Wednesday, 27 May 1987 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 10 a.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 respectfully showeth: That we consider the 2% discounting of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Scheme pension adjustments on 10 October 1986 to be a serious breach of trust by the Government. The Commonwealth has reneged on an established commitment as incorporated in Commonwealth legislation and benefit promise pensions are not being paid in full. In particular we resent the long-term effect of the discounting. The pension loss is compounded throughout the life of a pensioner and surviving dependants-into the 21st century for many. We consider this Government-induced penalty to be out of all proportion to the short-term ``extraordinary circumstances of the economy'' given as the reason for the discounting. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should urge the Government to: 1. Limit the pension discounting effect of the Superannuation and Other Benefits Legislation Amendment Act 1986 to the period 10 Oct. 86 to 1 July 87 so that pensions are restored to the 9 Oct. 86 level as a base for the 1987 pension adjustment; and 2. consult with organisations representing pensioners before changing the terms and conditions of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Schemes. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Alston (from 12 citizens), Michael Baume (from 108 citizens), Peter Baume (from 19 citizens), Brownhill (from 151 citizens), Sir John Carrick (from 11 citizens), Chaney (from six citizens), Childs (from 35 citizens), Collard (from seven citizens), Gareth Evans (from 31 citizens), Gietzelt (from 81 citizens), Hamer (from 22 citizens), MacGibbon (from 76 citizens), Reid (from nine citizens), Robertson (from 289 citizens), Short (from 26 citizens) and Vallentine (from eight citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The 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 Michael Baume (from 12 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned 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 Dependant Spouse Rebate to $1851 per annum and convert it to a cash payment given directly to the non-income family 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 Black (from 1,995 citizens) and Robertson (from 262 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we the undersigned, having great concern because of the spread of moral pollution in our nation call upon the Government to introduce immediate legislation: 1. To provide strict controls over importation, production, sale, hire or mailing of video-cassettes with the open sale of only G, PG and M rated video-cassettes; and the total prohibition of the sale of R rated video-cassettes; and the total prohibition of the sale of R rated video-cassettes so that R rated films can only be viewed in an adult theatre by persons over 18 years. We totally reject the concept of ``X'' rated video-cassettes which would allow the legal sale of hard-core pornographic films for screening in the homes of our nation, which endanger our children. 2. To dramatically improve the Federal Attorney-General's Guidelines for Classification of Video tapes/discs which restrict the importation, production, sale or hire, screening in private homes and mailing by Australia Post so as to include the total prohibition of any pornographic, obscene or blasphemous video cassette, or film containing child pornography, bestiality, sodomy, group sex, violent sex acts with women, such as rape and pack rape, sadism and torture, etc. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will protect our society, especially women and children from moral pollution and its harmful effects. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Michael Baume (from 28 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: The Hawke Labor Government's high tax policies and the introduction of any new taxes including a wealth tax on the net wealth of individual Australians and Australian business is totally condemned and opposed. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should: Not introduce an investment destroying wealth tax into the Senate. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 32 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned shows that there is an urgent need for Commonwealth financial assistance for the provision of multicultural public library services. Your petitioners request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should take steps to ensure adequate assistance from the Commonwealth Government to public libraries throughout Australia for the provision of materials and services in languages other than English, as recommended by the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts in its Report on a National Language policy. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 40 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 concern by farmers and consumers, 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. (2) Ban the import of cobalt-60 and caesium-137 and caesium-134 to be used to irradiate food products. (3) Ban the import of all machinery used for food irradiation (electron beam, X ray etc.) (4) Ban the importation and sale of irradiated food in Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 16 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that: 1. There is no legal barrier to the importation of X-rated videos into the A.C.T. or to their sale in the A.C.T. 2. The Government has ignored the repeated protests of the Senate and the people of Canberra on this situation. 3. As a result X-rated videos are being sold from Canberra to other States, although they are banned in all States. Your petitioners therefore ask the Senate to put pressure on the Government to ban the importation and sale of X-rated video material. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Reid (from 221 citizens) and Ryan (from 100 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: We, the undersigned are deeply concerned at the impact of the new Fringe Benefits Tax on the following grounds: 1. its severe and damaging effect on business confidence, investment and incentive, especially in the rural, mining and small business sectors. 2. its capacity to seriously worsen unemployment through the additional costs it imposes. 3. its extremely negative impact on the competitiveness of export industries at a time when the nation desperately needs to improve its trading performance. 4. in that it may compel many honest and decent citizens to defy Tax in order to preserve their livelihoods, their businesses and the jobs of their employees, thus causing hardship, the breakdown of respect for the law and discord within the community. We therefore most earnestly petition you to repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax Legislation forthwith. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 40 citizens). To the President and members of the Senate. The petition of the undersigned do respectfully showeth that pornographic material relating to children is deleterious to the health and welfare of children and society as a whole. We respectfully urge the Government to ban all child pornography from entering or from being produced, in Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Giles (from 351 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: The Hawke Labor Government's ID card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation ever, and that on all the evidence available will not tackle in the most cost-efficient and effective manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should: Reject Labor's ID card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayers' money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from two citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: We the undersigned, (i) are greatly disturbed by the dangers to health posed by passive smoking, and evidence of which is being documented daily by medical authorities around the world; (ii) note that environmental tobacco smoke has been identified as the major pollutant in aeroplane cabins, and that its direct threat to health is recognised in the special leave provisions for flight attendants specifically on grounds of upper respiratory infections; (iii) appreciate the government's undertaking to legislate for smoke-free travel on aeroplanes, but are dismayed at the apparent reluctance to follow up the Minister for Aviation's December announcement with action; and (iv) call upon the government to make smoke-free aeroplane travel a reality without further delay, and to ensure that smoke-free areas which cannot be contaminated by recycled pollutions, are available at all aerodromes. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 300 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: We the undersigned citizens, call on the Commonwealth Government to introduce a ban on smoking on flights of 90 minutes or less. This ban should be introduced irrespective of the stand-off attitudes adopted by the airlines at present. by Senator Vallentine (from 124 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: (1) That we are totally opposed to the introduction of the Labor Government's Australia Card. (2) That this form of national and compulsory identification will be intrusive, costly for taxpayers and business and will not be effective in combatting the growing problems of tax evasion, illegal immigrants or social security. (3) That we are deeply concerned at the Labor Government's inability to provide effective and efficient methods to combat tax and social security fraud without resorting to expensive, ineffective and authoritarian measures which are alien to the Australian way of life. (4) That we call upon the Labor Government to improve management systems within the Australian Taxation Office and other departments to crack down on tax evasion and fraudulent practices. by Senator Reid (from 14 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled and to the Australian Government. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out that: foreign warships visiting Australian ports give acceptability to the increasing militarisation of the Indian and Pacific Oceans; W.A. endures a visit of a foreign warship on average every 1.5 weeks; a situation of de facto `home-porting' facilities exists in W.A.; there is increasing citizen concern that nuclear armed/nuclear powered warships put Australian ports and people at risk in many ways. Your petitioners humbly pray that: The Australian Government refuse entry to Australian ports to all foreign warships. by Senator Vallentine (from 27 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Uranium mining and processing is dangerous to the health and well-being and ecology of the Earth and its citizens, By-products of uranium are toxics for periods of up to 500,000 years, and are an intrinsic part of the production of nuclear weapons, Existing safeguards are inadequate, and are not properly monitored. The policy of the Australian Government permits the entry into Australian territory of vessels and aircraft without the assurance that they are not nuclear powered or armed. Such vessels pose a threat to both the security and well-being of Australia and its citizens. The presence of foreign military and communication bases on Australian soil seriously endangers the health and well-being of Australia and its citizens. Your petitioners humbly pray that your honourable Senators will take cognisance of the above and take immediate action to remove the above dangers. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Vallentine (from 164 citizens). To the Honourable 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 43 citizens). To the Honourable the President of the Senate in Parliament assembled. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Parliament assembled, should be aware that a significant number of Australians: Strongly protest that the Department of Social Security pays married-rate benefits to persons who are under the age of consent and living in a de-facto relationship involving the crimes of defilement and unlawful carnal knowledge, and strongly protest the 1985 decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal which effectively encourages young people to leave home, establish a de-facto relationship, and then be paid $202.30 a week for their activities. Accordingly, your petitioners call upon their elected representatives to rectify this abhorrent practice. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Michael Baume (from 108 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That the confinement of laying hens in battery cages is cruel and unnecessary and totally ignores the welfare of the birds. The aviary system of egg production approved by R.S.P.C.A. allows the birds to exercise, socialise, lay eggs in nests and move quite freely. Offers protection from the elements and predators, permits excellent disease and parasite control and enables easy supervision. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled should: Request the Government to introduce a Bill to phase out the battery method of egg production within five years and where appropriate offer tax deductible incentives to producers to do so. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 380 citizens). Petitions received. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Archives Act 1983, the Senate choose Senator Reid to be a member of the Advisory Council on Australian Archives from 7 June 1987 for a period up to, and including, 6 June 1990. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the following Bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 to provide for the filling of casual vacancies in the House of Representatives and for related purposes. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate notes with concern the Queensland Government's decision to allow mining on, and the destruction of, Moreton Island; notes that a recent report by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs concluded that the Federal Government has the power to halt sand mining on Moreton Island; and calls on the Government to give urgent consideration to the Australian Democrats' Moreton Island Preservation Bill which will prevent mining on Moreton Island. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) recalls that in April there was much confusion arising from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's frustrated intention to broadcast live an Easter Monday Victorian Football League fixture; (b) notes that it has yet to receive an answer to a question without notice following the ABC's formal complaint about the exclusivity of contract which prevented it from broadcasting the Essendon-Sydney Swans fixture; (c) notes further that there are no controls over the extent of ownership of video and audio entertainment and information services, nor is there any requirement that these operators be fit and proper persons; and (d) recognises these latest failures as further examples of this Government's media muddles and further evidence of the need for a comprehensive inquiry into the media. