago literacy rates were better. Do we need all these committees that will cost money to return to the better standards that we had 20 years ago? I do not believe so. I have been very interested to read Mr Joseph Lo Bianco's report on the national policy on languages and I am glad to know that the Government has made this response to the Senate Committee's original report. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(6.18) —The report on a national policy on languages by Joseph Lo Bianco is indeed a significant document. However, it comes in the wake of the devastation caused by the Government cuts to English as a second language funding and its abolition of the multicultural education program in last year's Budget. This leads me to ask whether the fine words of the report will be translated into action. It will require much more than fine words from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) and the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Young) to set in place a properly constituted national language strategy. The development of community languages is, I believe, an extremely important part of the program proposed here and proposed by the previous Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts, and forms part of our national infrastructure. As a matter of priority, we must ensure that we develop a language program which will teach Australians to speak the languages of the communities in which they live. In many cases that is not always English. On page 189 of the report are listed the language problems which any policy must address, and I would like to remind the Senate of these. The problems include: Overcoming injustice, disadvantages and discrimination related to language; the enrichment of cultural and intellectual life within Australia; the integration of language teaching and learning with Australia's external economic and political needs and priorities; and the provision of clear expectations to the community about language in general and about language in education in particular. We also face the problem of supporting the component groups of Australian society-our ethnic communities, the deaf and the Aboriginal groups-for whom language issues are extremely important, with recognition, encouragement and guidance. We should also use every possible technology and language learning facility which can be made available. On page 120 the `National Policy on Languages' report indicates: Almost half of all Australian school students never study a language other than English at any time during their schooling. Fewer than 12 per cent of students matriculate with a language other than English. Indeed, I am pleased to say that in South Australia we have a slightly better situation than is the case in Australia as a whole. My children attend Adelaide High School, which is a special language high school. They have the opportunity, and have taken up that opportunity, to study two or more languages during the course of their studies. However, the matriculation system does not allow them to carry this through for examination purposes. In May 1985 South Australia announced a 10-year program for the development of language teaching. Its aim was to get each child in primary and secondary school exposed to another language; to establish co-ordinating networks; and to establish after hours South Australian secondary school of languages teaching facilities. Indeed, a number of communities as well as the Education Department itself have developed Saturday schools. The German community, the Polish community and a number of Slavonic communities in Adelaide have developed such schools. I know that they also exist in New South Wales and Canberra. The establishment of a centre for multicultural studies at Flinders University has, I believe, been a major advance in trying to integrate our language in South Australia. The consideration of a centre of excellence and tertiary institute of languages at that university would be, I believe, a very fitting part of any national language program development within my own State. The South Australian Government has also maintained the Multicultural Education Co-ordinating Committee despite the closure of the Commonwealth's multicultural education program. It is unfortunate that the Commonwealth program closed down because this has resulted in the loss of a large number of resources and teaching positions throughout Australia. In South Australia the Government threw in some of its own resources, but this has not been the case in some other States. In New South Wales, in the Marrickville Council area alone 15 teaching positions have been lost as a result of the end of the multicultural education program, and a variety of resource centres have been closed down. It is very important that we have the right material available for teaching language and for holding the cultural message associated with language. In New South Wales, 20 community liaison officers have lost their jobs in the metropolitan areas and 15 have lost their jobs in country areas. Activities under the ethnic aides program have been curtailed and the community outreach effort has been eroded as a result. The Commonwealth's commitment to a national language strategy is essential, but a national policy alone will not reverse the damage that has been done by the dismantling of the multicultural education program and all of its associated aids. The multicultural education program served a much wider purpose than just the teaching of language. The text books and materials were used in a much wider context than just in the individual language courses. It is very important that we do not lose these resources and that we develop language teaching material suitable to Australian conditions. I must remind the Senate that Australia is the second most diverse society in the world after Israel in terms of the number of places where our citizens have been born. Many people have learnt other languages to start off with. This report tells us some of that story. We must not lose that resource because those people and their knowledge of language and their knowledge of the cultures of the various parts of the world that they came from are an important resource to Australian trade. We must not allow that expertise to be dissipated and frittered away. We must encourage parents to teach their children the cultural values of the countries from which they may have come. We must integrate and weave each one of these cultural habits and each one of these language habits into the Australian way of life. If we lose the opportunities of keeping up those language skills amongst our citizens and if we lose the opportunities to create wealth for Australia by having these people who can actually talk, trade and operate effectively in the world, we will lose a significant wealth creating capacity for Australia. I refer to a significant quote attributed to a German trade Minister on page 53 of the report: The Minister said: If you wish to buy from us, there is no need to speak German. But if you wish to sell to us . . . that is a different matter. I believe that to be a trading nation in a trading world, to be an effective partner in international affairs and to be able to stand proudly as an Australian nation, we should aim at having most of our citizens bilingual at least. I would like to commend Mr Lo Bianco for the manner in which he has undertaken his task. He has thrown an enormous amount of energy into his work. I have some reservations only about some of the languages in the wider teaching languages section because I believe that by concentrating on specific languages for which we have teaching skills in our schools we may end up losing a lot of the resource. I was particularly disappointed to see that there were no Slavonic languages on the list of languages which are available. I believe that we should make certain that we target all of the significant ethnic groups within our community and make certain that their languages and cultures continue to be part of the Australian multicultural society. This will be the only way in which we can develop a strong, independent multicultural Australia. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(8.00) —We are debating tonight the report by Joseph Lo Bianco, `National Policy on Languages'. We have had some interesting speeches so far which have outlined the basic problems that we are having in coping with the special relationship that Australians and the Australian education system should have with foreign languages. I wish to deal with a particular element of this report, that section relating to trade. It is evident from this report by Mr Lo Bianco that this is an area of considerable concern. In the report he notes that the languages of key trading partners are under represented in the teaching programs of Australian schools and that very few subjects are offered in the languages of our South Pacific neighbours. Despite the growing numbers of Japanese tourists coming to Australia, for example, few employees in the tourist industry have any familiarity with Japanese. Of course, Australia's economic future will significantly depend on the extent to which, conscious of the cultural differences between our nations, we can communicate with other people in their own languages. This report deals with this specifically in some detail. I shall quote some extracts from the report and then refer to the extent to which there has been a monumental failure to address those problems. The report points out on page 48 that it is the conviction of other major English speaking nations, such as the United States of America, that they have forgone demonstrable economic opportunities in external trade due to inadequate and inappropriate language teaching policies domestically. I stress that the lack of adequate and appropriate language teaching policies domestically has had a disadvantageous economic impact on the United States. That has been acknowledged and one presumes that the United States, having recognised that disadvantage, has done something about it. I wonder to what extent this Government intends to seek to influence the education systems of the States-let us face it, the Government has a cash involvement with the States-to remedy this situation which appears to be approaching disaster level. I go back to the report. It says: In general terms, all Australians conducting business in non-English-speaking countries or who are involved in formal and informal arrangements between Australia and such countries will be greatly advantaged by having language skills and cultural knowledge appropriate to their task. There are many instances where this is indispensable. We have a clear statement in the report dramatising the significance and the importance of foreign languages, particularly in trading in our region. The report goes on: There is substantial evidence that Australian economic activities, particularly in competitive situations requiring market penetration, would benefit from the skilled use of the host country's languages and active knowledge and appreciation of cultural values and behaviours. This can be a determining factor in gaining a competitive advantage in trade. In situations of intense competition for markets and considering the particularly trade-dependent nature of Australia's economy, it is important to harmonise national economic strategies with the goals of languages policy. Australia's total trade with non-English-speaking countries greatly exceeds its trading volumes with English-speaking countries. The report continues: This shift which has occurred over the last two decades has coincided with a general reduction in second-language learning and teaching in Australia. In addition the languages of the key trading partners are particularly poorly represented in Australia's schooling system. This is a major indictment of the language policies of the education system throughout Australia. I am unaware of any effort by this Government to improve this disastrous situation. On the contrary, not only has there been nothing done to improve this disastrous situation but also the figures underline the fact that since the magic date of 1983, when this Government was elected, the situation has massively deteriorated. Page 28 of the report reveals that the number of students presenting Chinese, for example, at matriculation level has collapsed from the 1,043 of 1983 to only 794 in 1986. Under this Government, with its failure to address this issue, there has been a massive fall in the number of people prepared to take this course of study for the leaving certificate, matriculation or the equivalent educational standard in each State. Yet we are told consistently by this Government that there is a special need for us to address the question of the Chinese market and that we must be aware of the great opportunities that exist there. However, nothing is being done to encourage the learning of this language; on the contrary, the numbers are significantly deteriorating. We have the same situation with the study of Indonesian. The peak year in that case was also 1983, when 1,542 students around Australia undertook matriculation Indonesian. This figure has almost halved to 819 students. What is going wrong? Senator Kilgariff —Good question. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I thank Senator Kilgariff. I think it is a question that this Government should answer. It is about time it did. It took something like six months for this Government to respond to this report. In the response of the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) there is no adequate or coherent answer to these matters of major moment. Let us look at the study of Malaysian. Three years ago there were 587 students doing matriculation level Malaysian. This figure is now down to 149 students, less than one-third of the number of three years ago. I repeat my question: What is going wrong? What is the Government doing about it? I guess the Government would suggest that at least in the area of Japanese studies there has been an increase. That is true. The only area where there is an increase in the number of students taking the language of one of our trading neighbours and political associates in our region is-- Senator Teague —A very important neighbour and relationship in our area. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —As Senator Teague said, Indonesia has been significant and Japan now is of increasing trade significance to us but Japanese provides the only example of any increase in students learning the languages of our region. The number has gone up in recent years from, I think, 600 at the end of the Fraser Government to 881 in 1986. The 881 students studying Japanese compare with 3,180 students studying German and 5,682 studying French for matriculation. I just wonder what our priorities are. I wonder what the Government is about and where our interests are in terms of the sort of education we should be encouraging our students to follow. Basically, had it not been for the extraordinary development in Queensland, those figures for Japanese would not have shown anything like that sort of rise. For example, in the past eight years the number of students studying Japanese in Queensland has risen from 86 to 256, representing the great bulk of the increase throughout Australia, whereas in Victoria only 141 students last year took Japanese to matriculation. I recognise-and of course these figures demonstrate-that the States adopt different approaches. That is self-evident from the situation with Japanese with the numbers being only 141 in Victoria, 233 in New South Wales and 256 in Queensland. It is clear that each of those education departments takes a different view. But I cannot help wondering to what extent it would be appropriate for the Federal Government, which has a concern and an involvement in this area, to provide at least some encouragement, some incentive for this kind of absolutely essential activity. I go back to the report which states: Invariably Australia's trading efforts depend either on the provision of interpreters, usually not Australians, or on the use of English by Australia's trading partners. Dependence on interpreters, though often inevitable and necessary, can be cumbersome and restrictive. When the interpreters are provided by foreign companies or government agencies in situations of intense competition for markets and contracts, Australia's representatives are placed at significant perceived, and at times real, disadvantage. Among the armoury which can be essential to winning contracts is the ability to communicate in the foreign country's language and to possess significant cultural knowledge which may be indispensable in the conduct of affairs. One is always reminded of descriptions of the ugly Americans or the ugly Australians who appear to be unable to conduct themselves in a way appropriate to the standards of behaviour in other countries, particularly Asian. The report continues: In addition, predictions about the nature, level of demand, range, and manner of promoting particular products will be greatly improved if cultural and linguistic knowledge of the societies with whom Australia wishes to trade or wishes to improve existing terms of trade are better understood. These economic considerations create a demand and a significant unmet need for language learning of a particular type in Australia. A number of specific vocational opportunities flow from these considerations. They include the training of interpreters and translators in demand languages, and greatly increased teaching of the languages of Australia's key trading partners and the languages of the non-English-speaking countries which it is possible to predict Australia's economic relations will require in the future. There is, concomitantly, a need for the development of courses specifically designed for the purposes of economic affairs focusing on the development of communicative skills in relative business and trade-related contexts. However, general language skills and cultural knowledge need also to be incorporated. This report clearly states what is needed and exactly the opposite is taking place under the education policies and programs administered by this Government and by the State governments with which it is associated in the provision of education. It is all very well for the Government to say: `We simply provide the money'. There is within that general duty a responsibility to encourage the States-it is a responsibility outlined in this report-to take a position which is certainly different from this disastrous trend outlined of a significant reduction in the number of students now undertaking study of these vital languages. As I said earlier, I concede that some States do better than others. But it is nonetheless a disturbing pattern and one which is of major disadvantage to us. In many instances Australians are now well regarded in Asia as having made some effort. But overall I have to say that we are seen as arrogant and insensitive in expecting the people with whom we trade to speak English. A German trade Minister is quoted in the report as saying: If you wish to buy from us, there is no need to speak German. But if you wish to sell to us . . . Of course, that is the important issue. We are endeavouring to sell to our region. We are facing economic disaster because of our inability to sell overseas adequately and because of our enthusiastic importing far in excess of our ability to sell. I want to encourage the Government to take far greater note of this report in this area than I expect it will do, and far greater note of it than previous speakers have forecast that the Government will do. As Senator Teague has said, there is no doubt that the Opposition welcomes this report. It is an important contribution to the cause of further developing language skills in Australia. But this strategy-I have just demonstrated how important the strategy is in economic terms-rests entirely on the Government's willingness to make available the money for this program, not necessarily by increasing in large volumes the amount of money available but by reorganising its expenditure priorities. This Government appears to have no coherent expenditure priorities in this area. We have seen what has happened with the massive reduction in the number of students undertaking the sorts of studies that are essential for our trading activities. The drastic cuts this year to the English as a second language programs, to ethnic schools and to multicultural education programs all seem to indicate an insensitivity to the language needs of many in our community. There is clearly an insensitivity on the Government's part to the language needs of those who will be dealing with and trading with people overseas. The reduced funding to the professional development program and the cessation of funding for many education centres will make it even more difficult to promote improved teaching capacity in languages no matter how essential that is to our economic future and no matter how much a cost-benefit analysis demonstrates the total advantage to us. It is essential that all Australians have access to language training so that they may not only develop high levels of proficiency in English but also have the opportunity to develop talents in community and foreign languages. There are many reasons to doubt the Government's commitment to its language policy. It has taken the Minister almost three years to respond to the comprehensive recommendations presented by the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts in its report `A National Language Policy' which was tabled in October 1984. Senator Teague was a major contributor to that report and he played a significant role in it. This Government is so concerned with the figures that I have just demonstrated, indicating a massive fall-off in education in those languages of such economic concern to us, that it has taken it three years to respond to that report. As I mentioned earlier, Mr Lo Bianco's report has been in the hands of the Minister since 28 November last year. It has taken six months for the Government to get around to considering its findings. Let me add that the Budget decisions last year significantly reduced the language effort in Australia and have thrown administration and planning of language programs into great confusion. The Opposition is concerned that the report makes no specific financial recommendations for the English as a second language program and seems to sanction the phasing out of the ESL general support element. But there is no doubt that the report has correctly identified the importance of language skills in Australia's trade relations and, of course, in the tourism industry. All that I can say is that if the Government has not yet realised that there is an economic cost benefit in that area, it is about time that it did. It is also about time that the Government responded to the report in a far more coherent way than the Minister's motherhood-type statement. The Government has taken three years to do anything about a Senate report, while our economic future is being jeopardised by our inability to make the most of our trade opportunities in Asia. Therefore, the Government must be condemned for its ineptness, indolence, lack of concern and lack of action about a national policy on languages. If this report encourages the sort of debate that we have had in this chamber today, it at least provides a basis on which the Government can be properly attacked, prodded and encouraged to do something positive about a matter of great significance to all Australians. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(8.21) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. Honourable senators will recall that an agreement was reached on 22 December 1978 between the Commonwealth and each of the States to establish a National Companies and Securities Commission. The report of the Commission for the year 1985-86 draws our attention to the fact that, over recent years, there has been a significant transformation in the market for financial services. For example, technical developments associated with computers and satellites have contributed in the move towards the internationalisation of the financial community. While many unprincipled operators have taken advantage of the opportunities provided by deregulation and internationalisation, parliaments have been slow to recognise the dangers that have been inherent in those changes. The report notes that, during the year, the volatility of exchange and interest rates caused great pressures on the stock market. Throughout the financial sector, there has been a surge of entrepreneurial activity, and that has combined with changes in patterns of savings and superannuation to produce a rapid growth of collective investments. It should be noted, however, that that entrepreneurial enthusiasm, which has become such a feature of the Australian and international financial markets, is not confined to the honest and scrupulous. The speed with which changes are taking place has meant that opportunities for finding loopholes in the law have been exploited at the cost of the uninformed. For example, Australian citizens have been sold worthless foreign shares, and a number of sophisticated and questionable, although technically legal, initiatives have been developed and have proven very profitable for some people. Over the past year, there has been a marked increase in litigation generated from takeover bids, and a number of legal actions were initiated between commercial adversaries and against the National Companies and Securities Commission. It is indeed regrettable that the Commission and its Chairman, Mr Henry Bosch, have come under considerable criticism from some quarters, although that is not surprising given the huge sums of money that are tied up in today's stock and share markets. The growth of monopoly power, which is becoming obvious in Australia, is reason for some concern. Over the past several years, there has been a spate of unhealthy takeovers by people not really interested in the well-being of the companies they acquire, but only in quick financial gain. However, not all takeovers are successful. I commend those companies that have successfully fought off takeover attempts. In recent months, the board of Humes Ltd warded off a takeover by Mr Gary Carter of Unity APA, which subsequently experienced a drop in the price of its shares after the failure of its bid. That is an indication that such organisations may be stretching themselves too far in the takeover processes. Since that report, there has been another case worthy of mention-the Fairfax acquisition of HSV7. The new management has come to realise that it paid too much for the station and, consequently, has been forced into harmful staff reductions to recoup its initial costs. Only last week, newspapers carried articles relating to the concentration of wealth in Australia. Data compiled by Mr John Piggott of the University of Sydney's economics department shows that one-tenth of the population owns 60 per cent of all wealth in Australia. That is contrasted with the fact that some two million Australians live below the poverty line. Either section 46 of the Trade Practices Act, which deals with the misuse of market power, does not have enough teeth, or the Government is not serious about containing monopolies. I suggest, first, that our taxation laws have the effect of encouraging takeovers and, secondly, that insufficient attention is paid to the ways in which the current trend to manipulate the stock market at the cost of the viability of many companies can be reversed. The valuable work that is undertaken by the National Companies and Securities Commission should command far more of the Government's attention, and I therefore commend this report to the Senate. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(8.26) —I seek leave to adjourn the debate until the next General Business Thursday and to continue my remarks then. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(8.27) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. Telecommunications interception is expensive, it is very time and resource consuming, and no one likes doing it. However, it is conceded to be an integral part of reasonable law enforcement, and it is now absolutely essential in the treatment of white-collar crime, especially drug and drug-related offences, and horse racing, gambling and such matters. We are now dealing with sophisticated criminals who are a long way ahead of the old jaw breakers who used to be the major criminals. The only purpose for requiring telephone interception is to apprehend major criminals. The facility is not used lightly, and it never will be. The need to secure an interception quickly, safety and efficiently is paramount. Whatever we do by way of legislation must take that into account, and that is what the Committee was charged with studying. Of course, in any committee operation that deals with such matters, there are those with philosophic objections to almost anything. I felt that it would have been better had we not so resolutely stuck to the philosophical problems of various members but considered the purpose of the legislation. If we are to make any meaningful approach to the treatment of law enforcement, we need to put ourselves on at least something like a similar footing to the criminals that we are trying to apprehend. I certainly do not agree with having a single authority, with all States having to deal through it to obtain an interception. No evidence was supplied to indicate that that was the best method. I realise that something had to be done to salve the views of the extreme Left, and that was it. If it has to go through a common carrier, that is only about one step short of putting a notice on people's doors saying that there is to be an interception-- Senator Tate —That is a defamatory statement against the Federal Police. Senator ARCHER —It is not; the Federal Police do not want to do it and the State police do not want them to do it. Not one authority in Australia said during the inquiry that the best method to adopt was that which is now before us. Crime in Australia is out of control and every law enforcement organisation in the country agrees. This legislation itself will not fix the problem. It could help but it will not do so unless the appropriate financial, technical and human resources are made available. I ask the Government to bear in mind that without the provision of reasonable amounts of human and financial resources as a backup, the legislation will be worthless. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State)(8.30) —It is most unusual for a Minister to intervene when Government papers are discussed, but I cannot let the occasion pass because unexpectedly, in light of the fact that the subject matter will be brought on for debate in relation to legislation that is presently in the other place, Senator Archer has taken the opportunity to pass remarks which should not go unchallenged. The Government has made a decision that the best and most efficient way to provide for the interception of telephone conversations between those who may be engaging in nefarious criminal activities of particular kinds-not, of course, every misdemeanour but very serious crimes-which will certainly have the support of the police commissioners of the various jurisdictions once it is explained to them, is to require that, for example, the Tasmanian police, suspecting that intelligence could be gathered and evidence assembled if they could intercept a telephone conversation between those whom they suspect wish to engage in criminal activities, should apply to a Federal judge for a warrant. This provides the most important protection of the privacy of those who use the telephone system. We all know that in Australia over the past six, seven or maybe 10 years there has been a growing lack of confidence in the sanctity of our telephone conversations. None of us engage as freely as we used to in the use of the telephone, not only for business conversations and matters of great moment but also even in the more lighthearted and social intercourse over the telephone which necessarily take place. Senator Archer —They are even careful for criminal conversations now. Senator TATE —Yes. Because criminals now suspect that it may be possible that a warrant has been obtained to intercept their telephone conversations, they have to go to more extraordinary and more difficult lengths to engage in the conversations which are a necessary prelude to their conspiracies to engage in criminal activity and, therefore, expose themselves more easily to other forms of surveillance and notice by law enforcement authorities. However, to return to the point, let us say that the Tasmanian police in that situation apply for a warrant and get permission from the Federal judge to listen in to the conversation. They then discuss with Telecom, on the basis of the warrant, how and when the intercept is to be put on. The Australian Federal Police, at a central agency in Canberra, will look at the warrant and check that Telecom has the right numbers to make up the connection. The Australian Federal Police will supervise the bringing of that circuit together. In that way there is protection for the integrity of the carrying out of the warrant, which is something we would all want. Nevertheless, it will be done in such a high technology way that immediately the conversation is undertaken over the telephone it will be relayed down the line to Tasmania and will be immediately available to the law enforcement authorities properly warranted in Tasmania. So they will be in a very good and timely position to take advantage of any intelligence which comes over that line. I believe that it would be quite wrong-this is the reason I rose to my feet-to allow the slur which Senator Archer predicted would be applied to the Australian Federal Police in the conduct of that telecommunications interception agency. The honourable senator from Tasmania said that to use such a centralised system would be equivalent to broadcasting the matter abroad and making it available to all who would have an interest in the matter. I believe in the integrity and security of the operation which the Federal Commissioner of Police, Major-General Grey, has put together for the Government in anticipation of this legislation coming into force. I believe that the privacy aspects will be respected and that the security aspects necessary for law enforcement agencies will also be adhered to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(8.36) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This paper records the first meeting of the Tasmanian World Heritage Area Council in Hobart on 14 March 1985 which came about as a result of the stoppage of the Franklin Dam and the world heritage listing of the entire area. The Tasmanian Government has been embarrassed by the world heritage listing of the south-west. It does not really know what to do with the asset. It wanted to flood it, strip-mine it or mine it and cut the trees down but now it has a tourist asset of magnificent proportions. It embarrasses the Tasmanian Government. After all, Robin Gray called the area a brown, leech-ridden ditch-yet still people want to see it. It is unfortunate to note that the Tasmanian Government still discriminates against those who supported the salvation of the south-west as a tourist attraction. Morrisons Cruisers in Strahan has had great difficulty in getting its brochures into the offices of the Tasmanian Tourist Bureau because it opposed the dam. This paper is a report of the Commonwealth and State organisations which are attempting to manage the area. Over and over again it is becoming apparent that the troglodytic State of Tasmania simply does not want to manage the area as a national asset, a national resource, for the good of the people of Australia. On page 5 it is noted: As an alternative, Mr Cohen suggested that a separate unit within the Tasmanian National Parks and Wildlife Service could be clearly identified as having responsibility for the World Heritage area. However, Mr Gray indicated that this was not possible because of the small size of the Tasmanian National Parks and Wildlife Service. The reason the Service is such a small size is that Mr Gray keeps firing people. He especially keeps firing people who do not agree with the rip it off and burn it mentality. The Service is purposely kept small and ineffective. The morale of the Tasmanian National Parks and Wildlife Service is absolutely at snakes' arches level. The people there are trying to do a good job but the State Government keeps telling them that if they try to do a good job and protect the wilderness their jobs will be on the line. The Gray attitude is: If it moves, shoot it; if it flows, dam it; and if it grows, chop it down. The paper is a terrible commentary on what is happening in the south-western part of our State. On page 5, under (c), the paper states: Lands not designated State Reserves- Council noted Mr Cohen's position that lands vested in the Hydro-Electric Commission (HEC) within the World Heritage area should be re-incorporated as Tasmanian National Parks. The Chairman- Mr Gray- indicated that the Tasmanian Government was not planning the incorporation of the land within the National Parks. However, the HEC lands had been managed within the guidelines for the World Heritage area. In Tasmania the Hydro Electric Commission, which intended to destroy the Franklin, still has control of the Franklin River and will not give it back. With the full support and approval of the Tasmanian Government, the Hydro Electric Commission still controls the land and will flood it at the earliest opportunity. The Premier of Tasmania has expressed his desire to flood it at the earliest opportunity. He prays that a Liberal government will be elected to head this country and hopes that that Liberal government will then allow him to build the dam. This is the desire in spite of the fact that Tasmania already has 300 megawatts of surplus power. Tasmanian World Heritage Area Council The Hydro Electric Commission's predictions for energy demand growth have been proved wildly wrong. However, there is proof in this document and in Tasmania that the Hydro Electric Commission still intends to dam the Franklin and will not give the land back for it to acquire national park status. In Tasmania, the phrase `national park' does not mean anything. A national park in Tasmania can be eliminated by the stroke of a pen. Such parliamentary action can eliminate a national park. It would be better if the area had national park status. However, at the moment it is controlled solely by the Hydro Electric Commission. I think that the people of Australia should be put on notice-this report does so-that the Franklin has not been saved permanently. It will take eternal vigilance on the part of the people of Australia to keep the troglodytic Government of Tasmania from destroying this priceless national asset. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(8.41) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The second meeting of the Tasmanian World Heritage Area Council was held a year after the first meeting. I wonder why we are getting these summary records so far down the line. Senator Tate —It gives you an extra five minutes too. Senator SANDERS —Yes, it does; I appreciate that. The meeting was held in Launceston, the northern city of Tasmania, on 18 April 1986. The paper notes on the first page: The Council expressed its regret over the death of one of the members of the Consultative Committee, Dr Richard Jones, and paid tribute to his contribution to the Committee during the short time it had been operating. Dr Richard Jones was a mainstay of the conservation movement in Tasmania and, indeed, in Australia for many years. His untimely death was brought about by an accident at his home. He was instrumental in the fight to try to preserve something that was valuable to the people of Australia and, in fact, to the people of the world-the Tasmanian wilderness-and he will be sadly missed. All of us join with the report in expressing regret at his passing. The paper lists the operation of the committee and, on page 7, it tells specifically of the funding requests. It turns out that Tasmania has come up with a funding request for $37m for management of the world heritage area. That would be all right if the Tasmanian Government simply wanted to manage the area, but it wants to build a series of hotels. Furthermore, it will give the money to private enterprise to build the hotels. The hotels will be not only at Warners landing, which is near the dam site itself, but also at places such as Port Davey, Bathurst Harbour and Cockle Creek. Unfortunately, the Gray Government still has not learnt the lesson of the Franklin Dam episode, and the lesson is that people want wilderness. The wilderness deserves to exist. The wilderness itself is a tourist attraction. If a hotel is built in the middle of a wilderness, the area no longer remains a wilderness. Those honourable senators who have travelled to Tasmania recently may have seen the most recent hotel that the Gray Government has pushed through on its fast track legislation. It is a monstrosity of pink and yellow bricks on the waterfront which has stunned even the city council and the Hobart Mercury into action. Such a development in the south-west would sound the death-knell for not only the wilderness but also tourism. Robin Gray and his band of little corporate vandals still have not learnt the lesson of the future of Tasmania. The future of Tasmania is not in hotels, casinos or the energy intensive industries which now exist and which burn hydro-electric power; it is in the wilderness, the south-west, the world heritage area. That is perceived by the Federal Government. It is high time the State Government either decided to protect the south-west and maintain heritage or let the Federal Government take over, because it is obvious that the State Government cannot manage the area satisfactorily. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator WATSON(Tasmania) —I present the 272nd report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts entitled `Administration of the Commonwealth's Property Functions'. I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Senator WATSON —The Public Accounts Committee decided to undertake a wide-ranging inquiry into the administration of Commonwealth property in 1984 after consideration of a report of the Auditor-General. At that time the audit report was the latest in a succession of reports which indicated that there were continuing problems with the Commonwealth's property administration. This was despite the creation of the Property Directorate in 1980 within the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services. Subsequent to the commencement of the Committee's inquiry-in July 1986-an inter-departmental review of the property functions was announced by the Government. The review, chaired by the Public Service Board, was to report earlier this year. The Committee has programmed its activities to ensure that its recommendations are available in a timely fashion to the Government in its consideration of the Public Service Board's more detailed review. The aims of this inquiry were to find out whether there were major fundamental problems in the delivery of the Commonwealth's property functions, to identify their causes and to determine the reasons for their persistence. A final aim was to assess whether there were workable alternative administrative structures which, if implemented, could lead to demonstrable improvements. The current inquiry was therefore necessarily broad in scope and focused on aspects of the domestic property function. The Committee received over 60 submissions from 45 organisations, representing Commonwealth agencies, unions and non-government organisations, including some with large property portfolios. Eight public hearings were held and the Committee visited Perth, Sydney and Canberra locations for inspections. The large number of organisations participating in the inquiry and the level of their representation at the Committee's hearings suggested that there were widespread concerns about the delivery of the Commonwealth's property functions. The overwhelming theme of the evidence received was that the existing administrative arrangements were cumbersome, slow and inflexible and that major changes were necessary. In general, the Committee concluded that the central problem with property administration appeared to be the complex and cumbersome procedures which had evolved as a result of the involvement of too many disparate organisations with overlapping areas of responsibility. This served to perpetuate and exacerbate the delays in the delivery of property services. Further problems have arisen both from the difficulties inherent in the Budget process and from a lack of planning on the part of client departments. The Committee is of the view that strategic control by a central co-ordinating body is necessary for the efficient functioning of property administration. However, allied to the retention of the central body is the streamlining of procedures, the precise determination of areas of responsibility and the devolution of financial responsibility and many of the more routine functions to clients. The Committee feels that the central co-ordinating role currently performed by DOLGAS should continue to be the responsibility of that portfolio, with a Central Property Agency performing such a role where property matters are concerned. The Committee has therefore recommended that a Central Property Agency be the central body responsible for the administration of the Commonwealth's property functions, with overall policy control. The Central Property Agency should be established as an independent, ministerially accountable agency with responsibility for the management of the Commonwealth-owned estate. The Central Property Agency would retain strategic control for the following purposes: To advise on strategic planning; to protect the national interest, particularly in the case of disposals; to prevent gazumping; to develop and implement strategies on the location of Commonwealth Government employment, particularly in the major cities; and to ensure a co-operative relationship with other levels of government. The Central Property Agency would have responsibility for the following strategic functions: The provision of policy advice to the Minister; the management of owned property; compulsory acquisitions under the Lands Acquisition Act; the forecasting of future property requirements; the rationalisation of the Commonwealth's property portfolio; the setting of accommodation guidelines; and finally the collection of aggregate information, providing a central point for information on the Commonwealth's property holdings. As a complement to the Central Property Agency, the Committee feels that there is a case for the devolution of certain routine functions to clients. The Committee further proposes that full financial responsibility, including Budget sponsorship for property programs, be devolved to clients. Because the costs of accommodation and associated property services for each agency form part of the overheads associated with program delivery, decisions on resource allocation at the department or authority level are best decided in the context of the department's or authority's own budget. As part of the rationalisation of responsibilities, the Committee has further recommended that all construction and fit out activity above the tender threshold be the sole responsibility of the Department of Housing and Construction. The Committee's other major recommendations include: Responsibility for routine servicing functions to be devolved to departments and authorities; the option of using outside expertise for such services; the establishment of a Property Advisory Board; the institution of trust account funding arrangements; the development by the Central Property Agency of an efficient management information system and performance indicators; the implementation of a career structure for property specialists within the Australian Public Service; the creation of a separate item within departmental and non-trading statutory authority appropriations to provide for excess maintenance and restoration costs associated with Commonwealth properties listed on the Register of the National Estate; the delegation of the Minister's powers under the Lands Acquisition Act to off-Budget statutory authorities, with the proviso that there be mandatory compliance by such authorities within ministerial directions in order to give effect to the strategic controls and functions of the Central Property Agency; and finally the approval by the Central Property Agency of disposals on behalf of these off-Budget authorities. As Deputy Chairman of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, I commend this report to honourable senators. In so doing, I would like to acknowledge the valuable and important work of the secretariat. I believe that, implemented, these proposals could make far-reaching reforms in the delivery of property services by the Commonwealth and make for a much more efficient organisation. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Tate) read a first time. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State)(8.54) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill contains measures to streamline the Social Security Act and its administration. These include- Renumbering the provisions of the Act so that it reads sequentially; Including current reciprocal agreements on social security with the United Kingdom and with New Zealand in Schedules to the Act; Ensuring that the basis for prosecution of offences under the Act and the level of penalties are comparable to other Commonwealth offences in legislation; Requiring that all administrative decisions are to be in writing unless the decisions are recorded on a computer; Extending the secrecy provision to bind officials who have access to confidential information but who do not have duties or functions under the Act; and Extending the review and appeal provisions to all decisions made under the provisions under the Act; and Extending the review and appeal provisions to all decisions made under the provisions of the Act. Improving the style and format of the legislation The Social Security Act is amended regularly to put Budget decisions into effect. As a result numbering of sections goes awry. Provisions are difficult to cite. As a step towards improving the legislation, this Bill provides for the renumbering of the Principal Act. Part, Division, section and paragraph numbers will now follow sequentially. For those accustomed to the previous numbering system, a conversion chart is provided in the Explanatory Memorandum accompanying the Bill to illustrate the changes. Changes have also been made to some sections to achieve greater clarity of expression. In addition, Australia has recently concluded an amendment to the reciprocal agreement on social security with the United Kingdom and has entered into a new reciprocal agreement on social security with New Zealand. Rather than being left in Schedules to Regulations, these agreements will be placed in Schedules to the Act for greater ease of access. The Bill contains minor amendments made necessary by the changes to education allowances. Offences under the Act As Honourable Senators will be aware, the Government has taken initiatives to ensure that social security expenditure is limited to those who are eligible under the Act. Measures have also been taken to reduce the level of overpayments. This includes initiatives to limit fraud and to detect and prosecute those who abuse the system. Section 138 of the Principal Act creates a number of offences where pensions, benefits or allowances are sought by those who are ineligible. This section does not punish innocent mistakes. It lists the basis on which a fraud charge may be brought. As knowledge or recklessness is a necessary component of this type of criminal offence, these words are to be added to the section to reflect the interpretation of the section by the High Court in 1980 in Cameron v Holt. These changes do not affect current practice relating to prosecutions. The Bill also establishes the basis on which a corporation may be made culpable of an offence under the Act. This takes up provisions in other Commonwealth legislation. The limits on the time for bringing a prosecution will be removed from the Act. The Director of Public Prosecutions who is primarily responsible for the conduct of social security prosecutions under Commonwealth law should decide on a case by case basis whether the offence is too stale to prosecute successfully. This section in the Principal Act, in any event, can be circumvented by resort to the Crimes Act 1914. This provision, therefore, is a rationalisation of existing practice. While determined to limit fraud, the Government is concerned to protect the rights and privacy of people who receive social security payments. The Department necessarily collects considerable personal information about the financial and domestic circumstances of claimants in order to assess continuing eligibility. The privacy of these individuals should not be abused. Section 17 of the Principal Act places an obligation on officers not to divulge personal information obtained in the course of their duties. This section will be extended in line with the secrecy provisions in other Commonwealth legislation such as the Income Tax Assessment Act. Reference to ``officers'' will include former officers as well as others performing work for the Commonwealth who as a result acquire information concerning a person. An offence under section 17 is treated as a grave matter. The current penalties in the Act are a $5,000 fine or 2 years imprisonment where the offence proceeds on indictment. In the case of summary proceedings, the penalty is $1,000 or imprisonment for 6 months. The Bill would permit both a fine and a period of imprisonment to be imposed. This reflects the seriousness with which such breaches of personal privacy are regarded by this Government. Penalties are to be increased for other offences under the Act. For failure to comply with the requirements to report circumstances or events which affect entitlement to a social security payment, the penalty will be increased from a $500 fine to a $1,000 fine or six months imprisonment, or both, and a $5,000 fine in the case of corporations. For failure to comply with a requirement to provide information about entitlement, the fine will be increased from $1,000 and six months imprisonment to $2,000 or 12 months imprisonment, or both, and $10,000 in the case of corporations. Where financial institutions do not comply with a requirement under the direct deposit provisions, the fine has been increased from $1,000 to $10,000. Serious breaches of these offences may now be dealt with by suitable sanctions. Miscellaneous amendments Finally, the Bill contains amendments to remove anomalies, close gaps, correct minor drafting errors and bring the legislation into line with sound administrative practice. For example, the definition of a ``decision'' under the Act which is significant from an administrative law point of view as the basis for review or appeal will be amended to confer the same meaning as in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. It is good administrative practice that decisions of officers affecting entitlements be in writing. This Bill makes it a uniform requirement that all such decisions be in writing. The Department of Social Security is moving to on-line benefits processing-using the latest computer technology to record information and make decisions. This will substantially improve delivery of benefits to those needing assistance. To keep pace with these changes, decisions of officers which are required to be in writing will be deemed to be in writing if originally entered into a computer or recorded with the use of a computer. This processing also enables a printed copy of the decision to be made available to applicants. By means of these measures which rationalise and simplify the Principal Act this Bill also prepares the ground for substantive reforms to the system of income security when the Government takes decisions on the social security system following the Social Security Review. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(8.55) —I move: That paragraphs 6.1, 9.1 to 9.5, 10.1 to 10.3, 12, 14.1, 14.2 and Schedule 1 of the Northern Prawn Fishery (Special Provisions) Management Plan, as contained in Plan of Management No. 12 of 19 January 1987 and made under the Fisheries Act 1952, be disallowed. This disallowance motion seeks to delete part of a plan to restructure the northern prawn fishery. It specifically seeks to disallow a situation where property is to be surrendered without compensation and without the right of appeal against that seizure. This, as I will outline to the Senate, is the basic reason why this regulation must be disallowed. It is contrary to the normal standards of justice, equity and fairness that we respect in this country. The northern prawn fishery covers an area between Cape York in north Queensland and Koolan Island in Western Australia. It is an industry which has developed through sheer hard work and intrepid pioneering spirit. Northern Australia is one of the most uninhabited and hostile environments in the world, yet despite this the industry, which started in the mid-1960s, has prospered and developed, making a very significant contribution to our national economy. Latest figures put the value of the annual catch from the trawler's at $150m. Most of the catch is exported to Japan, bringing in very valuable foreign currency worth over $200m a year. The major species caught and processed are the banana, tiger, endeavour and king prawns. The industry is administered jointly by the Commonwealth, Queensland, Northern Territory and Western Australia governments. There is an advisory body consisting of fishing trawler owners, processors, State and Federal representatives from the Department of Primary Industry and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. The body is known as the Northern Prawn Fishery Management Advisory Committee or NORMAC. Since 1976, entry to the fishing area has been limited by the Federal Government. Currently the fleet working in the northern prawn fishery consists of about 230 vessels. While some large companies operate over 10 vessels, most licence holders are individual operators owning only one boat. Many of them are small family businesses which have taken on extensive debts to remain viable in what is a very competitive industry. They are normal people-families who have been fishing the Top End for three or more generations. It is these people, rather than the large companies, who stand to lose the most under the compulsory surrender provisions of the scheme that I am seeking to disallow. In the last few years the very serious problem of over exploitation of prawn stocks has been identified. I know that the CSIRO has done, and is continuing to do, a lot of work in the area. The industry is aware of the problem and it has also been taking steps and making suggestions on how to reduce the pressure on stocks in the northern prawn fishery. This is despite there being no definite concrete evidence that the fishery is in imminent danger of collapse. Prawns are a renewable resource and they have a relatively short life cycle, about two years. Despite the continuing research by CSIRO and other scientific bodies into them, there is still a lot of uncertainty about their breeding patterns, habits and movements. The last five years have been abnormally dry in northern Australia. This has had an adverse effect on prawn stocks, as they depend on the flood run off from the rivers and on matter carried into the ocean from the Gulf rivers to provide food. As well, data from the last prawn catch is not yet available. This is because the Australian Fisheries Service has not yet processed it after the fishermen were diligent and co-operative enough to fill out their log books. Yet, despite this uncertainty about the level by which the prawning effort needs to be reduced, the industry has agreed to seek a reduction of 40 per cent in fishing capacity. This is equivalent to between 60 and 65 vessels. The two major mechanisms used to control fishing pressures in the northern prawn fishery have been compulsory closure of the fishing grounds now running for almost half a year and an industry inspired scheme, the voluntary adjustment scheme, whereby fishermen contribute to a levy fund which then buys out the units of fishermen leaving the industry. The industry contributed $700,000 to the adjustment scheme in 1986 to which was added more than $1m from the Government's national adjustment fund. In 1985-86 the voluntary adjustment buy-back scheme succeeded in removing about 12,000 units-10 per cent of the total of the fishery or the equivalent of 25 licences from the northern prawn fishery. However, it has been recognised by the industry and the Government alike that progress to reduce the fishing effort has still been unsatisfactory. Consequently, it was proposed at the start of this year that the following measures be adopted to reduce further the fishing effort by the required 40 per cent by 1990: A mid-year closure from 22 June to 31 July to reduce fishing pressures on tiger prawns in the critical pre-spawning season; a ban on trawling between 0800 hours and 1800 hours each day from 1 August to 31 Oct- ober; restrictions on gear, reducing the number of nets towed by each boat to two only; and upgrading the voluntary adjustment scheme to buy out fishing capacity which can be measured in fishing units. This will be achieved by a 300 per cent increase in the 1987 levy on northern prawn fishermen. At this point I emphasise the fact that the industry, by and large, agrees with the proposals. Indeed, the industry formulated it. It has not adopted a head in the sand approach to the problem. It is aware of the need to reduce the fishing effort and is committed to taking practical steps to do just that. However, the next part of the new plan is the crunch. If there is no reduction in the number of fishing units by 40 per cent to 70,000 units by March 1990, the Government proposes that the units remaining in excess of the 70,000 are to be acquired without compensation on a pro rata basis by all unit holders in the northern prawn fishery. This section of the plan has been introduced without adequate consultation with the industry. In other words, the Government is going to take these people's property which they rely on for a living without any compensation whatsoever. Nowhere else in Australia, or for that matter overseas, has any government when introducing a rural adjustment scheme resorted to a compulsory surrender or acquisition of licences governing production without any form of compensation. This throws out the window one of our basic beliefs-the right to be compensated for loss of property. It would particularly damage the small fisherman-the person with only one or two vessels. The larger owners with fleets of ten or more vessels would not suffer as much as they could average their losses out amongst their boats. But let me make it quite clear that even the larger fishermen, the 10 or 15 boat fishermen, are totally opposed to this acquisition by the Government. How can any small businessman be expected to survive when 40 per cent of his assets are removed? How can any small businessman hope to get a decent selling price when all his capital, and the fishing vessel, is rendered virtually worthless? Who will purchase the vessel without a licence? All the other Australian fisheries are full and there is no way that the fishing vessel can be used in any other fishery in Australia. Apart from the inequity of compulsory surrender without compensation, this provision will render ineffective the voluntary adjustment scheme. It will make the buy back scheme totally unworkable. The current price of a fishing unit is between $400 and $600. However, because the price of these units will soar as fishermen become desperate to build up an excess of fishing units before the compulsory reduction, the funds in the buy-back scheme will have no chance to cover the cost of purchasing the units. Industry expects the cost of fishing units to reach around $2,000 a unit-a clearly unrealistic figure. This rise in unit value will be