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —I table papers 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. Australian Capital Territory Health Authority-annual report 1985-86-together with the Auditor- General's Report-pursuant to sub-section 63m (3) of the Audit Act 1901. 2. Housing Assistance Act 1984-annual report 1985-86-pursuant to section 16 of the Housing Assistance Act 1984. 3. Program Management and Performance Review of the Australian War Memorial-report. 4. Merino Export Review Committee-final report. Senator BOLKUS(South Australia)(10.10) —I move: That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs- (a) the nature, function, ambit and adequacy of income tax rulings issued by the Commissioner of Taxation; and (b) the process by which these rulings are formulated and disseminated. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator BOLKUS —I seek leave to make a statement. Leave granted. Senator BOLKUS —On 1 December 1982 the Australian Taxation Office introduced a taxation ruling system. This system was established as a means of publishing and disseminating decisions on interpretation of the laws administered by the Commissioner of Taxation. The system was instituted to enable the Commissioner to fulfil the obligations imposed by the Freedom of Information Act 1982, to make available for public scrutiny copies of documents which are used by his officers in making decisions. The system of taxation rulings is, of course, not new. As early as the 1930s the Taxation Office used to publish what were known as income tax orders. In fact, one of these rulings is still operative. It is known as Income Tax Order 1217 and it sets out the rates of depreciation determined by the Commissioner of Taxation. Similarly, the publication of taxation rulings is not new. In 1965 the Commissioner of Taxation issued a series of public information bulletins setting out the manner in which the then new taxation discretions would be exercised. However, this practice did not last long. The last of those public information bulletins was issued in 1966. The present system of income tax rulings may fairly be said to be a product of the Freedom of Information Act. The authority to issue these income tax rulings is generally thought to stem from the power of general administration of the taxation legislation. The rulings are essentially designed for use by the Commissioner's staff. Taxation rulings have replaced memoranda and other forms of advice from the central office of the Australian Taxation Office, relating to new or considered interpretations of taxation laws. They are issued in respect of decisions which satisfy three conditions, decisions which provide an interpretation, guideline, precedent, practice or procedure to be followed in making a decision that effects the rights or liabilities of taxpayers; establish a new or revised interpretation of the administration of the tax laws; and affect all taxpayers or a section of the tax-paying community, that is, not simply an individual instance. Since 15 February 1984 the Commissioner of Taxation has met regularly with what is known as the tax liaison group, representing the principal professional bodies with which the Australian Taxation Office has frequent dealings. The purpose of these meetings is to allow the various parties to air their views on current issues within the taxation area. In late 1986, the Commissioner indicated that he would, in future, be circulating draft copies of the more significant tax rulings to the professional bodies involved with the tax liaison group and to some other appropriate organisations prior to their release to the public. The rulings have consequently become an agenda item at meetings of the tax liaison group. The Committee is aware that the present system of rulings is not universally acclaimed. For example, the Commissioner's income tax rulings are not binding, as they cannot replace the law or take on the status of law. There are suggestions, however, that the rulings should be binding. For this among other reasons the Committee wishes to examine the nature, status and operation of the rulings. The Committee is also aware of criticisms of the consultative process leading up to the issuing of rulings. These criticisms have come from groups which claim that their interests are not adequately represented. The Committee wishes to examine and evaluate the procedure by which rulings come into operation in order to assess the validity of these criticisms. The Committee is mindful of the need to confine its deliberations to the specific matters set out in the proposed reference. Accordingly-this will be of interest to Senator Haines, amongst others-the Committee will conduct its enquiries with a view to reporting to the Senate in the Budget sitting. I promise to send Senator Haines a copy. Restoration to Notice Paper Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) proposed: That the second reading of the Broadcasting Amendment Bill 1986 be an Order of the Day for the next day of sitting. Question put. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator The Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 32 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Aulich, T. Jones, G. N.Black, J. R. McKiernan, J. P.Bolkus, N. Maguire, G. R.Childs, B. K. Ray, RobertCoates, J. Reynolds, M.Colston, M. A. Robertson, M. (Teller)Cook, P. F. S. Ryan, S. M.Crowley, R. A. Sibraa, K. W.Devlin, R. Tate, M. C.Elstob, R. C. Walsh, P. A.Evans, Gareth West, S. M.Foreman, D. J. Zakharov, A. O.Giles, P. J. Alston, R. K. R. Macklin, M. J.Archer, B. R. Mason, C. V. J.Baume, Michael Messner, A. J.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Newman, J. M.Boswell, R. L. D. Parer, W. R.Collard, S. J. Powell, J. F.Durack, P. D. Puplick, C. J. G.Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Sanders, N. K.Haines, J. Sheil, G.Hamer, D. J. Short, J. R.Hill R. Teague, B. C.Jessop, D. S. Townley, M.Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Vanstone, A. E.Knowles, S. C. Vigor, D. B.Lewis, A. W. R. Walters, M. S.MacGibbon, D. J. Withers, R. G. Richardson, G. F. Crichton-Browne, N. A.McIntosh, G. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Cooney, B. Chaney, F. M.Button, J. N. Baume, P. E.(Senator Reid did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Grimes). Question so resolved in the negative. Restoration to Notice Paper Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That the second reading of the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986 be an Order of the Day for the next day of sitting. Restoration to Notice Paper Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That consideration of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1986 in Committee of the Whole be an Order of the Day for the next day of sitting. Debate resumed from 14 May, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(10.20) —On 14 May we began debate on this package of Aboriginal land rights and related Bills. At the time I was addressing the bulk of my comments to the Aboriginal Land (Lake Condah and Framlingham Forest) Bill 1987 and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Amendment Bill 1987 because these two Bills result from the reference to the Commonwealth Parliament of legislation relating to Aboriginal land rights and cultural heritage from the Victorian Government. This was necessary because the Victorian Government, having engaged in extensive consultations with the Vic- torian Aboriginal community on the issues of land rights for two particular Aboriginal communities in Victoria and on issues surrounding the protection and development of the cultural heritage of the Victorian Aboriginal communities, had prepared legislation in the form of three Bills for presentation and passage through the Victorian Parliament. Unfortunately that process came to a halt as a result of the attitude taken to this legislation by the Opposition parties in the Victorian Parliament. It is interesting to look at that and to understand that the reason why we now have these Bills before us today is that the Liberal and National parties in the Victorian Parliament were not prepared to pass legislation giving land rights to the Aboriginal communities at Lake Condah and Framlingham Forest and providing for the protection of the Aboriginal cultural heritage in Victoria. The Bills, as they were prepared in Victoria, were a package of three-the two land rights areas being taken separately and the third dealing with the cultural heritage issue. I have expressed concern that in following the reference to this Parliament the land rights legislation has been put together in a package of one Bill. I am concerned because the two communities involved are quite separate and there are differences in their nature. The Australian Democrats would have preferred the Commonwealth Parliament to deal with them separately in the same way as the Victorian Government had intended. However, we have satisfied ourselves that the passage of this legislation will not have any impact on the Framlingham community in the event that it does not take up the option provided for in this legislation for incorporation under the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976. Indeed, that has been a matter of great concern to that community because its preference was for the legislation to be passed in Victoria and, certainly, we would have supported that preference. It was interesting to note that there was an announcement this morning in the Melbourne Sun by Mr Lauchlan McIntosh, the Executive Director of the Australian Mining Industry Council, that should this legislation be passed the mining industry will go to a court of challenge. Mr McIntosh is quoted in this morning's Sun as saying that the land should have been handed over by State legislation to avoid confusion in this issue. I am in total agreement with that position, and I believe it is interesting that groups as diverse as the Aboriginal community in Framlingham, the Australian Democrats and the Australian Mining Industry Council all agree on that point. However, it being the case that the Victorian Government was unable to get support for this legislation from the Opposition parties, which attempted to carry out a campaign in the public arena through the Leader of the State Opposition, Mr Jeff Kennett, going around Victoria, in particular western Victoria, expressing opposition to, and making extravagant claims about the detrimental effects of, passing across ownership of inalienable rights to the land-a small parcel of land to which these Aboriginal communities certainly have a right-demonstrating the unwillingness of the Opposition parties to support this legislation, there was a reference to this Parliament. At that time the Australian Democrats expressed support for this reference. Since the reference to this Parliament we have been concerned to ensure that the legislation which comes before us satisfies the wishes of the Aboriginal communities as had been expressed through some years of extensive consultation in Victoria. We have been pleased to note that in relation to both the Aboriginal Land (Lake Condah and Framlingham Forest) Bill 1987 and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Amendment Bill 1987 there has been considerable continuing consultation with the Victorian communities and that once the Bills were drafted for this Parliament, the Government was further prepared to make more amendments to satisfy some of the concerns of the communities and their advisers. To point up the particular concerns which had been expressed in relation to the Aboriginal land rights legislation and the putting together of the two communities, we point out that although the two communities share much in their aboriginality they each have traditions which are distinct and, importantly, there is a difference in their structures. The Aboriginal land rights legislation before us today legislates to enable the two communities to secure their land but requires the communities to become incorporated under the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976 before they can receive their land. For the people of Lake Condah this presents no problem as they have been incorporated under the Commonwealth Act since 21 December 1984. For the Framlingham people, however, the situation is different because they are not as yet incorporated and they have presented to us their concerns about being incorporated under the Commonwealth Act. I understand that on a number of occasions the Framlingham community has pointed out to the Federal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) its wish not to be incorporated under the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act because it believes that under that Act the community control cannot operate to the degree to which it would want it. As well as that, the Framlingham community also expressed to me its concern about possible forthcoming amendments to the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976. In my inquiries into this the Minister informed me that the Government intends introducing an amending Bill this year. The concerns of the Framlingham community with regard to these amendments include the possibility of the Minister or his delegate having power to cease funding of an organisation if the Minister or his delegate believes that a director or staff person is not an appropriate person. It is also concerned that amendments may include other restrictions relating to the funding or granting of land. In the Minister's response to my inquiries on these matters he has informed me that the amending legislation will not give the Minister power to cease funding an organisation on the basis that the director is not an appropriate person. However, it will include a provision similar to the rules of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs relating to grants for assistance to or for Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders which prevents people who have recently been convicted of offences involving bankruptcy or fraud from holding office in Aboriginal corporations. The Minister further advises that under the proposed amendments Aboriginal organisations will be entitled to receive funds or land as long as they are incorporated under appropriate Commonwealth, State or Territory legislation. We believe that the amendments cover the concerns expressed to us by the Framlingham community and we recognise that under the legislation before us today, that community has the choice of whether or not to become incorporated under the Federal Councils and Associations Act. Should the community decide not to become incorporated they will need to consider returning to the Victorian Government in their efforts to gain title to their land. That decision remains theirs to make. The Australian Democrats have consulted with members of the Lake Condah and Framlingham communities and we believe that a number of questions and concerns which arose out of the redrafting involved in the transferring of Victorian legislation to the Commonwealth have been resolved. While we support the views of the Kerrup-Jmara and the Kirrae Whurrong communities that there should have been two separate pieces of legislation, we reiterate our commitment to Aboriginal land rights as set down in Australian Democrat policy and therefore support, in general terms, the passage of this legislation. I address some remarks in particular to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Amendment Bill 1987. It is vital that legislation such as this be enacted for the Victorian Aboriginal community and that we see it as a move towards the regeneration of the Aboriginal culture in Victoria. However, it is of some concern to us that in the legislation before us today, as was the case in the original legislation presented to the Victorian Parliament, quite a considerable degree of emphasis is placed on the concept of ownership in relation to the heritage and culture of the Aboriginal community. This runs counter to the Aboriginal culture, which is one not of ownership but of stewardship. Indeed, in the preamble to the Bill reference is made to the Aboriginal people of Victoria as being the rightful owners of their heritage. We believe that this sort of terminology is somewhat inappropriate in this kind of legislation because, as I said, one of its major purposes should be towards the regeneration of a culture which is uniquely Australian and one which we should all-the whole community, including Aboriginals and all cultural backgrounds-see as part of our own, since, whatever our cultural heritage and background, we are now all Australians. Strong elements of tribal values persist in Victoria despite enormous pressures on the original Aboriginal communities and culture in that State. Perhaps the strongest element is the continuing concept of stewardship, as opposed to ownership, of their Aboriginal culture and heritage. It is important that we, as a whole community, recognise the need to build the infrastructures of the Aboriginal community and to redevelop that cultural fabric in all of our interests, and that in order to do that, there is a need for a strong economic base for Aboriginal communities. It is encouraging to see that the development of such a base is well under way at Lake Condah. This is the sort of development which must be encouraged and, indeed, it is supported by the Australian Democrats. As I said, it is important when addressing issues of Aboriginal culture to see that culture as a feature of benefit to all sections of the community, so that in the end we can all share something which is part of our background. This and other land rights legislation has a history of extensive and intensive consultation throughout the Victorian Aboriginal community, a community which is in a sense regionalised, which has bases around the State and which has been brought together on several occasions in the interests of developing legislation which will have the best result for all, as far as such a result can be achieved in the current situation. There are more than 7,000 known Aboriginal sites throughout Victoria. The future of these sites and of the Aboriginal heritage as a whole is in our minds when we consider legislation of this kind. It is important that those elements of this legislation which allow members of the Aboriginal community to retain their ability to be the stewards of their own culture be strongly supported. Deserving of congratulations is the fact that the communities and the Government in Victoria have spent a good deal of time addressing the issues and coming up with a solution which, although not supported unanimously, does the very best it can in a diverse environment to provide protection and an ongoing program for, as I said, not just the preservation but also the development of Aboriginal culture in Victoria, a State where I suppose the Aboriginal community is not as visible as perhaps it is in some of the other States. I refer, in particular, to the Northern Territory, in regard to which we are also now debating Bills cognately. In spite of a great deal of stress on the Aboriginal culture since white settlement there are very strong Aboriginal cultural elements in Victoria. The Aboriginal community is struggling very hard, through its own initiatives and through co-operation such as this, to make sure that its heritage survives and is shared. I reiterate that the Bills before us have been referred to us from the Victorian Parliament because multipartisan support for it was not able to be achieved in Victoria. In the debate a couple of weeks ago it was pointed out by a Government senator that the situation in Victoria is similar to the situation in the Federal Parliament in that the Victorian Government does not have control of that State's upper House, the Legislative Council. However, there is one difference. In Victoria the Legislative Council numbers are held by the Opposition Liberal and National parties, which did not express support for this legislation and which campaigned publicly against the provision of inalienable land rights for the Victorian Aboriginal community. There is a major difference between the situation with Victoria's upper House and the situation here. In the Senate these Bills receive the support of the Australian Democrats because of our very strong commitment to Aboriginal land rights and related legislation. Regrettably, at this time the Victorian Parliament does not have the advantage of having the Australian Democrats hold the balance of power in the Legislative Council. I confidently expect that after the next Victorian State election that position will have changed. Certainly, if the Framlingham people choose-as it appears they might-not to incorporate under the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act and if they take their claim back to the Victorian Parliament, subsequent to the next Victorian election should there be a return of an Australian Labor Party government and the Australian Democrats have a position in the Legislative Council, the legislation should have a much more successful fate than it had earlier this year. There would have been no necessity for this matter to come to this Parliament had that parliamentary situation already been the case in Victoria. Twenty years ago black Australians were made Australian citizens. As we get into this debate again this is a significant anniversary. It is my pleasure to express support for these Bills on such an occasion and to express the support of the Australian Democrats for the national referendum which said that Aboriginal affairs should be in the hands of the Federal Government. I remind the Senate that over 90 per cent of Victorians supported that view and therefore, I believe, support the passage of these Bills. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(10.41) —The package of four Bills before the Senate, dealing with Aboriginal land rights and related issues, is very important in its totality. I wish to address my remarks, however, to only two of those Bills, namely the Aboriginal Land (Lake Condah and Framlingham Forest) Bill and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Amendment Bill. They relate very importantly to Aboriginal land rights and related issues, so far as artefacts and so on are concerned, in my State of Victoria. Some of the principles involved in the two Bills, of course, have much wider application. Let me say at the outset, to refute any implication that Senator Powell may have conveyed in her remarks, that the Liberal Party-as has every party in Australia, I believe-has a very strong commitment to appropriate, proper and right Aboriginal land rights. That is not an issue on which any one political party has a prerogative or monopoly of virtue. What we say, which is contrary to the thinking of Senator Powell and the Australian Democrats, is that there are proper ways of going about such matters and less than proper ways. So far as we are concerned the Bills before the chamber do not reflect the right way in which parliaments of Australia ought to be going about the very important process of furthering the bipartisan development of land rights legislation. I say that in relation to the two Bills I want to discuss because the reason given for the two Bills being before us now is that the Victorian Labor Government under Mr Cain put pressure on the Federal Labor Government to introduce these Bills into this Parliament as the Victorian Government was unable to get them through the Victorian Parliament. However, it was not totally the case that it was unable to get them through the Victorian Parliament; in the case of one of them, the Aboriginal Land (Lake Condah and Framlingham Forest) Bill, the Victorian Cain Government refused to put to the vote in the upper House in Victoria certain important amendments moved by the Opposition which would have greatly improved the nature of the Bill. Those amendments were not defeated; rather, the Government, in a cowardly fashion and in an attempt to score cheap political points, refused to put the amendments to the vote. As a result, it has further abrogated its responsibilities as the Victorian State Government and, to my mind, it has incredibly conned the Federal Government into introducing the Bills which are before us. We on this side of the chamber say that that is a totally wrong thing to do. We have before us matters that are very importantly matters for State governments being brought into this Federal Parliament for cheap political reasons, and I think the people of Australia ought to be aware of that. The Labor Government in Victoria should not be calling on the Federal Government to intervene in what, quite clearly, is an area of State responsibility simply because it claims to have some problems with its numbers in its Parliament. We are seeing here an attempt to circumvent the due processes of the State legislature. I guess that, having seen the record of State and Federal Labor governments over many years, perhaps we should not be surprised at what is going on. State Labor governments, but more particularly Federal Labor governments in Australia throughout our history, have shown a great penchant for centralisation as opposed to State rights and one must wonder what the people of Victoria feel when their own Premier abrogates his responsibilities to Canberra in important areas such as this. Both Bills that I am speaking to have been introduced into this place as a result of the failure of the Victorian Government to exercise its own responsibilities. These Bills have been introduced into this place as a direct consequence of a request by the Victorian Government. For that reason, if for no other, the legislation is quite wrong in principle and it is certainly wrong in practice. I would like now to turn to some of the details of the two pieces of legislation. First, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Amendment Bill contains provisions of the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Bill of Victoria. It allows for a revised regime for the protection of Aboriginal culture in Victoria. In particular, it states that any person may apply for an emergency declaration granted by the Minister, an inspector or magistrate providing that an Aboriginal place or object is under threat of injury or interference. There have been various amendments to the original legislation. Briefly, amendments to the Schedules in the legislation may be made by regulation rather than by ministerial order. The inspector involved at the time will not have to rely on the advice of local Aboriginal communities to vary or revoke an emergency declaration. I point out that that is an overriding of the requirement to seek local Aboriginal community participation. When an arbiter decides to vary the Minister's decision it will take effect from the time of the decision first made by the Minister. Again, that is a notable change and one which is very questionable in my view. Relevant Aboriginal communities will be able to authorise in writing a person to enter land for the purpose of placing a notice. Clarification of the power of the Federal Court to grant injunctions under the principal Act with respect to Aboriginal objects and places, defined in proposed new section 21a of this amendment Bill, has also been made. The legislation has been designed ostensibly to protect Aboriginal relics and cultural heritage. I believe very strongly, though, that it can be argued that it does the opposite. But certainly the point to be made is that these amendments that are being presented do not alter the substance of the Bill; it remains legislation which is very seriously defective. However, the objects of the legislation-and I have no objection to the broad objects-are contained in Victoria under the Archaeological and Aboriginal Relics Preservation Act 1972. The definitions of an Aboriginal object and an Aboriginal place in the Bill before the Senate are extremely broad. For example, an `Aboriginal object' is defined as including a natural object, whether living or inanimate, that is or has been of particular ritual or ceremonial importance to Aborigines from any part of Australia. The definition continues: (b) that is or has been made, used or adapted for use for any purpose connected with the life of Aborigines in any part of Australia; or (c) that is of particular historical importance and that was made, after the European settlement of Australia, by Aborigines for their own use or for sale. An `Aboriginal place' is defined as a place to which a cultural, historical or religious significance is attached by Aborigines. The definition of `Aborigine' is also very broad. The legislation states that `Aborigine' means a person who is descended from an Aborigine, identifies as an Aborigine and is accepted as an Aborigine by the community of elders on behalf of the Kerrup-Jmara community. The Bill empowers the Minister compulsorily to acquire Aboriginal artefacts. In addition, he will appoint inspectors, the inspectors being nominated by the local Aboriginal group. There is no limit, however, to the number of inspectors who can be appointed, nor are they required to have any special training or qualifications. These inspectors will have unrestricted entry into thousands of private properties but there is no provision for protection for owners of property or artefacts. Farmers, for example, have no incentive under the Bill to report such relics as they may find because they may well be fearful of the repercussions. Untrained, unqualified inspectors nominated by local Aboriginal communities and appointed by the Minister will have legal access to enter and search any