caused solely by the compulsory surrender provision. The buy-back scheme is already being hampered by the decision of the Australian Fisheries Service which said that during the period of adjustment from 1987 to 1990, any unit surrendered to the buy- back scheme or the VAS would become a tradeable property right of the person involved in the surrender. This means that a surrendered unit can be freely traded a second time within the industry to other fishermen who may require a percentage surrender in 1990. In effect, the surrendered unit is compensated for twice and the effect on reducing the effort and the proportion necessary to remove the 70,000 units is halved. The Australian Fisheries Service must address this problem and not allow surrendered units sold to the voluntary adjustment scheme to be resold. The Australian Fisheries Service says that the buy-back scheme has become the price setter for the purchase of fishing units. However, the marketing of fishing units at the moment shows that this is not the case. During the month of March when figures were last available, units were selling for around $600, yet the buy-back scheme has been buying units at only $450. This makes a nonsense of claims that the buy-back scheme is the price setter for fishing units. What has caused the price to increase is the threat of compulsory surrender and the sudden and urgent need for fisherman to gain an extra 40 per cent of fishing units to remain viable. It has been suggested that fisherman can prepare themselves now for the compulsory reduction in 1990 by selling 40 per cent of their fishing units to the buy-back scheme. This is clearly ridiculous. All the fishermen need 100 per cent of their entitlements to remain viable. It is not feasible to say: `Cut your earning capacity by 40 per cent'. No normal businessman can survive that and remain in business. It is a classic example of bureaucratic unreasonableness. The only people who can sell at the moment are people leaving the industry and the very few owners with excess units. Trade in the units has come to a dead halt. The reason is that people who have units to sell are hanging on to them because they know that these units will dramatically increase in value if the compulsory surrender provision is put into place. The fishermen of the northern prawn fishery recognise the need to reduce the fishing effort. They are prepared to take these steps to reduce the fishing effort. However, they are firm in their opposition to the compulsory surrender provision. They will take High Court action to challenge this plan if the regulation is allowed. That is because the plan threatens their livelihood. They will go to great lengths to prevent it. Eighty-two independent fishermen have already banded together ready to go as far as the High Court unless this regulation is allowed. I point out that the Government is flying in the face of its own consultative committee, the Northern Prawn Fishery Management Advisory Committee, NORMAC, in putting on to the agreed plan the compulsory surrender provisions. I have a copy of a resolution from NORMAC which endorses the gear restrictions, extended closures, bans on daylight trawling, increases in the VAS levy and the boat disposal scheme, but specifically rejects the surrender compensation provisions. I seek leave to table the document. Leave granted. Senator BOSWELL —This resolution was signed not only by all the processors and fishing representatives but also by the Queensland Department of Primary Industry representative and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), in a letter dated 14 January this year, said: I am advised that the Committee's recommendation with respect to the new management arrangements for redressing the excessive exploitation rate of the tiger prawns in the fishery were agreed unanimously towards the end of the Canberra segment at the meeting of NORMAC. As the resolution from NORMAC shows, and as the 90-odd telexes that the Minister's office has received opposing the plan show, this is just not the case. It took until early last month for the Minister to meet with the industry representatives to discuss this problem, and the meeting was inconclusive. Now his Department is attempting to ram into place a system which has no support from the users. The reduction plan cannot work if it does not have the support and the co-operation of the industry. The seizure of people's property and assets without compensation and the implementation of a scheme which no one in the industry can honestly comprehend is being done through a mechanism which is grossly unfair. I have amended the original motion not to disallow all of the management plan but to restrict the motion to disallow only those sections which deal specifically with the compulsory surrender of units scheme. The other parts of the plan, the increase in the levy, the extended closures, the gear restrictions, and the ban on daytime trawling, all remain in place and can be put into practice. I have done this to allow no disruption to the industry and to start the process of reducing the fishing effort straight away. All that this motion does is remove those sections which refer to the compulsory surrender provisions and the reduction in units scheme. This motion of disallowance will move an unjust and hastily thought out element of the constructive plan which apart from this section has the full support of the industry it will affect. It will give the northern prawn fishery a chance to restructure itself through the voluntary adjustment scheme, and it will remove an unjust and dangerous attempt to seize people's property without compensation. I commend the motion of disallowance to the Senate. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(9.12) —I too would like to support Senator Boswell's motion. I find it most regrettable that there is a problem of this nature. Earlier today I had one of those friendly approaches from Senator Walsh indicating that he did not quite agree with me on the approach that I was about to take. He demonstrated that he did not even know what he was talking about. In view of the fact that he was not here when the debate started tonight, I point out to him that we are talking about paragraphs 6.1, 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 12, 14.1, 14.2 and Schedule 1. Seeing that Senator Walsh was listening so attentively while I was going through that list, perhaps I ought to read it again-but I will not bother. If Senator Walsh had demonstrated any idea that he even knew what the motion was about, I would take him more seriously now and in the future. I assume, however, that somebody must have told him something, because he would not have had the opportunity to pick it all up on his own. It would make it easier if we could all start by talking about the same thing. I regret very much that this problem does exist. I regret it because there is no doubt that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) has, by and large, tried to be of assistance to the industry, and I respect that very much. I am sorry that for one reason or another the communication service has broken down-and broken down badly in this regard. This particular problem goes back into last year. Since then there has been far too much talking and not enough listening. The position has not changed and the present problems exist only because they were made out to be much worse last year. Prawn problems are not new. One only has to go back to people such as Bob Mostyn to find out that prawning in the Gulf entails certain hazards. One could follow up the next 500 fishermen to have that statement vouched for. When I came into this Parliament in 1975 there were major problems with the industry then. I have spent quite a bit of time during the intervening period talking to people who had those problems. I could say that it was pretty much of a rabble in 1976. The administration of the day was trying to do the best it could and failed. Progress was very slow. There was little co-ordination, and co-operation left much to be desired. As I recall, Senator Walsh may, for some of the time, have been a member of the Committee on Trade and Commerce at the time we were investigating aspects of the fishing industry. I believe that that Committee did much towards opening up discussion with people involved. Those people at that stage felt very much out on a limb, that nobody cared for them, that they were regarded as a bunch of hill-billies, and some of them even behaved accordingly. The Committee's investigations made them realise that they were part of it, that people did care, that efforts were being made to try to get the industry into a lively and worthwhile form. I believe the Committee achieved quite a lot. I have to give credit to many of the major operators, because I believe that the big people in the business have behaved very well towards the small ones. The small operators have been protected, they have received extra units in the deal because they were small, they have paid reduced levies, and they have had the inside run. It should not go unnoticed that the larger operators have acted in this way. The establishment of units has been too generous. We recognise that and the industry recognises that. Once in, the problem is having these units reduced. In this regard I particularly commend Peter Pownall, who I am glad to see is in the gallery tonight, for the efforts he has made in trying to get people to understand the problem and do something about it, and to get them organised. The buy-back scheme has been developed. It has started and it can be made to work. It has the support of the fishermen. No one has any doubts that the effort in fishing has to be reduced and that conservation is absolutely paramount. One of the major problems is that the biology of the banana and the tiger prawn leaves much still to be learnt. Very little is known of it, and although there is, for instance, a very good catch of banana prawns right now, it is not known how long it will last or how it will be next year, and we do not know what effects the seasonal conditions will have on later runs of tiger prawns. There are considerable differences, and the estimates that people make from time to time are only guesses of the best order possible. Because of the situation, the fishermen have said that they will agree to a reduction in nets, to an extended closure period, to the banning of daylight hours fishing and to a limit of 70,000 units. The Government proposal is that there be no buy-back-that there be, purely and simply, confiscation with no payment and no appeal. I do not see that anybody could possibly be serious in believing that we can wipe out an asset of this nature just like that, with no payment, no compensation, no appeal, no judge, no anything. Of course, I have no alternative other than to give my support to the fishermen, because I believe that it is not right. The buy-back scheme is in place, it has been agreed to and it can be made to work. There is no reason why the Government should repudiate the present deal, of which it was a party. It has participated in it and it sanctioned it. The whole thing is in place. I do not think it is reasonable to expect people to back off like that just because the Government changes its mind. When I was first made aware of the problem in plan of management No. 12, I had discussions with various people involved in the industry and I made it clear that I was not going to support any move that left an open-ended situation that would not ultimately provide for a reduction in the fishing units to the level that had to be achieved. I am pleased to say that I have been given that absolute undertaking by the industry representatives and that they will, using the methods that they have before them, achieve exactly that. I think the fishermen need to be reminded that, far from being that outpost rabble of 12 to 15 years ago, they are now a very strong, well-organised, highly commercial and business-like group. Take my word for it-they are not peasants. They deserve great credit for the effort that they have put in. They have done a marvellous job in becoming now what is probably the best planned and best organised group in Australian fishing. They are responsible, they can see where they are heading, they have offered to put-up up to $3m a year to follow their plan through, but they insist on fairness in respect of those going out. They want to make sure that there is no double-dipping, which could happen under the sort of scheme that the Government is coming up with. I have a huge file of correspondence and documents. I am satisfied that the fishermen most of all know their case and know it very well. Clearly, from the indications of the meeting in Cairns on Friday, the Minister was fully up to date with the information concerning the notice of motion. Clearly Senator Walsh was not informed when he had discussions earlier in the day. Clearly the industry has the capacity to make the scheme work and the discussions held with the Minister on Friday, I believe, have laid the way for this to be achieved with a bit of support all around later in the week. I support the motion. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(9.22) —I rise to support the disallowance motion moved by Senator Boswell and note that the Northern Prawn Fishery (Special Provisions) Management Plan was tabled on 17 February and that Senator Boswell first moved a disallowance motion on 19 March. That motion was to disallow the whole of the management plan which had been tabled. The objectives of that management plan are worth looking at. They are to reduce by 1990 the total number of class A units, including surplus units and suspense units, by not more than 70,000; to reduce by February 1990 the number of class B units and class C units by approximately 40 per cent; the prevention of an increase in the number of boats in the fishery; and the collection of a levy in relation to that program. To us they seemed to be laudable objectives. We took particular note of the factors underlying the measures in the management plan for attaining those objectives. According to the plan, those factors were said to be `Scientific advice that there is a need to reduce the fishing effort in the managed fishery to enable the stocks of tiger prawns to recover from their present depleted condition'. It was in respect of that point that we looked very closely at the original disallowance as moved by Senator Boswell. We had particular concern with that because, as was pointed out in the plan, there was seen to be a problem with the tiger prawn resource itself. We were most concerned about that. The fact that tiger prawn stocks in the Gulf of Carpentaria are threatened by over-fishing is recognised not just by the Government but also by the industry. The fact that an orderly reduction in the number of boats is essential if the fishery is to remain sound seemed to us to be quite self-evident. As a result of this reduction, the prawn stocks would be given an opportunity to recover. We were aware, and we have become increasingly more aware, of the efforts which the industry was prepared to undertake and of the concern which is shared by the industry for its resource. This is not unnatural because any responsible industry, particularly any responsible primary industry, must have a real concern if it is to expect to survive. So it is no surprise that the industry itself shares that basic concern. It is a fact, as has been already stated in the debate so far, that the industry itself had already played a significant role in accepting, supporting and, indeed, moving for the introduction of drastic effort reducing and other measures to protect the resource and to allow it to regenerate appropriately. These measures, as has been stated already, included the closing of the whole fishery for nearly six months in 1987; gear restrictions involving a reduction from four to two in the number of nets able to be used from; and a three-months ban on daylight trawling during the tiger prawn spawning season. In particular, one of the strongest pieces of evidence of the industry's concern and preparedness to act to take very concrete action is its own financial commitment in terms of the establishment and support of the voluntary adjustment buy-back scheme. That scheme has seen a very large financial input from the industry itself-$900,000 in 1986 and a preparedness for a 300 per cent increase to $3m in 1987. Given all that, naturally we were nonplussed with the suggestion that the whole plan, which incorporated all of those measures to assist the industry, should be disallowed. However, Senator Boswell's subsequent amendment came before us on 1 April. That amendment basically sought to remove section 3 and allied clauses-that section of the plan which sets up the system for reduction units. It is perhaps very important to understand what the impact of this particular exercise was seen to be by the industry. Basically, reduction units in practical terms are really a measure of an operator's progress towards his surrender liability, to get boats out of the fishery by a means which the Government had wanted to put in place but not by the means supported by the industry-that is, through the voluntary buy-back system. I think it is perhaps useful to look at the history of the voluntary adjustment scheme. We should realise that we have here a very important Australian primary industry which has been prepared to face the reality which unfortunately faces a great many sectors of our primary industries-the reality of restructuring the reality that because of the nature of the resource, because of the history of the industry and for the sake of its future, the industry needs to take steps to see that it becomes more efficient, more effective and that it preserves its own resource. Indeed, the voluntary buy-back adjustment scheme was first proposed by the Northern Fishing Companies Association Ltd in a submission to the advisory body, the Northern Prawn Fishery Management Committee, in February 1983. The industry does not see this as a problem that has arisen recently. The industry endorsed in principle the proposal which was implemented in 1984. In so doing, the industry agreed, as I have said, to fund the scheme itself by way of a levy to be collected by the Commonwealth. The appropriate committee was established and the system has been coming to grips with its responsibility in the meantime. That is not to say that the operation of the scheme is now, or has been, perfect. It has been a very concrete exercise by the industry which we believe should be encouraged and supported. As I said, the industry has agreed to a very steep increase from its own funds going into that scheme to see that it can work. We have examples from overseas and Australia of buy-back schemes. Such a scheme in South Australia to reduce the number of trawlers in the Gulf of St Vincent prawn fishery proved successful for government and industry. It is worth looking at such examples. The Northern Territory barramundi fishery in the 1970s was another successful example of a voluntary industry scheme which we believe should be supported. However, having established such a scheme it is important that it should be effective. The Australian Democrats appreciate that a letter from the office of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), which was sent to a colleague in the Senate, has expressed the Government's concern in these terms: The real question is whether the control of the fishery through such measures- as those that I have outlined- is acceptable in the national interest. Fishermen in the northern prawn fishery are highly protected and highly regulated. The introduction of these additional restrictions on efficiency without a real attack on the problems of overcapacity means that these additional regulations will become a permanent feature of the fishery. That was the opinion as expressed from the Minister's office. I agree that that is likely to be the case, but only if under the voluntary scheme as outlined there is no reduction of capacity. That really is the point at which the decision needs to be made. The decision which the Australian Democrats have made is that given the efforts and the commitment-who can deny that the commitment by the industry is strong when it sinks millions of dollars of its own money into the scheme-the scheme should be given a chance. Based on history and examples from elsewhere, we are confident that if it is given a chance and if that commitment is recognised it will work in the best interests of the industry as a whole. The impact of the imposition of the reduction unit system on top of the voluntary adjustment buy-back scheme is of great concern to us. We believe that the reduction unit scheme, through competing in a sense with the voluntary scheme, goes a long way to negating the benefits of that scheme. As an instance, the buying up of limber licences which has been a feature thus far is not reducing capacity. There is considerable speculation in the industry by a few large operators distorting the system and putting at risk that voluntary scheme which we believe needs to be given a genuine chance. People in the industry accept strongly not just the need for reduction of effort through those measures earlier stated but also a reduction in the capacity of the industry in order that the resource should not be depleted. During consultations in the interim period we have been disturbed by the concerns of the industry at the lack of genuine consultation and the industry's feeling that its expertise and its sense of responsibility were not being recognised sufficiently. The advisory body was not being as effectively listened to as it should have been. Obviously if such schemes are to work, there is a need for co-operation between government and industry, particularly in the sensitive area of industry adjustment. It is a difficult time financially for the industry and it is difficult at a personal level for the people involved because of their great personal commitment, not to mention the financial commitment. On balance, we believe that part 3 and the allied clauses represent an overreaction by the Government, possibly with the best of intentions, to the problem of the fishing resource. We believe that the voluntary scheme is well based, well supported and needs an opportunity to work. There are distinct signs of a growing co-operation between the industry and the Government. It is encouraging that the recommendations for appointment of a consultant have been taken up and that direct discussions have finally been held between the Minister and the industry. I hope that sort of co-operation will continue. I stress that the preservation of the resource is paramount for the Australian Democrats. We believe that concern is shared by the industry and that the voluntary scheme, that the effort reduction measures will be studiously carried out and improved and that the necessary capacity reductions will take place. If this does not happen and if between now and 1990 there is evidence before us that this is not happening, the industry and the Senate should be assured that the Democrats will act to support whatever measures may be necessary to redress the imbalance. I reiterate that we are pleased to be able to support the motion to preserve those aspects of the northern prawn fishery plan which we believe are valuable. We will vote to give the industry's voluntary scheme a chance to operate. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(9.38) —The attempts of the Federal Government to impose the provisions contained in part 3 of the Northern Prawn Fishery (Special Provisions) Management Plan, without adequate consultation with the industry, typify the way in which this Government is prepared to cut across the rights of individuals and organisations. We saw the Federal Government do much the same thing last week in the Kakadu legislation, which takes away the rights of mining interests without compensating them for that loss. Now it seems the Labor Government is trying to do much the same thing in the fishing industry. The provisions of this plan, which Senator Boswell has moved to disallow, would allow for compulsory surrender of units, without compensation or any right of appeal. The section also allows the introduction of reduction units-the concept of which has not been discussed in any detail with, or agreed to by, northern prawn fishery entitlement holders or the Northern Prawn Fishery Management Committee, NORMAC. The effect of the proposals in part 3 of the plan would be to nullify the voluntary adjustment, or buy-back scheme, to which trawler owners will contribute some $3m in 1987. The Federal Government, in insisting upon this management plan, is taking no cognisance of the very commendable efforts which have already been made, and which are continuing, at the instigation of the fisheries industry itself. I have been in touch with the fishing industry in the Northern Territory, which will be one of those affected by this plan and, having discussed the matter with its representatives, I was extremely impressed to see how responsible the industry has been in relation to preserving fishing stocks. I am at a loss to see why the Federal Government is determined to undo all the good work of the fisheries industry. In doing so, it is risking the viability of an industry which is worth export earnings in excess of $200m per year. The area involved in the northern prawn fishery runs from Cape York in Queensland across to Koolan Island in Western Australia, and, of course, it takes in northern territorial waters. The fishery is jointly managed by the Commonwealth, Queensland, Northern Territory and Western Australian governments. An advisory committee composed of seven industry representatives, officers of the Commonwealth, Queensland, Northern Territory and Western Australian fisheries departments and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation's Division of Fisheries Research advises the Commonwealth Minister for Primary Industry and the Australian Fisheries Council, which is made up of State Ministers responsible for marine fisheries, on management matters. It is most unfortunate that this advisory committee seems to have been left out in the cold in the development of the management plan for the northern prawn fishery. It is certainly clear that the industry is far from satisfied with the way in which the consultative process appears to have been abandoned or ignored by the Commonwealth Government. I note that in a letter from the Northern Fishing Companies Association Ltd to the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, on 8 April, this year, the Association says: We are . . . concerned about the future of Industry/Government consultation due to the breakdown in communication, particularly over the past four months. Recently NORMAC procedures have become sloppy. Minutes have been inaccurate, working groups and subcommittees have been bypassed. The proposed plan was hastily drafted for legislation without discussion with NORMAC regarding implementation. It goes on: Telex messages and letters sent to you- that is, the Minister- have remained unanswered for weeks. Letters from your office to senators on the subject have been misleading. One can only speculate as to why this lack of consultation has come about. Whether it was deliberate or through inefficiency or indifference, the Minister owes the industry the opportunity to have some real input into its own future. As I have already mentioned, the northern fisheries industry has a very good record when it comes to initiatives geared to preserving itself and the resources upon which it relies. The industry was largely responsible for introducing the voluntary adjustment, that is, the buy-back, scheme aimed at reducing the number of licences in the fishery. The industry contributed more than $900,000 to the adjustment scheme in 1986, to which was added more than $1m from the Government's national adjustment fund. The buy-back in 1985-86 removed about 12,000 units, or 10 per cent of the total fishery-the equivalent of 25 licences. The industry has now agreed to increase its contribution to the buy-back levy fourfold to $3m a year. In addition to this there could be a contribution from the Federal Government, as well as a loan fund which was able to be drawn on. This increased buy-back fund would enable the buy-back scheme to be extended. The fishing industry is of the very reasonable and logical view that buy-back is far more equitable than compulsory surrender without compensation for reducing the number of units and trawlers in the fishery. The industry has also accepted that the aim should be to reduce to 70,000 units by 1993. The industry has also played a significant role in the introduction of drastic effort reducing and other measures aimed at protecting tiger prawn stocks, which became necessary after CSIRO marine scientists expressed concern that the tiger prawn stocks of the western Gulf of Carpentaria were being threatened. These measures included the closing off of the whole fishery for nearly six months in 1987; gear restrictions, that is, the reduction of the number of nets used from four to two; and a three-month ban on daylight trawling during the tiger prawn spawning season. The ban on trawling before the spawning season and other effort reducing measures are expected to achieve the required improvement in the population level in two or three generations which would be two to three years. It is encouraging to see that monitoring of tiger prawn populations in other fisheries, notably Exmouth Gulf in Western Australia, following similar effort reducing restrictions, has shown a definite increase in the size of the spawning population. This indicates quite clearly that prawn fisheries can bounce back with suitable management measures. It is estimated that these effort and capacity reducing measures will result in a cut of 30 per cent or more in the income earned by an individual trawler-a sacrifice the industry has indicated it is willing to make to conserve prawn stocks and improve the viability of the fishery. It is very apparent that the industry is a responsible one. It realises that action is necessary to preserve the resource on which it depends. This is essential for its own survival. However, it does not accept that the Federal Minister's solution is preferable to the measures now in place on the initiative of the industry itself. Certainly, the industry objects to the way in which the Minister proposes to be able to get compulsory surrender of units without compensation, which is a fair objection on the part of the industry. As the Northern Fishing Companies Association has pointed out to me and, doubtless, to other honourable senators, the prawn fishery in St Vincent's Gulf in South Australia has been experiencing the same problems as the northern fishery. In South Australia, the State Govern- ment decided to remove compulsorily six out of the 16 vessels but with compensation. Under a scheme similar to the northern fishery's buy-back scheme, five owners have voluntarily offered to sell their licences or licences and vessels to the Government. Compensation for licences has been as high as $450,000 and for a vessel and licence $730,000. Funds for the buy-back, in excess of $2m, were made available by the Government at commercial rates and the principal and interest will be repaid over 10 years by the trawler owners remaining in the fishery. A similar scheme operates in New Zealand. It has a voluntary buy-back scheme to remove excess trawlers from in-shore fisheries. The New Zealand Government has provided about $NZ50m for the scheme which will be repaid by vessel owners remaining in the fishery. The northern prawning industry wants the existing voluntary buy-back scheme to be more innovative and active in removing capacity-that is units and vessels-from the fishery and has agreed to contribute $3m in 1987 to the adjustment fund to compensate trawler owners who wish to leave the fishery. This would be in addition to the finance available from a government guaranteed loan and from the national fisheries adjustment fund. That the Minister is ploughing ahead with this plan, rejecting the reasonable and sound proposals of the fishing industry, is sadly an indication of his inability properly to represent his ministerial interests. I support Senator Boswell's disallowance motion and commend it to the Senate. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a copy of the letter from the Northern Fishing Companies Association Ltd to the Minister for Primary Industry dated 8 April 1987. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- Northern Fishing Companies Association Limited P.O. Box 35, Farrer, A.C.T. 2607 Australia Telephone (062) 86 1539 Telex AA 61679 8th April, 1987 Hon. John Kerin Minister for Primary Industry Parliament House Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Minister Re: NPF Delegation-Monday 6th April, 1987 Members of the Northern Prawn Fishery delegation, which you met at Parliament House on 6th April, are appreciative of the opportunity to present the views of a large section (in excess of 80%) of the entitlement holders on the compulsory surrender without compensation and reduction units section (Part 3) of the Northern Prawn Fisheries (Special Provisions) Plan. They confirm their unanimous opposition to Part 3 only of the plan and request you to withdraw it as recommended unanimously by the 13th meeting of NORMAC in Cairns in March. We support all other fishing effort and capacity reducing sections of the plan. We are equally concerned about the future of Industry/Government consultation due to the breakdown in communication, particularly over the past four months. Recently NORMAC procedures have become sloppy. Minutes have been inaccurate, working groups and sub committees have been bypassed. The proposed plan was hastily drafted for legislation without discussion with NORMAC regarding implementation. An excuse offered by AFS, was the urgency relating to V.A.S. and Management levies justified the speed. Why the surrender and reduction provisions were included is beyond us. Telex messages and letters sent to you have remained unanswered for weeks. Letters from your office to Senators on the subject have been misleading. In essence, the confusion and misinformation has caused industry to lose confidence and become suspicious of Government. If this situation is not rectified many years of Industry/Government co-operation could be destroyed. The management of the NPF and the NORMAC structure were highly regarded and were used by Government as models in establishing similar management regimes in other fisheries. Now the entire structure is under threat. Maybe part of the problem is the continuing changing of Government players who are disadvantaged through lack of understanding and experience. To date, industry has attempted to follow the process of consultation, not confrontation. We have consciously avoided media exposure. On hindsight, we may have been wrong. Threat of compulsory surrender has been used to force entitlement holders out of the fishery. CSIRO opinions have been exaggerated by Government. Statements have been made that imply the tiger fishery is facing collapse unless the surrender provisions are implemented. We simply do not accept that inference. You should understand that industry has the highest regard for CSIRO but we realise their research activities are limited through lack of funding and lack of ``real time'' information due to delays in proceeding log book data etc. We respect any advice from CSIRO albeit qualified due to lack of accurate, current data. We refute the statements by AFS that CSIRO state effort must be reduced by 30% and capacity by 40%. Until recently CSIRO stated the tiger fishery was in no biological danger. On industry initiative, concerned over declining catches and the incidence of small prawns at certain times of the year, CSIRO amended their view and indicated that the tiger fishery was under pressure and required effort reduction. We have been and are responsible. All effort reduction measures have been initiated by industry-such as: closures, ban on daylight trawling, gear restrictions and a tough boat replacement policy. These measures will achieve a reduction in effort, agreed to by CSIRO, of approximately 30% immediately. The VAS and usual commercial initiatives will reduce the capacity. The most significant events surround NORMAC in Cairns last March. Government officers met individual fishermen, fleet operators, industry associations. They attended workshops and an open NORMAC forum. They could not disagree that the overwhelming attitude was opposed to the surrender without compensation and reduction unit provisions of the plan. NORMAC 13 debated the issue at length. Members could not confirm the minutes of NORMAC 12 since they were regarded as inaccurate, incomplete and a misinterpretation of the proceedings. NORMAC 13 did, however, unanimously reaffirm the effort reducing measures of the plan and recommended the total withdrawal of the surrender and reduction unit provisions (Part 3). A copy of that recommendation is attached. You will note it is signed by all NORMAC members except W.A. Government and AFS. The W.A. Government member departed the meeting prior to the recommendation being typed but stated he supported the resolution. The AFS member assured other members he would sign the recommendation. NORMAC 13 went on to confirm the most equitable capacity reducing method was the VAS and that the proposed appointment of a consultant to investigate ways ``to make the VAS more effective'' be confirmed without delay. NORMAC 13 prepared suggested terms of reference for the consultant (copy attached). Industry also voluntarily agreed to increase their levy to the VAS by 300%, which will amount to approximately $3,000,000 per year. Minister, you, the Director of the Australian Fisheries service and the chairman of NORMAC, appear to be under the mistaken impression that industry is opposed to capacity-reducing measures. Industry has always supported a reduction in the number of active trawlers in the NPF and as far back as 1983 put forward a proposal for an industry-funded voluntary buy back to achieve this objective. What industry members agreed to at NORMAC 12 was that in the event of a more active buy back not reducing capacity to 70,000 units by 1990, surrender should be considered. The minutes show that the majority were against compulsory surrender. They have since confirmed this. The NORMAC 12 recommendation was mis-interpreted by the Australian Fisheries Service and the chairman of NORMAC to mean that all members on NORMAC agreed with compulsory surrender without compensation. This is why industry members moved at NORMAC 13 to recommend that you remove the offending Part 3 of the notice from the legislation. Equally objectionable to industry members was the inclusion of reduction units in the management plan. This was done without consultation with industry or discussion by NORMAC. It is unlikely that industry would have agreed to the use of its contributions to VAS to buy reduction units that could then be traded on the open market. Industry believes it is acting responsibly and the hard decisions we have taken validate our sincerity and committment to the need to improve the biological and economic health of the industry. We certainly are not adopting a ``head in the sand'' approach as stated by your Adviser. Our view is the unanimous recommendations by NORMAC 13 represent an acceptable satisfactory alternative. During our meeting we did not dwell on the reasons why the surrender provisions were rejected by industry and NORMAC 13 simply because we knew your officers had already heard all the arguments and assumed they had reported to you accordingly and also because our meeting with you was limited in time. In brief, the surrender plan is unacceptable because: (1) It is compulsory (2) It is without compensation (3) It allows no appeal (4) I negates and competes with the VAS (5) It contains elements of double dipping (6) It enables windfall gains to holders of surplus units (7) It will force financial hardships on operators and cause over-capitalisation to avoid 40% surrender. (8) Unit prices will dramatically escalate. Although our discussions with you were inconclusive we confirm our advice that after hearing our case you may be willing to review capacity reducing measures in this important fishery. We urge you therefore to: (1) Reaffirm your committment to the industry/Government consultative process to achieve effective fisheries management. (2) Accept the unanimous recommendations of NORMAC 13 to immediately withdraw in total the surrender without compensation and reductions unit provisions (Part 3) of the plan. (3) Reaffirm your support that the VAS is the preferred capacity reducing system and hasten the appointment of the consultant to enable changes to the structures and administration of the VAS and its operations to ensure success is achieved. (4) If possible, you chair the next meeting of NORMAC (on a date suitable to you) to enable you to personally understand the issues and feel more comfortable with the final outcome. Industry will make every endeavour to put forward constructive and workable alternatives to what they consider are harsh and unnecessary surrender without compensation measures. We suggest Canberra or Sydney as the venue. We apologise for the length of this letter. However, it is not possible to be more brief if we are to highlight the important issues which must be considered before a decision is made. We look forward to your prompt favourable reply. We also believe ``where there is a will there is a way''. Your sincerely, M. R. FRANCE M. R. France-Chairman NFCA & NORMAC Member and on behalf of: E. Kemp-Chairman NTFIC and NORMAC Member L. Price/D. McKay-QCFO and NORMAC Member A. Davies-representing selected A. A. and Qld independent fishermen with NPF entitlement R. Annear-on behalf of 8 W.A. based fleet operators of 43 currently operating NPF trawlers Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(9.48) —I wish to speak only briefly to the plan with regard to the northern prawn fishery. I was at a meeting in Cairns on Friday at which this matter was discussed before an audience of people involved in the fishing industry. The important thing to remember in this whole operation is that we are dealing with a major industry in Australia-an industry which is and has been of vital importance to our economy and which needs to be maintained, particularly in my State of Queensland. Queensland's economy has been based very narrowly, particularly in the northern sections, on a very small number of primary industries. We have difficulties with a number of those, particularly, for example, with the sugar industry in terms of the price that we are able to achieve for our exports. Whilst there has been some stabilisation in that area within the last year, it is unlikely that we will return to the harlequin days of three or four years ago. We are therefore faced in the regional