Aboriginal site in Victoria. On the present figures, there are 7,000 known Aboriginal sites in Victoria alone. These provisions will discourage research and public information about Aboriginal cultural heritage in Victoria. Anthropologists will be seriously restricted in their studies because access to Aboriginal relics will be limited. This, in turn, of course, has serious implications for the quality and quantity of anthropological research of Aboriginal culture. The Bill contains no research provision that would lead to the production of information so that the whole Victorian community could become familiar with Aboriginal culture and archaeological and scientific materials. It is also uncertain as to the preservation and ownership of skeletal material. The irony of this legislation, Mr Acting Deputy President, is that it may well lead to the reckless removal of Aboriginal artefacts from places where they are currently extremely well cared for and preserved and where all Australians can have access to them. For instance, the Bill covers artefacts contained in certain museums. I have had representations in my State from representatives of the Daylesford community in Victoria, a community that is well respected for its wish to preserve culture and heritage of an Aboriginal or other nature. The Daylesford museum is requesting the Government to exempt the artefacts it has in its museum in the same way as exemption has been granted to Alcoa of Australia Ltd in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Amendment Bill. I totally support this request by the Daylesford community. The artefacts belonged to the Loddon Valley tribes in Victoria and must not be removed from their traditional grounds. Already, other groups have announced their interest in these artefacts, wanting to shift them away to Ballarat or Melbourne, where the original tribes had no links with the Loddon Valley. The Daylesford people are proud, and very rightly so, of their zealous care and preservation of these artefacts. In their present location at the museum they are not only well secured but also available to be viewed by tens of thousands of school children and adults each year. In that sense the existence of the artefacts in the museum at Daylesford fulfils a very important purpose. The provision providing for protection against unlawful seizure of artefacts from other tribal areas is inadequate and, I believe, consequently it is ineffective. Because the provisions of the Bill allowing for agreements to be made by Aboriginal communities, even if they have no tribal relationship with an area in which they have no traditional links, are weak and one-sided they will be ineffective in preserving artefacts in their natural tribal areas. Appeal to the Minister is, in fact, no appeal at all. The grounds of appeal regarding the preservation of recognised collections should be spelt out in detail. That is not the case now and until the grounds are spelt out very considerable doubts must be held about the real power and value of the right of appeal contained in the Bill. I turn now, briefly, to the Aboriginal Land (Lake Condah and Framlingham Forest) Bill, which seeks to provide for the vesting in Aboriginal communities of land in Victoria at Lake Condah and Framlingham Forest. It provides for the return of Framlingham Forest, which covers 1,130 hectares, and Lake Condah, which involves 53 hectares-both of which are Crown land administered under the Forests Act-to the Kerrup-Jmara community. This Bill, too, I believe, is wrong in principle and it is wrong in practice. Land usage under the Constitution is a State matter and the State should handle it whether it relates to Aboriginal land or to other land. That policy has been firmly entrenched in Liberal Party thinking and in the thinking of many Australians after very long and serious debate on it over many years. Of course, we are not-nor is anyone of whom I know-questioning the right of the Kerrup-Jmara and Kirrae Whurrong Aborigines to have title to the respective pieces of land. We totally support that right of theirs but what we do oppose is the need to involve the Federal Parliament. The Government claims that the legislation before us has come about after consultation but the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) has not even been to Framlingham Forest since he became the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I point out for those not familiar with the area that the Framlingham Forest is approximately three to four hours drive from Melbourne and a one-hour flight in a plane but the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, who is based in Melbourne, has not been to Framlingham Forest since he has been the responsible Minister. Senator Knowles —That is a good basis on which to draft proposed legislation! Senator SHORT —Quite right. It shows the absolute hypocrisy of the Hawke Government and particularly the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in his dealings with the very important and sensitive issues affecting the rights and values of the Aboriginal community in Australia. It is absolute hypocrisy. Not only has the Minister not been to the Framlingham Forest but also he has not even consulted with the local government authorities in the area. If he had, he would have realised that this Bill he has brought into the Parliament has very considerable problems of a practical nature, apart from anything else. For example, the Bill provides for the closure of a road along the northern boundary of the land involved but if that road were closed it would prevent access to a section of the Darlet Creek and that is opposed by the Portland shire. It is an essential road and it cannot be closed. The Shire of Warrnambool, which is the responsible local government authority in this matter, has pointed out that the road that now runs through Framlingham Forest is currently used by a milk tanker and by school buses and the like. If the road were closed it could reduce access for those sorts of purposes and also, very importantly, for firefighting vehicles in the area. The Bill is a very curious piece of legislation, not just to us on this side of the House but also to members of the Aboriginal community in the area. I quote from the comments of one Aboriginal leader which appeared in the Warrnambool Press recently, in March. He claimed that Mr Holding was trying to set himself up as some sort of white messiah. An article in the Warrnambool Standard of 26 March headed `Aborigines to fight land Bill' states: Community leader Mr Geoff Clark said yesterday that Federal Aboriginal Affairs Minister, Mr Holding, was sweeping aside matters which had taken eight years of negotiations between the community and the State Government. He said the Minister is an apologist for the Cain Government simply because the Cain Government was unable to get the confidence of its own Parliament. This legislation sets a very dangerous precedent indeed for the Commonwealth to pick up legislation of any nature that State governments are unable to get through their own parliaments, perhaps even if they are unwilling to try hard enough to do so. The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills has drawn attention to the enormous powers of delegation that are given under this Bill. I will quote from Alert Digest No. 5 of 1987 of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. Under the heading `Sub-clause 5 (2)-Delegation' it says: Subclause 5 (1) empowers the Minister to delegate to a Minister of the Crown of the State of Victoria all or any of the powers conferred on the Minister by the Act. Subclause 5 (2) enables a Victorian Minister to whom a power has been so delegated to authorise another person to exercise the power. It therefore enables the power to be delegated, in effect, to any person or the holder of any office whom the State Minister may nominate. In other words, we are being asked to pass legislation whereby a Federal Minister can pass to a Minister in another government the power not only to act himself or herself but also to delegate to any other person the powers under this Bill. That is totally wrong, and it is very dangerous legislation indeed. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee said that it: . . . has been critical of such powers of delegation which impose no limitation, and give no guidance as to the attributes of the person to whom a delegation may be made. The Committee therefore drew the Senate's attention to sub-clause 5 (2) on the basis that: . . . it may be considered to make rights, liberties and/or obligations unduly dependent upon insufficiently defined administrative powers. That is the type of dangerous, foolhardy and ill-thought through legislation that has been a hallmark of this Hawke Labor Government over the last four years. No wonder the community is confused as to the nature of some of the legislation coming into this place. More often than not, such legislation is pre-announced, months before its introduction, and the Bill that is subsequently introduced to give effect to the Press release method of legislation often bears little resemblance to that original Press release. A gap of months can be involved, and this produces fear, uncertainty and confusion in the minds of all those people who may be involved with that legislation. That has not been the case with these Bills. They are not an example of legislation by Press release. But the sloppiness of and dangers in this Bill which have been drawn to the Senate's attention by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee are typical of the concerns of senators on this side of the chamber. The Bill does not accord the Aboriginal communities involved the same rights as normal property holders. For example, the title being offered to the Kerrup-Jmara community is without right of sale, without right of mortgage and without right of transfer except to other Aboriginal groups. The constriction on the Aboriginal community concerned is very tight indeed. That in turn puts it in a disadvantaged position with respect to any other section of the community. To give another example, the Bill allows Aboriginals to claim and be awarded more compensation and disturbance allowance as a result of mining than non-Aboriginal Victorian landowners. So on the one hand there are very tight restrictions on the Aboriginal community in terms of what it can do with the land, which disadvantages it; on the other hand, non-Aboriginal Victorians are disadvantaged vis-a-vis the Aboriginal groups in terms of compensation provisions. Again, this is a classic example of the confusion that arises in this Bill. Another example is that the Bill allows Aboriginals to veto the grant of exploration and mining titles over their land. Whilst the veto can be overturned by an arbiter, the whole process promotes direct confrontation between Aboriginals and miners. That, surely, is the last thing in which this Parliament ought to be getting involved in. What we should be involved in is attempting to promote harmony in racial relationships in this country, whether they involve Aboriginals or any other groups in our community. The two Bills that I have been debating this morning-the Aboriginal Land (Lake Condah and Framlingham Forest) Bill and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Amendment Bill-are bad legislation. They are bad in principle; they are bad in practice. They set dangerous precedents for the Federal Parliament to take over any legislation that State governments cannot get through their parliaments. The details of the legislation may well lead to the removal of Aboriginal artefacts from their traditional keeping places and to the loss of access by archaeologists and the Australian public. There is a wide resentment by Aboriginals in the wider community about aspects of this Bill, and other aspects of it will in turn lead the wider community to have feelings of resentment towards the Aboriginal communities. It is a very sad situation indeed that we in this Parliament could be involved in passing legislation that leads to those divisions in our community. The loss of control by the wider Aboriginal community of its cultural heritage and the ability to share in the economic benefits arising from the transfer and mining of its land is another matter of very serious concern to which I have already alluded. I turn to a matter of a more technical nature. In terms of the economic aspects involved with these Bills-economic aspects which have social implications-various concerns have been expressed about the Bills by a wide variety of sources. The comments I have made to date have not referred at all to the views of the mining industry in Victoria, or in Australia. But the mining industry, through the Australian Mining Industry Council, does have very real and legitimate concerns to express about these Bills, particularly the Aboriginal Land (Lake Condah and Framlingham Forest) Bill. I will summarise two or three of those concerns. The industry, through the Australian Mining Industry Council, points out that the Victorian Government has given no public indication of the final extent of land to be granted to Aboriginals in Victoria under special tenure arrangements. The mining provisions in the original Victorian Bills for Lake Condah and Framlingham Forest were developed on the understanding that they would serve as a model for general Aboriginal land legislation in Victoria. The equivalent provisions in the Federal Bill will therefore stand as a precedent for further Bills both in Victoria and elsewhere. The Bill is not consistent with the Victorian Mines Act procedures and will therefore create an administrative nightmare. As I said before, the Bill will discriminate between Aboriginals and other members of the community in both an advantageous and a disadvantageous way, depending on the various clauses or aspects of the Bill involved. It will therefore be very damaging to the promotion of racial harmony and mutual understanding of the needs of Aboriginal communities in Victoria. The Bill ignores the fundamental principles of Victoria's own economic strategy. It obscures the royalty arrangements that will apply to minerals mined in the two areas under the preserve of these Bills, and there are many other problems with the legislation as well. I am concerned about both these Bills, on behalf of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Victorians. They are bad and dangerous pieces of legislation which set extra- ordinarily bad precedents, not only in terms of Aboriginal land rights legislation but also across the whole board of legislative practices in this Parliament. The Bills should be withdrawn, and certainly should be strongly opposed. Senator KNOWLES(Western Australia)(11.10) —I shall speak primarily this morning on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 1986 and, time permitting, I shall make some comments about the Aboriginal Land (Lake Condah and Framlingham Forest) Bill. The legislation affecting the Northern Territory is another illustration of the tragic effects of national Australian Labor Party policy on Aboriginal affairs. It fails to rectify the injustices of the 1976 Aboriginal land rights legislation and it continues to express contempt for the legitimate authority of the elected Northern Territory Government. Not only does it tinker with the edges of major problems, but also it adds to those problems by increasing the powers and lessening the responsibilities of Aboriginal land councils. The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 1986 is a timely reminder of why the Liberal Party opposes the imposition of national land rights legislation. The people of the Northern Territory have been made to serve as an experimental laboratory for a policy that has been proven unjust, however generous its original intention. The ALP Government lacks the courage and the capacity to correct some of the errors of the past. It cannot even claim that its actions uphold the rights of the minority, even though the Liberal Party would still dispute the principle that assistance to minorities should override the proper rights of majorities, or indeed the national interest. The Bill does not further or protect the interests of the whole Aboriginal community in the Northern Territory. Legislating in favour of land councils should not be seen as the same as legislating in favour of Aboriginal Territorians. The Hawke ALP Government has rejected any amendment to the existing Act that would give the Northern Territory Government a so-called estate of interest in Aboriginal land that would enable entry to that land for public purposes. Australian citizens in the Northern Territory, both black and white, are entitled, as they are anywhere else, to the provision of such government services as roads, water and electricity. As a Liberal, I believe it is not reasonable or just for land owners to be able to deny the provision of those services to the community. As a Liberal and a federalist, I believe it is unjust that legislation of this Parliament should constrain an elected Territory government from fulfilling the essential practical duties of a government at State level. National land rights legislation that imposed the same constraints on the six State governments would be outrageous. This is not a theoretic concern but a practical one. Roads cannot be made or upgraded because the hands of the Northern Territory Government are tied. That not only causes problems for specific communities but also harms the national interest when, for example, tourist traffic on the road from Ayres Rock to the Olgas is hampered by lack of road maintenance. That incidentally happens often. Mr Justice Toohey's review of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act recommended three years ago that, subject to the consent of the Federal Minister, the Northern Territory Government should be able to acquire land for public purposes. An earlier draft of the Bill reduced this to essential services. This Bill will do nothing whatsoever to enable the Territory Government to acquire any small amount of Aboriginal land for the most essential services. The Hawke Government has totally caved in to its Left at the expense of the people of the Northern Territory. It is even more tragic that the Government could not care less. By way of amendment, the Opposition seeks to rectify the problem in a cautious manner. It proposes that a Northern Territory Government Minister may apply to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs who, in turn, may be required to decide under what conditions and at what level compensation may be payable. That hardly represents a massive overturning of Aboriginal land ownership, but I am certain that for blind ideological reasons the ALP and Australian Democrat senators will not be supporting it. In so doing, they will be preventing the provision of power, water, sewerage, communication, health, education, roads, tourist facilities and police stations. The spinelessness of the Government will condemn many Australians to be second class citizens. That is not the role or the responsibility of any government. The veto of exploration and mining on Aboriginal land has for years stifled further mineral development in the Northern Territory, and I hope we may be spared the kind of cheap rhetoric about rich and powerful mining companies that are called to answer on occasion for their sins of being multinationals or being associated with such figures as Mr Charles Copeman. It is time we spoke more about the importance of mining as an export industry, an industry keeping this nation afloat. It is an industry vulnerable to price falls abroad and cost hikes at home, and it also pays over 60 per cent of its pre-tax profit to government. Yet this Government has no regard whatsoever for the export and tax income potential of such a vital industry to Australia. Australia has been losing out on export income and jobs because of the mining exploration veto, a privilege not enjoyed by all landholders in the Territory. That veto has allowed land councils to hold miners to ransom. The Liberal Party has been prepared to tackle this problem in a constructive manner to prevent the strangling of mining while recognising the need for Aborigines to protect their lifestyle. In December 1985, Senator Kilgariff introduced an amending Bill to the same legislation, but debate on that Bill has now been adjourned by the Government for nearly 12 months. The ALP is still allowing Aboriginal landholders to exercise privileges over permission to explore for mining, and the amendments now being proposed are far less effective than clauses 40 to 49 of Senator Kilgariff's Bill. The mechanisms that Bill provides to protect the lifestyles of Aboriginal communities are a far better solution than attempting to modify the veto power as the Government now proposes. While the veto power would go, agreements with land councils covering compensation payments, restoration work, protection of sacred sites and employment opportunities for Aborigines would have to be negotiated subject to the arbitration of a warden's court. The Liberal Party supports Senator Kilgariff's Bill which would protect Aboriginal communities from disruption because it recognises that they might have special needs. The Liberal Party differs from the ALP Government in that its method would not hamper mineral development and exploration at a time when all Australians, both black and white, need the export earnings that only mining can produce. Failure to address the question of the provision of services is only one of the defects of the Bill. When 33 per cent of the land area of the Northern Territory has been granted to Aborigines and a further 18 per cent is subject to claims and has effectively passed outside the control of the Northern Territory Government, one can see that the Bill will be totally inadequate in limiting further claims. The time limit of 10 years under clause 25 will not change the existing situation as actual hearings will proceed well beyond that point. Nothing will preclude the resubmission of unsuccessful claims. Unless the proposal of the Liberal Party for a cut-off period of 12 months is adopted, the only effective halt to the process will be the total disappearance of remaining crown land. I remind the Senate that land under claim is, in practice, locked away once the claim is lodged as it cannot be alienated for any public purpose. About 50 per cent of the land area of the Northern Territory is beyond the control of its elected government; a fate that would befall western Western Australia under the land rights legislation. Clause 33 explicitly perpetuates that situation. A government that is truly concerned for Australia's pastoral industries would take firm steps to ensure that stock routes and stock reserves are removed from the ambit of land rights claims. Instead, clause 25 of this Bill does this only in part, enabling the Federal Minister to declare that certain stock reserves will be available for claim and to allow claims for stock routes when they cut through the centre of a claim. Of course, such a qualification negates the reform. It should be obvious to most of us that a stock route is not much good if parts of it can be claimed, just as our public roads would lose their usefulness if some people were able to build stone walls across them or to levy private tolls. We in the Liberal Party of Australia would argue for full protection of stock routes and reserves from any further land claims. The fact that pastoral leases can be subject to land claim by Aboriginal communities and organisations after they have been purchased on the open market is a feature of land rights legislation that has caused community grievance and division. It strikes most people as being a particularly underhanded feature of the whole process, creating as it does a class of privileged owners of pastoral leases with the potential of converting those leases to inalienable freehold. This would in fact maintain the possibility that as much as 70 per cent of the land area of the Northern Territory could pass under the control of land councils rather than an elected government. Once again, this legislation does nothing to remove pastoral leases from the ambit of land claims. These are some notable sins of omission in a Bill distinguished by its failure to reform obvious injustice. Not content with that, with this Bill the Government will create new injustice by its privileged treatment of Aboriginal land councils. Under clause 13, land councils are now to be given the right to assist in the protection of sacred sites on land in their areas even if it is not Aboriginal land. Not content with giving land councils effective jurisdiction over half the Northern Territory, the Australian Labor Party now proposes to give them what could be a potentially limitless power of interference. I am not surprised that in the second reading speech of this Bill provided last December this matter was scarcely mentioned let alone justified. This ALP Government has already on the statute book a potentially draconian piece of legislation-the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act-which extends blanket authority for the protection of sacred sites. It gives to the Minister enormous reserve powers. The Northern Territory has its own sacred sites protection authority. I fear, however, that the prospect of the Northern Territory Government in reviewing these matters somehow displeasing militant Aboriginals has led the Hawke ALP Government to forestall them in this crude and rather irresponsible manner. The protection of sacred sites is a vexed question. Some three years ago the Western Australian Museum had catalogued 750,000 sites of significance to Aboriginal people in Western Australian, my State, but it would be absurd to argue that every one of those sites is equally sacred. This Government persistently shuts its eyes to the fact that there is all the difference in the world between places which have deep religious significance to people and others of far less importance but which nonetheless can be used as bargaining counters to ensure advantage for community militants. In recent weeks, construction of the Roe Highway, on the outskirts of Perth, has been delayed because of disputes over Aboriginal sites. This Bill will vastly increase the powers of land councils in the Northern Territory to paralyse developments which are in the interests of the whole community but of which they may disapprove. It is bad enough that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has been given enormous power to proclaim and preserve so-called significant Aboriginal areas, but at least he and his Government are accountable to Parliament. The same cannot be said for these land councils. While Aboriginal land councils are to enjoy an unwarranted and dangerous increase in their powers outside their original function, clause 16 of the Bill reduces their responsibility towards Aboriginal people. This clause removes the obligation of land councils to maintain a register of traditional owners of Aboriginal land. If we are going to have land rights legislation-and we would accept that it cannot disappear overnight in the Northern Territory-then surely it is these comparatively small communities, these traditional owners whom we should protect. It is they who should be making decisions about their land, if we are to uphold the time-honoured principle of land ownership. But that time-honoured principle is simply going out the window. Mining companies need to know who the traditional owners are so that they may talk with them directly. I refer to the absurdity that we saw a couple of years ago in relation to action taken by the Western Australian Government. It now claims that it has not introduced land rights legislation and did not ever want to introduce lands rights legislation and yet it was the Premier who not once but twice introduced such legislation into the State Parliament. It proposed that the Aboriginal communities should go out with the mining companies when such companies were looking for possible mining areas. Honourable senators can imagine the absurdity of that: The moment the Aborigines went out with the mining companies and the mining companies showed any interest in an area of land the Aborigines felt a sacred site coming on. The absurdity of this whole thing has reached a ridiculous level. It is a farce for the Government in clause 8 to give the land councils further rights to enter agreements over land under claim, as there are only vague assurances as to the rights of traditional owners, and there is no necessity for the councils to follow correct procedures. In a sense, the Hawke Government is well and truly pushing Aboriginal people into socialism. Traditional owners will lose property rights and, in effect, all decisions will be made by land councils which are more likely to reflect political activism than genuine grass-roots concerns. Again, we heard from Senator Short a little while ago that the Federal Minister has not even been to Framlingham Forest, for example, to assess the situation there. If the Minister bothered to go to some of these land rights areas in question and to go to talk with some of the Aboriginal communities he would find that many people in Aboriginal communities simply do not want land rights and see this as being absolutely patronising behaviour by governments trying to decide the fortunes of their lives. It is not an exaggeration to say that land councils will become rival governments. The ALP seems to have forgotten that Aboriginal Territorians all vote in the Northern Territory elections and that they have the right to participate directly in the governing of their part of Australia. One would have thought that the essential purpose of the land councils would be to safeguard the rights of traditional owners-and yet this Bill absolves them of this