economy of north Queensland with looking very carefully and very long at each of the items that are contributing to the reasonable maintenance of a viable community in that part of the world. Without the fishing industry continuing in the long term to be prosperous and viable, and to import into the northern sector of Queensland the vast number of dollars that it does, that part of my State will be in massive difficulty. Therefore, Queensland has a regional problem. That is one reason why I have taken a great deal of interest in this matter, even though it falls in the province of the Department of Primary Industry, which in our Party is looked after by Senator Powell. At the very earliest stages of the problem it became evident that the Government's overall plan was necessary for the preservation of the prawning industry, especially the tiger prawns, in the northern waters. To that end, I indicated my support for the plan because of the necessity to keep the industry viable. However, the plan contained a very large amount of detail and it became clear that much of it was not acceptable to the industry. Over a number of years, the industry itself had sought to develop plans to meet the problems. Therefore, the essential argument at the end of the day really lies between whether we want to follow the Government's plan in toto, or the majority of the Government's plan linked with that crucial element of the buy-back scheme that the industry has established. Other speakers have referred to the detailed argument necessary with regard to that operation, especially on the amount of time that trawling is allowed, the daylight hours, the gear, the number of nets and so on-all of which relate to the amount of return on input. The basic argument is whether we should be concerned that the industries keep their own houses in order. One of the worthwhile elements of the Government's pressure at this time is to gel in the industry's mind and resolve the need to reduce the effort, the 70,000 units-which is not only the industry's aim, but that of the Government-from the current high levels. It is the type of debate during which, if one so wished, one could bandy about all sorts of political points. I do not think that that would be terribly helpful. I am reminded of the comments made by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) at the meeting on Friday, which I thought were helpful and constructive and which showed where he stood and how we saw the position and the response of the industry to it. At the end of the meeting I felt that there had been a constructive exchange of views that leaves the Government, I believe, in a very good position with the industry to be able to continue the sort of work that it has done to date. It is obviously the sort of area where there are plenty of scoring points to be made if one wishes to make them. I am not at all sure that that is what the people in the industry are interested in. Over the past eight weeks, it has become clear to me that the concern of those in the industry is to keep a viable industry-one in which they and their children can work, which will give a decent return, and which will not overfish those vital resources. Given that basic position of the industry, which is not necessarily shared by all primary industries in Australia-I wish that it were-and given the industry's strong feeling about the need for conservation, I believe that it is well positioned to achieve its aims. Indeed, the Government would be well advised to accept the industry's bona fides in that regard and work with it to ensure that the buy-back scheme, as is currently being implemented, is able to achieve the result for which the Government was looking in its original management plan. My last point on this issue is that we have a relatively complicated problem. The Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances raised a number of issues on the plan itself. After a reasonable amount of correspondence, the Government agreed to alter the drafting of its plan, and also a number of items in it in response to the request of the Committee. I want to draw attention to that because it has been overlooked so far in the debate. The Committee usually confines itself to the operation of substantive legislation, and its considering this matter under its various headings was a useful exercise which, in the long run, turned out to be an important exercise for the drafting of the plan. I commend the work of the Committee on that aspect. While it does not go to the major economic issues, nevertheless, it is an important aspect of the work of this chamber, and one that is often overlooked. With the disallowance of part 3 of the regulations, the Government, obviously, will be confronted with deciding what should be its avenues of operation. From the remarks of the Minister, I gauged that he could count, and that he would be seeking to look at those aspects, although probably not much earlier than the meeting scheduled for August. I hope that between now and then, the Government can consider constructive ways of working with the industry, especially on its buy-back scheme. Following the Friday meeting I was heartened to learn that there had been an offer for a large number of boats-an additional buying offer-which suggests that this type of plan can work. With the devaluation of the Australian dollar, new markets have opened that simply did not exist previously. The boats are now at a reasonable price level for purchase by a number of overseas countries. I was also pleased to hear at that meeting of the work of the Department, including the Australian Fisheries Service, on considering a joint package to enable not only the sale of the boats and the licences, but some possible use of our foreign aid support to provide a training package, especially in areas where our high technology boats are likely to be less attractive. That could well be an attractive package for some of the less developed countries that are trying to establish and expand their fishing industries. Such a constructive approach to these matters is to be welcomed, and the co-operation between the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Primary Industry in enabling that to occur is to be welcomed. It shows that a great deal of thought has been put into this matter by the Government. I hope that the Government is willing to continue to co-operate further with the industry in the carrying of this disallowance motion so that the reduction of units section will be handed back to the industry to look after. In closing, I reiterate a point made by Senator Powell. Our ultimate concern, the Government's concern and overwhelmingly the industry's concern-after all, it is the people in the industry who earn a living from this exercise-is in the resource itself. In subsequent years the protection of that resource must be seen to be the major determining factor of actions that are taken. If, for whatever reason, the buy-back scheme is not successful, we will certainly support measures to make sure that the original target which was set by the Government is achieved. Obviously, that would require far more draconian measures than those which are currently envisaged. However, given the enormous goodwill that the industry has already shown in regard to this matter, I am confident that it will be able to meet the requirements it has set itself. It is well and truly on the road to doing so now. The economic circumstances of our dollar vis-a-vis a number of other countries make that prospect even brighter. Therefore, I hope that the industry can look forward to a secure future and will remain a very viable part of the economy of north Queensland. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(10.01) —Madam Acting Deputy President, I have here a rather lengthy speech by the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, which sets out his views on the issue, although it does not, of course, respond to the debate. If it is acceptable, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard Mr Kerin's speech and then make a few comments myself. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- SPEECH OPPOSING A NOTICE OF MOTION BY SENATOR BOSWELL IN THE SENATE THAT THE NORTHERN PRAWN FISHERY (SPECIAL PROVISIONS) MANAGEMENT PLAN, AS CONTAINED IN PLAN OF MANAGEMENT NO. 12 OF 19 JANUARY 1987 AND MADE UNDER THE FISHERIES ACT 1952, BE DISALLOWED. Honourable senators, if Senator Boswell's motion to disallow Plan of Management No. 12 is carried, the consequences will be to remove the real teeth of a management plan for one of this nation's most valuable export-earning fisheries, the northern prawn fishery. Unfortunately now the Democrats have lined up with the National Party on the issue, this is the likely outcome of the debate. However the matter is of great importance and the Government intends to put its views on the matter clearly on the record. The northern prawn fishery extends across the top of Australia taking in the waters of and between the Gulf of Carpentaria and the Joseph Bonaparte Gulf. Total prawn production is about 10,000 tonnes per year, with a value to fishermen of about $150m, and a value from exports mainly to Japan and the USA of about $180m per year. This prawn industry ranks as number two among Australia's major fishery export earners. The fishery has been managed under a limited entry regime since 1977. In other words the Government has by regulation granted monopoly exploitation rights to a limited number of fishermen. The regulatory arrangements controlling this limited group of fishermen prior to 1984 proved to be ineffective. They were unable to adequately contain total fishing capacity or fishing effort to levels which could be safely supported over the longer term by the sustainable yield of the prawn stocks. In 1982 the Australian Fisheries Council recognised that something had to be done and called for a review of the situation. It was clear that unless the management regime was made more effective, the northern prawn fishery would be headed for the classic sequence of events which occurs in unmanaged or poorly managed commercial fisheries around the world. Continued ineffective management would result in a rapid escalation in the levels of fishing capacity (that is the number and sizes of boats) and effort (for example time spent fishing); the prawns would be overfished; the prawn stocks would decline; profitability to the fishermen would decline (and in fact was already happening); and eventually considerable export revenue would be lost as the fishery declined. We could not and still cannot afford to let this happen to one of our most significant and valuable fisheries. Since early 1984 a new plan of management for the fishery has been progressively implemented with the aims of conserving, and reducing the fishing pressure on the stocks of prawns, and promoting the economic efficiency of the fishery. These new arrangements have been developed by the Northern Prawn Fishery Management Committee which advises the Australian Fisheries Council. The Council has endorsed all aspects of the new plan. The new arrangements were progressing well until towards the end of 1985 when it became apparent that the escalating levels of fishing capacity and effort could be causing a serious decline in the tiger prawn stocks. Tiger prawns comprise about one-third of the total annual catch and about half the total value of the catch from the northern prawn fishery. By October 1986 CSIRO was able to confirm fears expressed by some fishermen that the tiger prawn resources in the Gulf of Carpentaria were being overfished. Clear evidence was presented at a prawn workshop in Darwin to show that an immediate reduction in fishing effort of at least 30% was essential to allow the stocks of tiger prawns to recover. It became clear in October 1986 that unless the level of fishing effort was urgently reduced, backed up by an appropriate structural adjustment to reduce the number of operational boats and the level of fishing capacity, further serious declines in the tiger prawn stocks could be expected. To its credit, the Management Committee spent several weeks in developing a package of tough new management measures to reverse the decline in tiger prawn stocks. Its series of recommendations were endorsed by Australian Fisheries Council Ministers in December 1986. That package comprised: (1) Immediate effort-reducing measures of extended seasonal closures (1 December to 15 April and 22 June to 31 August; about six months in total); a ban on the use of more than two nets, and a ban on daylight trawling. These measures are notified by way of Fisheries Notices under the Fisheries Act 1952. (2) Longer term structural adjustment measures for reducing fishing capacity. These involved: (a) a fourfold increase in the annual levy to fund the voluntary adjustment scheme for removing boats from the fishery increasing the total levy collection in 1987 to nearly $4 million (b) setting a target to reduce the number of Class A units of fishing capacity from 118,000 at present to 70,000 by March 1990 representing a reduction in total fishing capacity of just over 40% and reducing the number of operational boats in the fishery from about 230 at present to between about 150 and 170 by March 1990 (c) in the event that the voluntary adjustment scheme does not achieve the March 1990 objective, only then would a compulsory cancellation of Class A units on a pro rata basis be imposed to achieve the target of 70,000 Class A units by that data with allowance being made for those who sold part or all of their units to the voluntary adjustment scheme prior to March 1990 with compensation being paid for units compulsorily cancelled in 1990 (d) until 1990 no additional boats would be permitted to enter the fishery against currently unassigned Class B or Class C units, and (e) the existing requirement for the surrender of a Class B or Class C unit on each replacement boat of over 375 Class A units entering the fishery would be extended to replacement boats of 375 Class A units or less. These capacity-reducing measures have been notified in the Plan of Management No. 12-Northern Prawn Fishery (Special Provisions) 19 January 1987, and in Fisheries Levy (Northern Prawn Fishery) Regulations (Amendment) 23 January 1987. The Government is convinced that the management package I have described will, if given the chance to work over the next three years, reverse the dangerous declining trend in tiger prawn stocks and restore the economic profitability of the fishery. However, some members of the industry which were party to the formulation of the management package, have obviously had second thoughts about some aspects of the plan. In particular about one-third of the fishermen who by and large are single-boat owners, have campaigned hard in the past few months to have all reference to the unit cancellation scheme and its implementation removed from the plan. Their main arguments for removing the unit cancellation system are based on claims of severe hardship and inequity that the ultimate cancellation of 40% of a fisherman's unit holdings will have on single-boat owners. There are also misleading claims that `property' (i.e. fishing rights conferred on fishermen by Government regulation) will be confiscated without compensation. The facts are that some 60-80 operational boats must leave the fishery as soon as possible. Under the proposed plan those boats would come from some single boat-owners and from some fleet operators. The burden would be equitably spread. Under the Plan of Management No. 12, there are several options open to fishermen. For those leaving the fishery entirely, significant compensation will be paid for loss of fishing rights by those who remain. Depending on the number of units held by the seller and the price of units, compensation of the order of about $400,000 would not be an unreasonable expectation. Proceeds from the sale of the boat, if sold, would be extra. For those remaining, payment for additional units of the order of $150,000 to $200,000 may be necessary as insurance against the possibility of unit cancellation in March 1990, but that amount would be recovered later from the increased profits distributed among fewer boats harvesting the resource after 1990. For more than 50 single-boat owners who have the rights to fish in both the northern prawn and east coast trawl fisheries, the rights to continue to fish in the east coast trawl fishery will not be affected by the unit cancellation system. I have been advised by the Minister for Primary Industry that at its last meeting in Cairns on 4 March 1987, the Management Committee reaffirmed its resolve and intent to reduce effort in the northern prawn fishery through the management measures of gear restrictions, bans on daylight trawlings, closures, increased voluntary adjustment scheme activity and levies, an industry-initiated boat disposal scheme, and restrictive boat replacement policies which had previously been recommended by the Committee. These measures are to be kept in place and will even be intensified until there is clear evidence that the breeding stocks of tiger prawns have been restored to a level that will allow the maximum yield to be safely taken each year. The key element on which the Management Committee has reversed its earlier recommendations refers only to the unit cancellation provisions and their implementation. The Government's view is there must be an incentive for the industry to reduce the number of operational boats over a three year period to the order of 150 to 170 compared with the 230 operating at present. Otherwise there will be little likelihood that the tiger prawn stocks will be restored to a safe medium to longer term sustainable yield. The unit cancellation system and its implementation as contained in the Plan of Management No. 12 provides for that incentive as part of a responsible approach to the effective management of this major fishery. If the Plan of Management No. 12 is disallowed, the mechanism that will ensure fishing capacity is reduced by 40% by March 1990 will be lost and the effectiveness of the Management Plan will largely be negated by maintaining more boats in the fishery than the stocks are likely to support in the medium to longer term. The probability of cancellation without compensation is low. The cancellation mechanism simply provides the incentive necessary to decide whether to stay in a more viable fishery or sell out units (or fishing rights) to the Voluntary Adjustment Scheme or those who want to remain in the fishery. A strong incentive is necessary. Without it those in the fishery will tend to hang on; so escalating inefficiency, increasing concern about cost pressures and the impact of regulated inefficiency on profitability. The classic response to these pressures is calls for Governments to lower costs or to pay the inefficient to leave the industry. The prospect of cancellation by regulation of fishing rights created by regulation is an incentive which will ensure the necessary adjustments in ownership between fishermen takes place with minimum Government involvement and expense. Under the Government's plan a business decision, albeit a difficult one, has to be taken during the next three years to either stay in the fishery and for that benefit, pay those who must leave. Those who would leave could take advantage of the strong demand from overseas under the approach that the industry now belatedly wishes to explore, a decision to stay in or leave the fishery is not made necessary. The most likely result is that too many fishermen will remain and the biological position of the fishery and the financial situation of fishermen will gradually but relentlessly deteriorate. The National Party and the Democrats are condemning fishermen in the northern prawn fishery to slow economic strangulation. It is a well documented feature of fisheries management around the world that politically motivated intervention in the management process-political overturning of tough management decisions-leads to the need for even tougher decisions down the road, higher costs and even more disruption usually at a time when the fishery can least afford it. Put simply, fishermen will put off a hard decision if given an opportunity. The prospect of a smaller resource in the future is all too easily dismissed as remote or someone else's problem. There is an opportunity now for a decent exit from the prawn industry for those who must leave if it is to remain viable in the longer term. The Democrats are denying fishermen this opportunity. The record will show this. The Opposition will claim that the industry has an efficient alternative proposal but it is all words. There will be a claimed need for a `more commercial' approach to buying out boats. `More commercial' appears to mean large government guaranteed loans, government aid to sell prawn trawlers overseas to developing countries and large increases in Government levies on the industry over the next ten years. There is even the prospect of a government-owned and maintained graveyard for trawlers that have been bought but cannot be sold overseas. There has been no indication of the potential cost of the industry scheme to the industry or to government. It is not clear whether individual fishermen in the industry understand that the scheme will involve further levy increases or whether they are prepared to accept these. There are some vague ideas about new institutional arrangements to embody the new `more commercial' approach but no agreement on any of the important questions of detail. The