basic responsibility. This step backwards into absolute collectivism for many of the 29,000 Aboriginal Australians in the Northern Territory will mean that land councils will provide the only communication between them and the rest of the Australian nation. I do not believe that that is a power that they should have. The point has been well made that, while these 29,000 Australians occupy 686,000 square kilometres of land, some 520,000 Indians and Eskimos in Canada have reserves that cover only 260,000 square kilometres. We should be even more concerned that this ALP Government is intent on giving effective jurisdiction over this land to what is comparatively only a handful of activists who may dominate land councils. This Bill does nothing for ordinary Aboriginal Australians. As I have said before, one needs to go out and talk to the Aboriginal communities to find out exactly whether they want it-and the majority of them do not want it. The Bill will maintain a great deal of injustice, affecting all citizens of a vital part of Australia. It will continue to hamstring essential mineral development and it does not permit an elected government to fulfil its responsibilities. Unless the Senate is prepared to accept the constructive amendments to which the Opposition is committed, this legislation will be, at best, a wasted opportunity and, at worst, a step backwards for Aboriginal Australians. There is even further concern in relation to measures in the Aboriginal Land (Lake Condah and Framlingham Forest) Bill 1987 in that Aboriginals will have greater compensation rights than other land holders. Is that favouring of one group fair and equitable to the community of Australia? All people, whether they are black or white, should have the same rights. But under this legislation the Aborigines will have greater compensation rights. Legislation based on the South Australian Pitjantjatjara model has been a total, absolute, and unequivocal failure. Yet this Government still has not learned. It is putting measures before the Parliament that are based on failures and the Aborigines will, of course, have more rights than any other Australians to control mining as well. It might be fair to suggest that Aboriginal communities in Victoria are hardly living in tribal conditions and do not need the kinds of safeguards for lifestyle disruption that could apply to those in other parts of Australia. The Pitjantjatjara legislation in 1981 and the Maralinga legislation in 1983 have resulted in no new exploration of mining tenements, and that is a disgrace. The 1976 Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Bill has resulted in only one new exploration tenement and no mining. Neither the Federal Government nor the Victorian Government has said what land Aborigines may ultimately get in Victoria. We have seen more than 50 per cent of Western Australia up for grabs in recent times. The Premier of Western Australia understood only recently that 78 per cent of the Western Australian community did not see land rights as a just measure. The Aboriginal Land (Lake Condah and Framlingham Forest) Bill takes away the discretionary power of the Minister and vests it with an arbitrator. Under clause 33 of the Bill the Aborigines have the initial right of veto which an arbitrator can override and this is an obvious cause of political odium. It is far better to keep a procedure where all interested parties have the right to object to mining and the Government waives all interests in the balance and then makes the final decision. There will now be dual controls and a dual review system. The Commonwealth is spending $1.3m on acquiring and transferring the land. That could have been achieved under State legislation at no cost. But once again, as we have seen in Western Australia, the State Government did not have the courage to carry on. It wanted to palm it off to the Federal Government and the Federal Government went a little bit weak in the knees. But it is certainly not weak in the knees when it comes to the legislation that is before us today. This legislation is at best a wasted opportunity and at worst a step backwards for Aboriginal Australians. Our amendments should be supported. If they are not supported the Bill should be opposed. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(11.33) —Mr Deputy President, it is a matter of regret to me that on the day of the twentieth anniversary of the referendum which extended the constitutional powers of the Commonwealth with respect to Aboriginal affairs the Senate should be debating this mishmash of legislation which sums up the betrayal of promises made to Aborigines by the Australian Labor Party during most of my active political life. In entering this debate I would like to register my disgust at the way in which the Labor Party bought the votes of Aborigines, not least in my State of Western Australia, and then refused to pay the purchase price that it offered. That is a strong statement about this Government and I make it in very good company. It was interesting to read Robert Haupt's comments yesterday when he expressed surprise at the history of this 20 years. He said that there would be so much that would have surprised anyone who was looking ahead at the time and who supported the Aboriginal cause. He said: . . . above all, that the cycle of reform begun under a conservative government would have come to a halt, in exhaustion and boredom, under a cynical Labor Government-had you said that to my generation in 1967, it's not that we would not have disagreed with you: we would have been utterly unable to understand you. I do not think Mr Haupt is writing as some sort of creature of the Liberal Party of Australia. I do not think that others who have criticised this Government for its sell-out of the promise that it made to Aborigines are creatures of the Liberal or National parties. I have quoted before in this place the comments of Father Frank Brennan, the Jesuit who advises the Catholic Bishops in Australia on the vexed issue of land rights. He wrote in April 1986 about the fact that the Commonwealth Government has at last come clean, that there will be no national land rights legislation and that the matter is to be left to the States. He said: The broken promises are the greatest breach of faith committed by any government towards Aboriginal people since white settlement. Aboriginals no longer have a voice or an advocate in the major political parties at a national level in relation to the land rights question. They are an electoral liability. Their votes having been bought, they have been betrayed totally less than two years before we, as a nation, will dare to celebrate the events of January 26, 1788. I think that when the history of the Hawke Labor Government is written the chapter on Aboriginal affairs will be the low point of its assessment. It will not be because there are not people in the Labor party who are deeply committed to the welfare of Aboriginal Australians, but it will be because the Government chose to buy its way into government by making promises which we as the then Government-the Liberal and National Parties-said were promises which should not be made and which could not be fulfilled. The Labor Party went ahead and made those promises which led the Aboriginal people into expecting and demanding things that would never happen. It produced a destruction of the positive community attitudes towards Aborigines which, I think, is the greatest tragedy of this 20 years. As I have said before, this grab-bag of legislation is a classic illustration of this Government's record of achievement. We have two Bills which start a necessary process of amendment of the land rights legislation which was carried through this Parliament by the Fraser Government in 1976. That legislation was novel; it was an experiment; it was passed with substantial bipartisan support through this Parliament and it was acknowledged at the time that it was an experiment and that it would need assessment and probably amendment. But for the whole of the time that we were in government and from 1976 on, we had that living experience with the land rights legislation in the Northern Territory. Any attempts that the Liberal and National parties, then in coalition, made to remove some of the difficulties of the land rights legislation were obstructed by the Australian Labor Party, which continually urged the Aborigines not to move on any of these issues. As a result, the unsatisfactory operational elements of land rights legislation were not able to be touched or rectified and a great deal of resentment ensued. The whole proposition, the whole concept, of land rights became a matter of very great political disagreement where once there had been agreement. The fact that the Labor Party was continually opposed to any change and continually promising that national land rights would be enacted by a Labor government was the prime cause both of the inability of the Liberal-National Party Government to remove some of the difficulties which emerged in the Northern Territory and of the growing distrust of the concept of land rights around Australia. When the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) explained his craven and pathetic attitude to keeping the promises of the Labor Party towards the Aboriginal people he hid behind the claim that Australians had become less compassionate towards Aboriginals in the past 20 years. I throw that back in his teeth because the lack of compassion and the loss of public support for the Aboriginal cause were, I believe, caused substantially by the Labor Party-by its totally irresponsible and totally cynical attitude in its period in opposition in particular. I do not believe that Australians are less compassionate. I believe instead that Australians have become impatient with what they have seen as both excessive Aboriginal demands and unsuccessful government programs. I believe that the excessive Aboriginal demands which have given rise to a loss of public support can be laid fairly and squarely at the feet of those Labor Party apparatchiks who within the Aboriginal communities of Australia and who as political candidates around Australia went round egging on the Aboriginal people to make ever-increasing demands which were undercutting the public sympathy which Aboriginals had enjoyed in this country. I condemn the short term and totally political approach which is adopted to this day on Aboriginal affairs issues by this Government which has at its senior levels no real interest in this matter, unlike the previous Government, which leaves the administration of Aboriginal affairs to Mr Holding and which undercuts Mr Holding when he, as any Minister would, tries to implement the policies on which the Government was elected. The most recent example of the Government's cynicism is its criticism of our policy which reasserts the role of the States, which reasserts the fact that the States have a significant role to play in dealing with Aboriginal matters, yet it totally ignores the fact that when the Department of Aboriginal Affairs was established in 1973 by the Whitlam Labor Government the then Minister, the Hon. Gordon Bryant, said: The Australian Government does not seek the transfer from the States of particular responsibilities in the field of health, housing, education and other functional areas which in its view should preferably be carried out by the appropriate Australian or State Departments having responsibility in these areas partly on the basis of the continued provision of funds by the Australian Government. That was the Labor Party's attitude in 1973 and it mirrors the attitude expressed by the Prime Minister in his letters to the Premiers dated 2 December 1986 in which he reaffirmed that the Australian Aboriginal Affairs Council, which is the meeting of Commonwealth and State Ministers with relevant responsibilities, should proceed with its review of Commonwealth-State financial arrangements for Aboriginal programs. It is very hard to know where to start in dealing with these Bills because the first two Bills, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1987 and the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 1986, which relate to amendment to the Aboriginal land rights legislation which covers the Northern Territory, contain changes which we believe are a small step towards what is required but which are classically a case of too little and too late. The Opposition therefore does not oppose the idea of there being amendments to the land rights legislation, but it will be moving very substantial amendments to this legislation to try to deal with some of the problems which have been the subject of great discussion within the Government, within the Caucus, but on which the Government has decided not to bring forward amendments at this time. Substantial amendments will be moved by the Opposition, and they arise from its deep concern to see the Northern Territory legislation operating successfully and to see that that legislation operates to the satisfaction not merely of Aboriginal citizens of the Northern Territory but of the wider community of the Northern Territory. After all, it is essential that the administration of Aboriginal land, which could get to the point of being about 50 per cent of the Northern Territory, should be undertaken in a way which is harmonious to the needs of the whole of the Territory, not merely to the Aboriginal inhabitants. With respect to the Aboriginal Land (Lake Condah and Framlingham Forest) Bill 1987 and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Amendment Bill 1987 which desire to enact very limited land grants to Aboriginal communities in Victoria, I simply express my contempt for the tokenism and the constitutional nonsense that is involved. I hope that the Department did not advise the Government to undertake this legislative folly, but we have a situation where the Victorian Government, following decades of agitation on the part of Victorians for extensive land rights to be granted to Aboriginals in the rest of Australia, moved reluctantly to provide very small areas of land in Victoria. There was a dispute within the Victorian Parliament about the nature of the title which should be granted, not about whether title should be granted, and some of the ancillary rights which are to be related to the grant of title to a number of Aboriginal communities. What did the Victorian Government do? It did not proceed to complete the consideration of the legislation in the Victorian Parliament but instead it made a request to the Commonwealth Parliament that it should enact the necessary legislation. That is presented as an exercise in morality by this pathetic Government which has sold out on the Aboriginal promises that it made so freely in opposition. I ask the Government: If it is so determined to ensure that the form of title granted in Victoria is in accordance with some ideal Labor party objective, why is it-I ask the Special Minister of State (Senator Tate) who is at the table, and perhaps he will be able to give us an answer-that the Commonwealth Government is prepared to see a totally different form of title provided by the Queensland Government, deeds of grant in trust, which seems to me to bear very little relationship to what is being demanded concerning the title that is to be available in Victoria? Why is it that when the Government of the ex-Premier of New South Wales, Mr Wran, enacted legislation dealing with land for Aboriginals, which I think granted some 7,000 hectares in the whole of that State-a few pocket handkerchief bits of land scattered around New South Wales-it made provision for the subsequent purchase of land by using certain funds that would be made available for Aboriginals but exactly the same conditions were not imposed in that case? Why is it that it is permissible to have a variety of title forms in Western Australia, South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland until we get this legislation that is before us now which says that the Victorian Parliament is not to be allowed to determine the variety of the title in this case because we have some great principle at stake? It is so obviously a political sham. It is so obviously just one more step in the Labor Party's desperate attempt to produce some evidence that it has a genuine concern for Aboriginal Australians, yet its performance bears no relationship to the policy which it has generally advanced or the promises that it has made to Aboriginal people. We have here today the first sign that this Government is prepared to legislate with respect to Aboriginal land, and we find that it is doing it with the acquiescence of and at the request of the Victorian Government, which seems to be prepared to sell out its constitutional responsibility-not, I think, an unusual thing for the State Government of Victoria: Why not hand-ball it to the Commonwealth; it might pick up some of the cost. I want to draw the Senate's attention to what the Australian Labor Party was saying in 1983 when Senator Susan Ryan was the shadow Minister responsible for Aborigines. She issued a summary of the Australian Labor Party's 1983 election commitments to Aboriginal affairs. She talked about Aboriginal land rights and said this: Labor will enact legislation to provide land rights to Queensland Aboriginal reserves immediately. Negotiations with the States to enact land rights legislation in line with the above principles will proceed. Where any State refuses to enact appropriate land rights legislation, the Labor Government will use Commonwealth constitutional powers to achieve its objective. They are bold words. This Government has been in office for four years, and here we have this Bill relating to a couple of small parcels of land in Victoria. Senator Boswell —And what has Queensland done? Senator CHANEY —What of Queensland? What has the Government done with respect to Queensland, let me ask instead? What has it done with respect to its brothers in Labor in my State of Western Australia, where 8.9 per cent of the State is reserved for Aboriginal purposes but where there are no Aboriginal land rights in the terms that Labor promised in 1982, 1983 and 1984? It has done nothing because the Prime Minister is frightened of the political unpopularity that he would engender. Senator Boswell —He governs by polls. Senator CHANEY —The honourable senator is absolutely right. The sad reality is that for all the talk of principle that we have had in the Senate over the years from members of the Australian Labor Party, none of them are present in the chamber for this debate. And I do not blame them, because they ought to be out drinking strong whiskies and trying to forget the promises that they made over the years when they were in opposition. Let me go back-- Senator Robertson —Would you like to be reminded of your family's activities? Senator CHANEY —When the Labor Party Whip tries to traduce my brother, when a royal commission indicated what my brother's position was, all I can say is that this is a sign of the honourable senator's desperation. What did the shadow Minister, whom Senator Robertson supported in this place, say when she was representing Senator Robertson and his colleagues in opposition and making promises to Aboriginals? I quote from the Senate Hansard of 14 October 1982: One of the first acts of that Federal Labor government will be to pass my private member's Bill, which will be Labor legislation, to grant freehold title, not any other form of lease, over to the Aboriginal and Islander reserves in Queensland, which will then resolve the situation. I could go on and on quoting the promises which were made inside and outside the Parliament about what this government would do. The simple point I am making is that it has refused to do anything in any circumstances which would cost it votes. Let me make my political position quite clear. I have always argued that national land rights legislation would not be the answer to this problem. The Liberal and National parties have set their face against national land rights legislation. We believe that the Government should not have made the promises which, if kept, would have caused enormous constitutional and community division in this country. The burden of my complaint in my speech today is the highly unsatisfactory situation in Aboriginal affairs today. It is a situation in which community attitudes have retreated greatly from the very positive attitudes of the 1967 referendum days and, indeed, the period of the 1970s. The blame for that can be laid squarely at the feet of this Labor Party which raised Aboriginal expectations absurdly. It led Aboriginal people to put themselves in a position in which they made demands which cost them the support of the reasonable men and women of Australia. It will take the Labor Party a long time to expunge that action. I do not know how it will do it; I believe that it will take it a generation to undo the damage it has done. However, I urge it to acknowledge its contribution to the negatives in this field and to try to encourage Aboriginal Australians to accept the limitations on what a Federal government can offer and to accept that a good deal of the progress which is required will have to come from a willing partnership between government and Aboriginal individuals, with Aboriginal individuals carrying a very heavy burden of responsibility in achieving solutions to current Aboriginal problems. The attitude which has been adopted by the Liberal Party-indeed, Liberal and National parties in this case, because I think our attitudes with respect to these Bills are very similar, if not exactly the same-is squarely in line with the approach to Aboriginal affairs which it laid out in its Aboriginal affairs policy issued recently by the shadow Minister, David Connolly, in which it set out its fundamental principles in its approach to these matters. One of the principles that we adopt-it is in common with the principle we followed in government-is that we accept that in many key areas, including land within the States, the key functioning government will be the State government, and that is vital, as it was vital in 1973 when the Labor Party established the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. We talk about the real need for equality of opportunity for Australian Aboriginal people; we talk about the issues of rights and responsibilities. Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders should be assisted and encouraged not only to enjoy the many benefits but also to accept the social and economic responsibilities of being full and equal members of the Australian community. This is essential to their gaining respect within the wider community and to improving their self-image. That is a very important message which is being put forward by the Liberal Party. As I have said, the central core of our message is also similar to that which would be put forward by the National Party. I urge the Government to reconsider its approach to these matters and to look to a considerably improved performance in the field of Aboriginal affairs. I will go back briefly to the record of the Liberal and National parties. In the whole of the period when we were in government and when Labor and, indeed, the media were so deeply involved in the discussion on Aboriginal affairs, we were constantly criticised for not taking the steps which Labor in government had refused to take-namely, to enact national land rights legislation. That was a central core of dispute during those times. I think the very significant and clear difference between the records of the present Opposition-the Liberal and National parties-and the Government since the mid-1970s, is that where we made promises to Aboriginal Australians, as we did in our Aboriginal affairs policy in 1975, we kept those promises to the letter. I commend to Labor members a study of the history of that time. In 1975 we promised that we would enact land rights legislation in the Northern Territory. We did it. That was an extraordinary step for a conservative-as some people labelled us-government, but we promised it and we did it. Anyone who was involved in politics at that time would know that the legislation was contentious then as it would be now, but we kept our promise. We promised that we would establish a capital fund for Aboriginal people. We did it. The land rights legislation was enacted in 1976. The Aboriginal Development Commission legislation, which included provision for a capital fund, was enacted during my period as Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in 1979 or 1980-I forget which year. The important thing is that in the circumstances which applied during the period of the Fraser Government, it would be quite wrong to say that there were no political pressures upon the Government to step back from its promises. Senator Boswell-he may be involved in this debate-would know that within the coalition, and not just on the part of the National Party but also members of the Liberal Party, at times there was very great concern about whether we should have kept some of the promises that we made to the Aboriginal people; but the fact is that we did keep them. There were mistakes. I think all of us would now agree that if we were re-enacting the 1976 legislation, we would have changed many of the provisions, particularly those relating to the mining sector which we do not think have been effective. When one looks at the provisions that relate to the unlimited right to claim that was given over pastoral lease land that became Aboriginal owned, and when one looks at the limitations on the rights of the Northern Territory Government to obtain land for public purposes, one sees there are many matters, a few of which are dealt with in the legislation before us today, which most of us would agree we would have dealt with differently. But again, I ask the Labor Party and the people of Australia to look at why those deficiencies were not remedied during our period in government, because the reality is that whatever change we sought to make was blocked by the Labor Party, and there was never any concession that, at times, some stepping back by Aboriginal claimants would be in the interests of Aboriginal people and also the broader community. I believe that it was a case of the Labor Party hanging out for every possible Aboriginal vote. It was one of the least seemly, least admirable things I have ever seen in my political life. The last matter on which I wish to touch is the sort of response one gets from Labor on these issues-namely, that my Party in Western Australia and the mining industry have been part of creating the problem of the white backlash. That is a very frequently made comment. When I was Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in 1979 I had discussions with the mining industry over what it saw as the deficiencies of the land rights legislation. I told the industry that I agreed, that I thought there were emerging problems. The industry wanted to kick up a fuss about them but I said: `Please don't. Race relations in this country are very difficult. I think you should give me a chance to work these things out quietly. I accept that there is a problem, and we should try to fix it'. The mining industry, to its credit, showed the restraint I asked for. I appointed a Queen's Counsel from Western Australia to examine the Act and to look at these difficulties. That process was not concluded when I ceased to be Minister but my successor, Senator Peter Baume, undertook a continuation of the process which had begun during my period as the Minister of trying to work through changes to the land rights legislation. We got nowhere-not because Senator Baume and his successor, Mr Wilson, did not try hard, but because of the obstruction I have talked about before, with the Labor Party egging on the land councils to obstruct us at every point in the process. When the mining industry in the mid-1980s took a much more public stance on this issue it quite correctly said to me: `We did exactly as you asked. We tried to deal with this thing without informing the public of what the problems were and it got us nowhere'. Again, I believe that to the extent that this issue was able to be made so divisive, it was. I regret that it was; it gave me no pleasure and no satisfaction. I again say to the Labor Party that, given the unreasonableness that has applied for so long in this field, virtually from the time the Labor Party left the bipartisanship we had enjoyed through to 1976 inevitably the matter became very contentious. I commend to the Government an approach to Aboriginal affairs which accepts that in a sense one has to accommodate the interests of the whole community and not adopt the sort of attitude which in the 1970s was so instrumental in producing public division and which made so many Labor members of parliament feel very good inside but which produced nothing at all for their Aboriginal constituency. Senator ALSTON(Victoria)(12.02) —It is a privilege for me to speak in the debate on an issue such as this. It is a matter of profound regret that we have reached the stage of being presented in this Parliament with what is much more in the nature of an ideological commitment and response in political terms than a genuine endeavour to come to grips with the very real problems that face the Aboriginal communities in Australia. I would like to go back to the 1970s because I well recall reading the Woodward Aboriginal land rights commission report and the very many suggestions which were around at the time and which ultimately led to the introduction in 1976 of the Northern Territory land rights legislation. There was a very widespread feeling of compassion and support for a community which I think even today can be regarded as genuinely disadvantaged. Anyone who was familiar with the statistics of Professor Fred Hollows, which demonstrated the