legal and legislative implications of the alternative proposal have yet to be considered by the industry. In other words further delays in confronting the problem of excess capacity are inevitable. The opportunity to deal with the problem firmly, equitably and effectively under Plan of Management No. 12 is being lost. The alternative proposal will claim to avoid hardship on the industry. But it ignores the fact that to be effective a scheme must involve some financial hardship and some hard financial decisions either now or later. The financial hardship will be borne either by prawn fishermen or by the tax paying community. Naturally enough the prawn fishermen wish to delay any hardship as long as possible and develop arrangements which will allow them to transfer as much of the burden as possible to the taxpayer. The Democrats have allowed this to happen. The Minister for Primary Industry has explained how the scheme would work and its benefits. He has written to the 240 northern prawn fishermen. He has met with delegations of fishermen and only last Friday held a meeting with a large group of fishermen in Cairns. Senator Boswell and Senator Macklin were at the meeting. They heard the Government's case but rejected it. With superb, if opportunistic, political timing the Democrats, the night before the Minister's meeting announced that they would support the National Party on this issue. John Kerin has the runs on the board in fisheries management. He understands fisheries management and that sometimes tough measures are necessary to protect a resource. He has pressed ahead with tough decisions in the past, blue fin tuna for example, with success. The National Party and Democrats do not even begin to understand the fundamental principles of fisheries management. Their lack of knowledge has encouraged fishermen in their perhaps understandable but irrational desire to put off a decision about reducing capacity. The vote on the motion, unfortunately, seems to be a foregone conclusion now the Democrats are supporting it. It is a sad day for the northern prawn fishery. Nevertheless for the sake of effective and efficient management of the northern prawn fishery, I ask you to oppose Senator Boswell's notice of motion to disallow Plan of Management No. 12. Senator WALSH —We are witnessing here an act of economic sabotage, executed by a gaggle of economic illiterates and political opportunists. The effect of Senator Boswell's motion is to leave in the proposed package deal all those impediments to technical progress, such as gear restrictions and restrictions on daylight fishing-deliberate curbs on technical progress, impediments to increased productivity and institutionalised inefficiencies-which, in a different context, would be denounced as restrictive work practices. All of those practices which in a perfect world probably would not be in the package in the first place are to be left intact. Senator Boswell's motion removes those provisions in the proposal which ensures that what the industry really needs, which is a reduction of effort and resources committed to it, actually happens. We have heard many highly misleading and emotive references to the seizure of property without compensation. The alleged seizure of property is not of real property. The proposal is that if, by 1990, sufficient units have not voluntarily attrited there will be across the board reductions in units. That is property not in any real or physical sense but a reduction in the licences granted by the Crown to exploit a resource owned by the Crown. It is a form of royalty, although it is a royalty arrangement supplied without charge. If the people who have put up this disallowance motion are so certain that the voluntary buy-back scheme which they are proposing will achieve the required rate of attrition, the logic of the argument is that their objection to the end of the line, across the board cut in the number of units is absolutely irrelevant. Many new fisheries have gone through what is well recognised as a cycle which has its origins in, or is driven by, fundamental economic pressures. This has happened in the abalone fisheries in Victoria, in the prawn fisheries in the Gulf of Carpentaria and in the crayfish-or rock lobster as they are called these days-fisheries in Western Australia. A new market opens up for a particular edible marine species and some people exploit an abundant resource. Huge amounts of economic rent are captured by the first people who move in to exploit the resource. The very high profits very quickly attract many more new entrants. After some point-it is usually fairly early-marginal returns on effort or investment in the fishery decline and therefore, axiomatically, average returns decline. But as long as the level of profit is above normal levels-that is, as long as any economic rent remains to be harvested-more resources continue to be poured into the industry. What ultimately happens is not just a decline in the return on investment or on effort expended but an absolute decline in the output of the fishery because of the partial destruction of the physical resource base through overfishing. What happens then is that governments move in and regulate the industry. That cycle does not always occur in a smoothly progressive way because of biological reasons, seasonal fluctuations and so on. But the trend has been repeated in fishery after fishery. This happens because of a combination of biological limitations and economic law. It is often argued that the point at which-this assumes that it can be precisely determined, which it cannot; but let us assume for the purpose of the argument that it can-government regulations should limit output is that of maximum sustainable yield. That is a biologically correct argument or judgment. It is not, however, economically correct. In order to maximise the rent that can be extracted from the natural resource, production should be limited to a level less than the maximum sustainable yield. The author of this act of economic sabotage, not surprisingly, is the National Party of Australia-the successor to the Country Party. The Liberal Party of Australia was given a grand opportunity last week to shed that lead from its saddlebags when the coalition broke up. It has failed to grasp that opportunity. The self-proclaimed economic rationalists of the Liberal Party are revealed, by their support of this notion, as windbags who are dancing as usual to the traditional National Party opportunistic tune. They lack the courage to take the first step towards the economic rationalism about which they endlessly pontificate. I have often been asked why I despise the National Party so much. The reasons go back to my agricultural background. I do so for two reasons principally. Firstly, because the National Party is the only serious political party in Australia that I can remember which ever made a virtue of ignorance. The second reason is the way in which the National Party consistently betrays the interests of the people it purports to represent. Those who are familiar with the history of the dairying industry in the 1960s will see marked similarities between the opportunistic actions of the National Party, nee Country Party, in regard to this matter and the dairy industry in the 1960s. In the 1960s, the plain economic reality was that there were about 70,000 dairy farmers in the industry. Under the conditions of that time, there may have been economic room for about half that number. However, instead of honestly telling the people who voted for it, the people it purported to represent, that the industry was overcrowded and half of them should get out while they had the opportunity to go out with a reasonable amount of money, possibly enough to buy themselves a house in a town or city and to get themselves a decent job in an era of full employment, the National Party told them: `You stick there. We will look after you. We will continue to pay the butter subsidy'. The consequence of that action was that tens of thousands of dairy farmers inflicted a life of misery and poverty on their families. Ultimately, they had to leave the industry under less favourable circumstances and conditions than those under which they would have left the industry had they been given some decent leadership by those who claimed to represent them politically and been told the truth. That sort of history, although not precisely, is being repeated in this instance. I have already said that, if the voluntary buy-back measures which are being advocated by the supporters of this motion of disallowance are effective, the action to which they object and which they describe quite misleadingly as seizure of property without compensation, but which is in fact an across the board reduction from 1990 onwards or in 1990 of the number of units which are still being employed in the industry, becomes irrelevant. It becomes irrelevant if the voluntary buy-back achieves the reduction in effort and of fishing units which currently operate in the northern prawn fishery. However, if the voluntary buy-back does not work, we will be faced with this situation: There will be pressures for an intensification of the deliberate curbs on technical progress, impediments to increased productivity and institutionalised inefficiency of things such as gear restrictions and restrictions on the hours or the times of the day in which boats may operate-producing at excessive but avoidably high cost whatever output they can get. That is one of the dangers. There will be a tightening up of that institutionalised inefficiency. Secondly, there will be-this is not an alternative; it will probably go in conjunction with the former-progressive impoverishment of the individuals in the industry and an accelerated destruction of the physical resource itself, until such time as there is no internally generated surplus-that is, economic surplus or cash surplus-to buy out the operators and the equipment that must be bought out of the industry, to buy out the excess capacity which is the cause of both the falling incomes and the physical destruction of the resource itself. It is not very hard to see what will happen under those circumstances. There will be demands on the taxpayer, on the government of the day, to put forward taxpayers' money to achieve the buy-outs which could have been achieved in an earlier period by the surplus internally generated from the industry itself. Under those circumstances, those who are most lacking in financial strength will be the ones who will be picked off most easily and forced out under much less favourable circumstances than those under which they would leave the industry if the teeth were left in the proposal; that is, if the voluntary attrition or buy-back does not work, there will be an across the board reduction in the units in 1990 or from 1990 onwards. As the Minister in this Government who has the primary responsibility for the expenditure of taxpayers' money, I serve warning that, if I am still around when this happens, I do not believe that any responsible Finance Minister or responsible government could allow taxpayers' money to be used in 1990 to achieve a much less favourable or desirable outcome than that which could have been achieved without further injections of taxpayers' money in the period between now and 1990 if this proposal was not to be disallowed. It is to be disallowed. There is no logic in the arguments that have been put up by those who have spoken in favour of the motion and will support it; there is just a lot of political opportunism, a lot of ignorance and a lot of traditional National Party nee Country Party betrayal of the interests of the very people it purports to represent, as well as a betrayal of the national interest. The dairy industry debacle is about to be reported on a smaller scale. This has been initiated by the successors of those who presided over the dairy industry debacle. Those who will amend, so that it effectively disallowed, the worthwhile portions of this package deal are culpable. I cannot tell the Senate what Mr Kerin will do if the proposal is emasculated. For the sake of the people in the industry, the nation and the taxpayers of the future, to whom there is a high probability of a large bill being presented at some time, albeit probably not paid, I hope that he can salvage something worthwhile from the wreckage. In closing, I repeat what I said at the beginning: What this proposal does is to leave intact the features of the package deal which really should not have been there in the first place and take out the ones that ensure that the desirable objectives of it would be achieved. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(10.18) —in reply-In rising to close this debate, I thank Senators Kilgariff, Archer, Powell and Macklin for their support. They have addressed the problem with a positive attitude, unlike the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) who put down a vitriolic attack on the fishing industry, the National Party of Australia and anyone who did not agree with him. He came into this chamber on the run, believing that he owns all knowledge of all rural industries because he is a wheat farmer from Doodlakine. That implies that he is the fountain of all knowledge for all rural industries, and that is something which we do not accept. He has not addressed the problem because he does not understand it. He came in here on the run, with a briefing from the officers of the fishing industry section, and put down a vitriolic attack on the National Party. For some reason, which is obvious every time he comes into the Senate including Question Time, he puts the boot into the National Party at every opportunity. He has some hangup about the National Party. Senator Walsh —Yes, it disgusts me. It always has. Senator BOSWELL —You always have. Yet you have never been able to persuade any rural industry to support the Australian Labor Party. The rural industries know that members of the Labor Party are a bunch of socialists hell bent on destroying every rural industry in Australia. That is why, although you are a rural representative, you have never been able to persuade even one rural industry to support the Labor Party. You are an abject failure in representing the rural industries in the Senate. Let us look at some of the problems that you have not picked up. What happens to a one boat fisherman with, for example, a 60-foot boat with 400 units? In the Minister's words, in 1990 that fisherman will voluntarily have to surrender his units. I say that there is nothing voluntary about it. The Government is acquiring his units without paying any compensation. The Government is putting a gun at his head and saying: `Surrender the units'. That person is left with two ways out. If he is a wealthy man and has some money in the bank, he can go out and buy another 160 units to replace the 40 per cent that he has lost. At the moment those units are selling for about $1,000. He can then buy another $160,000 worth of units and go back into fishing. His alternative, if he is not a wealthy fisherman, is to sell the remaining 240 units that he has and get $240,000 for them. He is then left with a trawler that is probably worth $500,000 but which is in reality absolutely worthless and useless because it cannot be used in any other fishery in Australia. This is all from a party that is supposed to represent the battler, a party that is supposed to represent the worker. You have never had any sympathy for the worker or for the person who goes out and builds up the wealth of this nation. You have always hated that sort of person and nothing has changed in your address tonight. You have left that man without any form of earning a living, and that is something that no one on this side of Parliament can tolerate, and they will not tolerate it. That is why you are going to be done like a duck dinner. You have not got the numbers. Rather than accept it like a man, you cry like a baby. The other point that you have overlooked, or have not brought up, is that a lot of those boats are duly licensed, and if their owners lose the right to fish in the Gulf, which is a Commonwealth water, they will fish on the east or west coasts of Australia, where they are licensed. All you will have done is to take the fishing effort out of the Gulf and put it in the Torres Strait. So there will be another 100 boats ripping the guts out of the Torres Strait and ploughing up and down the Torres Strait and the east coast of Australia. All you will have done is solve your problem, the Commonwealth's problem, and sent the pass straight back to the States. If you think that is solving the problem, you do not understand the industry. But you have not thought of that. You have run in here between meetings and grabbed a briefing on the run. After five minutes you believe that you know everything about the industry. You have not even thought about it, and there are two points that you have not addressed. The third point that you have not addressed is that 12 boats have already been sold out of the industry and the sale of another 30 or 40 is being negotiated at the moment. There are inquiries from East Africa, Madagascar, Burma and the Middle East. People are trying to buy the boats, and a number of them will be sold to these people who wish to acquire them. So the industry will adjust itself. The other point that you missed is that because of this voluntary surrender scheme, you have given the voluntary adjustment scheme absolutely no chance to work, because there are very few excess units out there to be bought. You have driven the price up from $450 to $1,000 and to $2,000. People are desperate to buy those units so that they can stay in the industry. You have made those units worth their weight in gold and you have given the voluntary adjustment scheme absolutely no chance to work. You have never thought that through. You have never thought anything through. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —Order! Senator Boswell, will you please address your remarks through the Chair? Senator BOSWELL —I am sorry, Madam Acting Deputy President. I will close my remarks now, because I believe the fishing industry wants a decision tonight. The people in the industry are really interested in their industry. If this motion is not carried at least 100 of them will be on the bankruptcy list and in the dole queues in the near future. Question put: That the motion (Senator Boswell's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 5 —— Archer, B. R. Macklin, M. J. Baume, Michael Mason, C. V. J. Baume, Peter Messner, A. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Newman, J. M. Boswell, R. L. D. Parer, W. R. Brownhill, D. G. C. Powell, J. F. Carrick, Sir John Puplick, C. J. G. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Durack, P. D. Sanders, N. K. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Sheil, G. Haines, J. Siddons, J. R. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. Hill, R. Vanstone, A. E. Jessop, D. S. Walters, M. S. Kilgariff, B. F. Watson, J. O. W. Lewis, A. W. R. Withers, R. G. MacGibbon, D. J. Aulich, T. Giles, P. J. Bolkus, N. Jones, G. N. Button, J. N. McIntosh, G. D. Childs, B. K. McKiernan, J. P. Coates, J. Maguire, G. R. Coleman, R. N. Morris, J. Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCooney, B. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Crowley, R. A. Ryan, S. M. Devlin, R. Sibraa, K. W. Elstob, R. C. Tate, M. C. Evans, Gareth Walsh, P. A. Foreman, D. J. West, S. M. Gietzelt, A. T. Zakharov, A. O. Alston, R. K. R. Black, J. R. Knowles, S. C. Colston, M. A. Teague, B. C. Richardson, G. F. Collard, S. J. Reynolds, M. (Senator Chaney did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Grimes). Question so resolved in the affirmative. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being after 10.30 p.m., I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.31 p.m. The following papers are tabled: Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act-Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 67. Broadcasting and Television Amendment Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 57. Canberra College of Advanced Education Act-Statute-No. 61-Courses and awards amendment 1987, dated 13 April 1987. First Home Owners Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 68. Papua New Guinea (Staffing Assistance) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 63. Radiocommunications Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 61. Radiocommunications (Receiver Licence Tax) Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 59. Radiocommunications (Transmitter Licence Tax) Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 58. Radiocommunications (Temporary Permit Tax) Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 60. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Ordinances 1987- No. 13-Magistrates Court (Civil Jurisdiction) (Amendment). No. 14-Small Claims (Amendment). No. 15-Testamentary Guardianship (Amendment). Regulations 1987- No. 3-Juries Fees (Amendment). Sex Discrimination Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 56. States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act-Amendment to the schedules to the subsidy scheme in relation to the States, dated 27 April 1987. Superannuation Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 62. Therapeutic Goods Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 64. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 1527) Senator Hamer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 17 November 1986: (1) What restrictive work practices are in force at the Overseas Telecommunications Commission, which, in the opinion of management, reduce productivity without any compensatory safety or industrial health benefits. (2) What restrictive work practices in force at the Overseas Telecommunications Commission, while having some safety or industrial health benefits, are done in such a way that comparable benefits could be achieved with less loss of productivity. (3) What new restrictive work practices, of the type noted above, have come into force in the last year. (4) What restrictive work practices, of the type noted above, have been eliminated in the past year and what have been the benefits to productivity in each case. (5) Has the management advised the Minister for Communications of the total annual cost of these restrictive work practices; if so, what is the total annual cost of these restrictive work practices. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on advice from the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia): (1) and (2) OTC has recently been conducting an examination within all of its clerical, technical and professional areas to identify restrictive work practices. When this process is completed discussions and consultation will take place at the workplace and with union officials on the removal of identified restrictive work practices. (3) None that have been identified. (4) Discussions are yet to take place with relevant unions. (5) OTC envisages that the review of work practices has the potential to reduce the costs of their operation in the longer-term. Potential benefits have not yet been quantified. (Question No. 1594) Senator Puplick asked the Minister representing the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 18 February 1987: (1) Is it a fact that the home rented for Australia's Ambassador for Disarmament, Richard Butler, might be described, truthfully, in an historical, architectural and social environment fashion as a ``palace''. (2) What is the rent per month, in Australian dollars, being paid for Mr Butler's palace. (3) How is this expense to the Australian taxpayer justified. (4) On what date was the contract signed to rent this palace for Mr Butler and how many days have elapsed since Mr Butler took up residence to the date of drafting the answer to this question. (5) On how many of these days has Mr Butler actually resided in his palace. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) No, the Ambassador for Disarmament occupies an official residence at 145 Route De Lausanne, 1197 Prangins. The house is a three storey building with a floor area of approximately 340 square metres, this is within established guidelines of 375 square metres for comparable Australian Ambassadorial residences. The house could not be described in an ``historical architectural and social environmental fashion'' as a ``palace''. (2) The rent for the building which is used as the official residence is SF16,138 which at the present rate of exchange is AUD16,304 per month. (3) The official Residence for the Ambassador for Disarmament was leased at market rental. (4) The lease commenced on 20 March 1984, the date on which the Ambassador took up residence. The lease had therefore been in effect for 1075 days on 1 March 1987. (5) The Ambassador and his family have used the official residence as their permanent place of living since 20 March 1984. In this time, the Ambassador has been required to attend disarmament consultations in other countries including New York and, accordingly has been absent from Geneva on official duty approximately 300 days. (Question No. 1599) Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 17 February 1987: (1) Can the Minister for Primary Industry inform the Senate of the number of agricultural export transactions carried out by the European Community (EC) since 17 September 1985 which have relied on subsidies to secure contracts. (2) Can the Minister identify the commodities involved in each transaction, the market in which that commodity was disposed of, the value and volume of each transaction, the amount of subsidy provided by the EC in each instance, and how much the eventual transaction by the Europeans undercut prevailing world prices. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The EC is currently the world's second largest exporter of agricultural products, behind the United States. It is however, the largest exporter of a number of major products, including butter, cheese, beef, wheat flour, egg products, poultry meat and wine. Under the EC system of agricultural price support and market management, export subsidies are payable to dispose of product on world markets whenever world prices are lower than internal EC prices. EC prices have been higher than world prices for all but brief and exceptional periods since the full implementation of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in the late 1960s. The result has been that, since then, nearly every export transaction entered into by EC traders for products covered by the CAP has required the aid of export subsidies. Further information on the products covered by the CAP is given in the answer to the second part of the question. Unit subsidy rates are usually adjusted by EC Commission market management committees weekly or fortnightly in line with fluctuations in world prices and exchange rates. These rates are set for particular product varieties and can also vary by export destination. The complexity of the resulting system is exemplified in the case of milk products where there are 374 product/destination categories. The system also allows EC traders to ``pre-fix'' subsidy levels in advance of a sale. The period for which the subsidy may be pre-fixed also varies by commodity and by destination. EC expenditure under the CAP is financed through advanced payments transferred each month by the Commission to the Member States of the EC. These then distribute the funds among the various paying agencies who deal directly with beneficiaries, whether these be farmers or traders. Details of individual sales are not made public as a matter of course and would be regarded by the EC as commercially confidential information. From the foregoing it can be seen that it is not possible to provide details of the number of transactions carried out by the EC which have relied on subsidies to secure contracts. (2) Almost all products covered by the Common Agricultural Policy are eligible for the provision of subsidies on exports to non-EC markets. These include cereals, beef and veal (certain products), pigmeat (certain products), eggs and poultry, olive oil and oilseeds, sugar, wine, fruit and vegetables and tobacco. No export support is available for flax and hemp and, although provision exists for subsidies on exports of sheepmeat, none have been applied since the inception of the sheepmeat regime in October 1980. More detailed information on the products eligible for export support measures is provided in Attachment A. Details of the total volume and value of EC agricultural exports by destination are normally available only for calendar year periods. Information for the period since 17 September 1985 ie for calendar 1986, has not yet been released by the EC Commission. Although information on the levels of aggregate export subsidies for all eligible products will eventually be released by the European Commission in Brussels, it will not be possible to obtain details of all transactions involving export subsidies, by product and by market. Nevertheless, in order to give an indication of the magnitude of particular export subsidies, details of such subsidies per unit for a number of major products destined for specific markets are provided in Attachment B. These products are beef, butter, cheddar cheese, SMP, wheat and sugar. On an aggregate level, in 1985 EC export subsidies for agricultural products totalled 6,588 million European Currency Units (ECU), or 33.8 per cent of total agricultural support, and in 1986 were budgeted at 8,470 million ECU, or 39.1 per cent of total EC agricultural support. It should be noted that agricultural support in this context refers to that provided by the Commission. It does not include support provided by individual member states on a national basis. An indication of the relative importance of export subsidies for particular products can be gauged from details of export subsidies and intervention support for major products or groups of products for 1985 and 1986 provided in Attachment C. It is noteworthy that, in 1985, the bulk of export subsidies (almost 88 per cent) were allocated to exports of cereals, sugar, dairy products and beef and veal. It is not possible to give a precise estimate of the amount by which EC export prices undercut prevailing world prices because of a lack of full knowledge of all EC export transactions. It should also be noted that a universally acknowledged world price for a particular agricultural commodity over a period of time is difficult to define. There are quality differentials within some product groups and exports to particular markets can sometimes attract premiums over exports of the same product to other markets. As a result, any ``world price series'' will be indicative at best. An indicative price series for sugar, and the GATT minimum prices for butter, cheese and skim milk powder (SMP) are provided in Attachment D to give some guide as to the relative size of EC export subsidies. Similar series for world beef and wheat prices would, however, be difficult to construct. For beef, the world market essentially divides into those importers free of foot and mouth disease, and those not free. Two distinct price structures result with exports to the foot and mouth free markets attracting a premium compared to exports to other markets. In the main, the EC does not ship significant quantities to Australia's major markets in the foot and mouth free markets of the Pacific Basin. This is due partly to the assurance given by the EC not to apply export subsidies to exports of beef to selected East and South East Asian markets (the Andriessen Assurance). In the non-foot and mouth free markets, the EC is currently the major supplier and so is the price setter in these markets. For wheat, the availability of subsidised product from both the United States (US) and the EC has led to substantial price discounting with a consequent distortion of overall world prices. PRODUCTS ELIGIBLE FOR EC EXPORT SUBSIDIES PRODUCT Cereals 1 Durum wheat, 2 Common wheat, 3 Barley, 4 Rye, 5 Maize, 6 Maslin, 7 Oats, 8 Buckwheat, 9 Sorghum, 10 Millet, 11 Canary seed, 12 Wheat and maslin flour, 13 Rye flour, 14 Common wheat groats and meal, 15 Durum wheat groats and meal. Rice, Milk and Dairy Products, Meat 1 Beef and veal (for certain products), 2 Pigmeat (for certain products), 3 Sheepmeat. Eggs and Poultry, Olive Oil and Oilseeds 1 Olive oil, 2 Colza/rapeseed, 3 Sunflower, 4 Soya beans. Sugar 1 Sugar beet, 2 Raw sugar, 3 White sugar, 4 Molasses. Wine, Fruit and Vegetables 1 Aubergines, 2 Cauliflowers, 3 Courgettes, 4 Cucumbers, 5 Tomatoes, 6 Apples, 7 Apricots, 8 Cherries, 9 Peaches, 10 Pears, 11 Plums, 12 Table grapes, 13 Clementines, 14 Lemons, 15 Mandarins, 16 Sweet oranges. Potatoes, Tobacco Processed Agricultural Products eg spaghetti (for certain products). EC EXPORT SUBSIDIES FOR SELECTED PRODUCTS Beef (Frozen Separated or Unseparated Hindquarters) Date Set-Subsidy level: North African, Near and Middle East third countries, except Canary Is, Ceuta and Melilla (ECU/100kg). 23 September 1985-131.5. 14 October 1986-131.5. 25 November 1986-118.5. SELECTED DAIRY PRODUCTS (ECU/100 KG) Date set Butter (a) Skim milk powder (SMP) (b) Cheddar cheese (c) October 1985... 137.19 85.86 32.27 May 1986... 137.19 85.86 90.52 January 1987... 137.19 102.00 90.52 (a) of a fat content by weight, of 62% or more but less than 78%; (b) of a fat content, by weight, not exceeding 11%; (c) for exports to Australia. SUGAR Date Amount of subsidy ECU/100kg Volume of exports tonnes 1985 September- 18... 39.997 53,250 25... 40.998 52,750 October- 2... 41.771 36,200 9... 42.480 58,600 16... 41.959 68,250 23... 42.770 26,050 30... 41.964 75,900 November- 6... 41.459 79,881 13... 41.850 21,000 20... 42.551 60,350 27... 42.543 40,800 December- 4... 42.471 77,250 11... 42.549 67,000 18... 42.739 83,000 1986 January- 2... 44.102 42,250 8... 43.717 69,700 15... 44.673 50,261 22... 44.450 79,500 29... 43.245 70,850 February- 5... 43.316 77,600 12... 43.678 73,750 19... 44.119 55,750 26... 44.173 78,000 March- 5... 43.290 75,800 12... 42.619 75,000 19... 41.991 71,850 April- 2... 38.745 77,000 9... 38.249 57,500 16... 40.659 46,650 23... 40.928 66,500 29... 41.002 43,250 May- 7... 40.106 75,000 14... 41.389 47,600 21... 42.900 59,250 28... 41.880 66,000 June- 4... 41.952 56,800 41.950 *4,500 11... 43.065 54,075 43.316 *4,250 19... 43.802 68,625 43.800 *14,000 25... 44.306 64,425 44.35 *33,000 July- 2... 44.721 34,895 44.697 *250 9... 45.254 19,550 45.254 *6,500 16... 45.200 49,950 45.184 *7,750 23... 43.900 *24,500 30... 43.979 24,000 August- 6... 42.971 24,500 13... 43.323 21,850 20... 44.791 26,850 27... 43.999 32,000 September- 3... 44.932 26,000 9... 44.986 31,650 17... 44.991 38,700 24... 44.610 38,500 October- 1... 45.081 56,000 8... 45.360 63,850 15... 45.072 64,720 22... 44.657 66,500 29... 44.411 40,500 November- 5... 43.888 79,000 12... 44.612 53,500 19... 44.680 63,500 26... 44.921 80,500 December- 3... 44.334 90,250 10... 45.602 60,250 17... 45.234 75,250 1987 January- 7... 45.495 61,500 14... 44.502 63,000 21... 45.038 69,000 28... 44.320 56,400 February- 4... 43.880 81,000 11... 43.956 68,250 18... 44.080 68,500 25... 43.699 103,000 * New Marketing Year. WHEAT (ECU/TONNE) Date Destination Common Wheat SAL (1), Ceuta, Mali Zones 11b and Canaries (2) OTC (3) (Other) 1985 September- 13... 31.00 . . 41.00 . . 27... 58.00 65.00 . . 78.00 (Algeria) October- 4... 60.00 67.00 . . . . 11... 60.00 67.00 . . . . 18... 61.00 68.00 71.00 . . 25... 65.00 72.00 . . 80.00 (Algeria) November- 1... 67.00 74.00 20.00 . . 8... 65.00 72.00 20.00 . . 15... 62.00 69.00 20.00 . . 22... 56.00 63.00 20.00 . . 29... 60.00 67.00 20.00 . . December- 6... 56.00 63.00 20.00 . . 12... 52.00 59.00 20.00 . . 20... 50.00 57.00 20.00 . . 1986 January- 10... 59.00 66.00 20.00 . . 17... 59.00 66.00 20.00 130.01 (Malta) 24... 63.00 70.00 20.00 . . 31... 64.00 71.00 20.00 . . February- 6... 69.00 76.00 10.00 . . 14... 70.00 77.00 10.00 . . 21... 73.00 77.00 10.00 15.00 (Maghreb) 28... 80.00 84.00 10.00 15.00 (Maghreb) March- 1... 80.00 84.00 10.00 15.00 (Maghreb) 7... 82.00 86.00 10.00 15.00 (Algeria) 13... 82.00 86.00 10.00 15.00 (Algeria) 21... 83.00 87.00 10.00 . . April- 4... 83.00 87.00 10.00 . . 84.00 88.00 13.00 . . 18... 84.00 88.00 13.00 . . May- 1... 90.00 94.00 13.00 . . 16... 90.00 94.00 13.00 . . 23... 86.00 90.00 13.00 . . June- 6... 45.00 49.00 13.00 . . 13... 45.00 49.00 13.00 . . 20... 52.00 56.00 13.00 . . 27... 74.00 78.00 13.00 . . July- 4... 74.00 78.00 13.00 . . 11... 74.00 78.00 13.00 . . 17... 77.00 81.00 13.00 . . 24... 80.00 84.00 90.00 110 (Zone VA) (4) August- 1... 90.00 . . 95.00 . . 8... 90.00 . . 95.00 . . 22... 95.00 . . 100.00 112.45 (Zone VA) (4) 29... 95.00 . . 100.00 110.00 (Burundi) 112.45 (Zone VA) (4) September- 5... 97.50 . . 20.00 112.45 (Burundi) 114.90 (Zone VA) (4) 19... 97.50 105.00 20.00 114.90 (Zone VA) (4) 26... 47.50 105.00 20.00 114.00 (Zone VA) (4) 127.50 (USSR) October- 3 103.00 120.00 20.00 128.00 (Turkey) 10... 110.00 120.00 20.00 32.00 (Tunisia) 17... 114.00 124.00 20.00 32.00 (Tunisia) 24... 116.00 126.00 132.00 32.00 (Tunisia) 31... 116.00 126.00 20.00 32.00 (Tunisia) November- 7... 116.00 126.00 20.00 . . 21... 122.00 128.00 20.00 . . 28... 122.00 128.00 20.00 . . December- 5... 122.00 128.00 15.00 25.00 (Yugoslavia) 32.00 (Tunisia) 19... 122.00 128.00 15.00 . . 1987 January- 9... 122.00 128.00 136.00 . . 16... 122.00 128.00 139.00 . . 23... . . . . . . 144.00 (USSR) 30... 122.00 128.00 15.00 . . February- 6... 122.00 128.00 15.00 . . 13... 121.00 127.00 . . . . 20... 121.00 127.00 . . . . 27... 121.00 127.00 . . . . March- 6... 121.00 127.00 . . . . 13... 121.00 127.00 . . . . (1) SAL: Switzerland, Austria, Liechtenstein (2) Zone 11b: Norway, Sweden, Finland, Faroe Islands, Iceland (3) Other Third Countries (4) West African Countries Attachment C EC AGRICULTURAL SUPPORT BY SECTOR (EXCLUDING MONETARY COMPENSATORY AMOUNTS) (MILLION ECU) Product 1985 Total Appropri- ations Export Subsidies Inter- vention Measures 1986 Total Appropri- ations Export Subsidies Inter- vention Measures Cereals ... 2,310.2 1,076.7 1,233.5 3,197.5 2,220.0 977.5 Rice ... 50.1 36.6 13.5 102.5 79.0 23.5 Sugar ... 1,804.5 1,352.8 451.7 1,642.0 1,188.0 454.0 Olive Oil ... 692.2 19.2 673.0 1,034.0 30.0 1,004.0 Oils and Fats ... 1,110.6 3.4 1,107.2 1,716.0 4.0 1,712.0 Protein Products ... 372.5 . . 372.5 495.0 . . 495.0 Textile Plants ... 240.6 . . 240.6 420.0 . . 420.0 Fruit and Vegetables ... 1,230.7 74.5 1,156.2 927.5 74.0 853.5 Wine ... 921.4 18.9 902.5 1,087.0 43.0 1,044.0 Tobacco ... 862.9 32.0 830.9 792.0 39.0 753.0 Seeds ... 46.4 . . 46.4 43.0 . . 43.0 Hops ... 8.2 . . 8.2 9.0 . . 9.0 Milk and Milk Products ... 5,933.2 2,028.2 3,905.0 6,100.0 2,704.0 1,556.0 Beef/Veal ... 2,745.8 1,338.6 1,407.1 2,682.0 1,313.0 1,369.0 Sheepmeat and Goat Meat ... 502.4 . . 502.4 526.0 . . 526.0 Pigmeat ... 165.4 102.9 62.5 220.0 131.0 89.0 Eggs and poultry meat ... 63.2 63.2 . . 131.0 131.0 . . Non-Annex II products ... 440.8 440.8 . . 514.0 514.0 . . Fishery products ... 16.1 -0.1 16.2 41.3 . . 41.3 TOTAL ... 19,517.2 6,587.7 12,929.5 21,680.8 8,470.0 13,210.8 Attachment d INDICATIVE WORLD PRICES Sugar: Monthly Average of International Sugar Agreement Daily Price Month Price (Cents (US) ...1b) ECU 100 kg (a) September 1985 ... 5.12 14.48 October ... 5.01 13.22 November ... 5.48 14.21 December ... 5.32 13.44 January 1986 ... 4.84 11.87 February ... 5.56 13.03 March ... 7.04 16.06 April ... 8.33 19.45 May ... 7.67 17.50 June ... 6.34 14.56 July ... 5.55 12.36 August ... 5.57 12.02 September ... 4.68 10.04 October ... 5.39 11.42 November ... 5.95 12.74 December ... 5.70 12.05 January 1987 ... 6.44 12.77 February ... (a) Equivalent price in ECU. Based on monthly average of exchange rates. DAIRY PRODUCTS: GATT INTERNATIONAL DAIRY AGREEMENT MINIMUM EXPORT PRICES BUTTER $US/tonne ECU/100 kg (a) CHEESE $US/tonne ECU/100 kg (a) SMP $US/tonne ECU/100 kg (a) 5-6-85 to 1-10-86 ... 1,000 111.92 1,000 111.92 600 67.15 2-10-86 on ... 1,000 93.38 1,030 96.18 680 63.50 (a) Based on simple average of exchange rate (Question No. 1715) Senator Morris asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 1 April 1987: (1) Is the Minister for Industry, Technology & Commerce aware of an attempt by the National Information Technology Council to establish an Australian microcomputer system. (2) What assistance can the Government give to this project. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is an follows: Yes, I am aware of involvement by the National Information Technology Council in the development of specifications for computer systems for Australian schools. Over the past three years, the National Advisory Committee on Computers in Schools, which was set up by the Commonwealth Schools Commission, has prepared two reports on the user needs and technical specifications for future school computer systems. As part of the government's Computers in Schools program, the Department of Industry, Technology & Commerce has had the responsibility to ensure that Australian computer companies have the opportunity to provide a commercial perspective and commentary on these reports. The Department has provided funding to the National Information Technology Council to coordinate this industry input. The honourable senator is no doubt referring to recent press reports arising from the Council's advertisement. The outcome of the educator reports and the commercial perspectives will be to provide a set of guidelines on the role of computers in schools and to detail the sorts of technology which will underlie the next generation of school computers. By involving Australian computer software and hardware companies in the exercise, the Government is giving them the opportunity to develop systems which would meet the requirements of the next generation of Australian school computers. Senator Walsh —On 24 February 1987 (Hansard, page 495) Senator Powell asked me as the Minister representing the Minister for Communications the following question without notice: When will the Government complete the drafting of guidelines on public television broadcasting which commenced in 1981? When will the Government implement Australian Labor Party policy which supports public television broadcasting? What is the Government's timetable for the provision of suitable broadcasting facilities for those groups to start broadcasting? The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Draft guidelines for public television were put to the Broadcasting Council for comment in 1981. The Guidelines did not proceed further because of unresolved issues relating to channel sharing and the manner of funding Public Television. These issues are currently receiving further consideration and are expected to be completed for reconsideration by Broadcasting Council during 1987. The Government is currently considering proposals put to it recently for public television services. A number of questions still need to be resolved. I expect to be in a position within the next few months to announce whether proposals will proceed and, if so, in what form.