extent to which both adults and children in the Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory, in particular, suffered from trachoma and had a much shortened life expectancy and literacy rates so low they could certainly be compared to many Third World countries, or anyone who was aware of the suffering of very many Aboriginals who did not have a roof over their heads and who were genuinely in very great need of government assistance, was very supportive of the efforts made by government during the 1970s. The introduction of the Northern Territory land rights legislation was a landmark. It was explained at the time as being, and it subsequently remained, an endeavour to find a formula that would go some way towards coming to grips with those very real social problems. It was not, I believe-I hope it was not-an attempt somehow to redress historical wrongs because that is a fundamentally incorrect approach to take. If that were the prescriptive formula adopted in determining how one comes to grips with racial problems, one would clearly have to apply it around the world. One simply could not contemplate the negroes in America somehow being entitled to vast amounts of compensation or indeed the Indian communities of northern and southern America. It is simply not a helpful approach. It is divisive. It ignores the real problems. The problems that confront Aboriginal communities are social problems. They result from economic deprivation, and need to be tackled in a humanitarian and sympathetic manner. When the land rights legislation was introduced it very quickly became a political football. The expectations of the Aboriginal community were raised unrealistically because although that community constitutes only some one per cent of the total Australian population, the way in which the media presented the debate-a manner not restricted to the Aboriginal community-led a great majority of Australians to believe that somehow there was a fundamental polarisation in the community, that two groups were at loggerheads, engaging in some sort of political warfare which would inevitably put Australians on either side of a very serious question. The Labor Party did a great disservice to this country by fuelling those expectations, by talking in terms of national land rights legislation as an ideological prescription rather than looking at the way the model legislation in the Northern Territory operated. We now know from bitter experience that the legislation did not operate in the way it was meant to. It was meant to establish land councils that were to have access to funds which they would then spend for the benefit of local communities. What happened was that a degree of intransigence set in. Although the legislation provided for negotiations with mining companies and others, inevitably there were those on the outside who urged that strong political stances be taken, that ambit claims be made and that no compromise be achieved. I find it a matter of great regret that the interests of the Aboriginal community became very quickly submerged in a wider political battle. Land rights became some sort of symbolic commitment to whether or not one was in favour of assisting the Aboriginal community, whereas the reality is that the vast majority of Australians acknowledge that Aboriginal people are in a position of need and in broad terms suffer from a great many social and economic deprivations that do not afflict them. During the 1970s, when I was the President of the United Nations Association of Australia, I was privileged to visit a number of Aboriginal communities in South Australia and the Northern Territory. I travelled to Docker River in the Northern Territory with the then Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, Mr Everingham, the then Federal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Viner, and a then Labor back bencher, John Dawkins. Senator Robertson —And me. Senator ALSTON —Indeed. I well recall that visit and pay tribute to Senator Robertson's role in that venture. We were invited to explore the sacred sites that were the province of the Docker River community with a view to examining whether the Western Australian Government might be prevailed upon to grant analagous land rights. At that time the title deeds for the Petermann Ranges Reserve were handed over to the community. There was a great deal of goodwill and benevolence towards the Aboriginal community. In many ways we were then overtaken by the high level of political polarisation that developed, perhaps fuelled by activists or by party functionaries, but in any event we ignored what was fundamentally the aim of the legislation-to achieve a balance between interests, to allow mining to go ahead on responsible terms and to provide members of the Aboriginal community with a kitty which they could then use for their own development purposes. What was so important about that was that it gave them a degree of control over their own lives and a much greater measure of self-reliance. It also put into practice the principle of self-determination. If that polarisation had simply been allowed to continue through, this obsession would have continued to develop towards claiming more and more land and obtaining more and more funds without concern for how that money was spent or for those in particular need of assistance. The political battle simply was to gain more and more. As we know, in the Northern Territory where the Aboriginal community numbers about 40,000 out of a population of 160,000-about 25 per cent of the population-because the legislation provided for claims to unalienated Crown land, the spectre was raised that perhaps half the total land area of the Northern Territory might be handed over to a community which was only a minor proportion of the total community. That generated very real fears amongst the rest of the community there. It was not as if the community was suddenly presented with a fait accompli and had to learn to cope with it. What happened was that there was this creeping spectre. Claims were made, claims were granted and more claims were made. It even got to the stage where by a device subsequently overturned in the High Court of Australia the Government of the Northern Territory felt it necessary to proclaim the outer limits of the town of Darwin to deter land claims over the very centre of that place. That was an unfortunate evolution of what was almost inevitable. The great tragedy is that even the Hawke Labor Government finally came to realise that these forms of unyielding ideological prescriptions simply do not work; that local factors operate and ultimately the best decisions are made by those on the ground. I can understand concern about the way the Queensland Government traditionally has approached the question of Aboriginal land rights and its treatment of the Aboriginal community. There is a measure of validity in the proposition that it has not been as enthusiastic about real self-determination as have other States. But what is critically important in this debate is that the present Labor Government acknowledged that despite the differential treatment and attitudes around Australia, Queensland should be allowed to have a system of deeds of grants in trust which are very different from inalienable Crown land and from some of the other forms of land holdings that apply to Aboriginal communities in other States. In other words, the Government has accepted the principle that we espouse; that is, that it is not appropriate to have a national model. It is appropriate to leave such matters up to each State. To that extent we will find differences of attitudes and priorities but that is what has to be dealt with at the local level. I have confidence that if that system is allowed to apply, in all States the balance will be struck and there will be a degree of harmony and lack of polarisation that is so critical. What we do not want are divisions and these passionate political debates on racial questions. We all know how easy it is to inflame matters in that area. The last thing that one wants to do is set up a blueprint which then provokes at least a violent rhetorical counter-reaction. The Government grudgingly has come to realise that. It came to power talking about overriding the States and using its constitutional powers. It had those powers prior to the Franklin Dam case. The Government sensibly came to realise that that decision provided no solution and that all it was doing was playing into the hands of a few activists and was not able to see the wood for the trees. Unfortunately we now have a situation in Victoria where the State Labor Government has embarked upon a program to consolidate several forms of land holding which for very many years have been under the control of Aboriginal communities. It put forward legislation to transfer title deeds to those communities but because of the form in which it wanted to make that transfer the legislation was opposed by the Opposition. The Opposition in the Upper House made it clear that it would oppose amendments. As a result, the Government backed off. I think it was Mr Kennan, as the responsible Minister, who then thought it would be a very clever trick to prevail upon his Federal colleagues. As a result we are now faced with an attempt via the back door to overturn the very sort of principle that operates de facto in the Federal Labor Government at the present time. It is clear that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and others, I think persuaded in large measure by the Premier of Western Australia, have taken the view elsewhere that this is a matter for local determination. What is at stake in Victoria is approximately 11 square kilometres of State forest immediately adjacent to an area at Framlingham Forest which had been granted to the Kirrae Whurrong people in 1970 and an area in the Lake Condah region involving one-half of a square kilometre of land on which the historic Lake Condah mission station is situated. The proposal was that that should be handed to the Kerrup-Jmara people. No one doubts that these areas are of considerable social, architectural and historical significance to the local Aboriginal communities. That was recognised as long ago as 1970. Even in the second reading speech of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) on this legislation there was a grudging concession that the Bolte Government saw fit to grant what amounted to inalienable freehold to the Lake Tyers and Framlingham communities in the 1970s. At that time the Victorian Parliament enacted an Aboriginal lands Act which transferred title to these two communities living on the remnants of Aboriginal reserves. There have always been definable Aboriginal communities in Victoria. Previous Liberal governments in that State have been very careful to ensure that protection is granted to those communities. I visited Lake Tyers. I am sure that my colleague Senator Lewis, who hails from the environs of Framlingham Forest, would be aware of the way those communities have operated harmoniously, have not experienced difficulties that have brought them into confrontation with the rest of the local community and generally have played a very constructive role in determining their own lives. What the State Government is now proposing to do in Victoria is transfer inalienable land title to those communities. The Opposition has said that it is wrong in principle to tie up land for ever and a day. To the extent that the Aboriginal communities regard that land as sacred and historic and not to be transferred, the future is in their own hands. That is precisely what the Opposition parties proposed in Victoria; that those title deeds should be for alienable Crown land but that the communities should determine what should be done with the land. In many ways one would have thought that that is the ultimately responsible approach to self- determination, self-reliance and genuine independence-to give those communities control over their own lives and their land. I do not know the precise quantity of that 11 square kilometres of State forest that could be regarded as being of vital social, cultural, historic and architectural significance to the Aboriginal communities. It may well be-and probably is-that this does not encompass every square inch, to mix the metaphor, of the 11 square kilometres. To that extent it may well be appropriate in future years for the communities either to make that land available for mining or other purposes or simply to sell it off if it is not required and perhaps to put the funds in trust for the benefit of the local communities. But the discretion could be vested in them, with the power to determine their own future. No one suggests that a group of trustees or elders of an Aboriginal community will suddenly be seduced into selling off land that has such an emotional and historic significance to them. It has not happened to date. There has been no suggestion from any Aboriginal community that it should happen and I could not contemplate it happening. But ultimately it is that community that should make its own decisions. There may well come a time when parts of those areas no longer have the same degree of significance. It may well be that, with the passage of time, as the members of those communities move away from the area, only a very small number will be left who do not regard the area with the same degree of reverence that the people living there today no doubt do. That tells us the sensible approach to land rights in this country is to have the decisions made at local level. That means, in a Federal system, that the State governments should be the ones responsible. That is why we oppose the whole back door approach of the Government to this current legislation. But, more importantly, we do not want to see a situation where people are simply locked into a national formula. We regard that as unhelpful and we regard it as an ideological commitment which ignores the realities and which has a potential for polarisation and division in the community, which is the last thing that we should be aiming for. It is quite clear that different regimes apply in different States but it is also clear that, by adopting the stance that we are, we are acting in the best interests of the Aboriginal communities. It is a canard of the highest order for it to be suggested in this debate, or elsewhere, that the Liberal Party of Australia in particular is lacking in compassion or is not proceeding with the best interests of the local communities at heart. It is unarguable that in Victoria the Bolte Government took the steps it did in relation to those local communities and granted those title deeds to those two Aboriginal communities at Framlingham and Lake Tyers. It is incontestable that the Liberal-National parties in government at Federal level introduced that model Bill in the Northern Territory. Our commitment is clear. Our concern remains that members of the Aboriginal community should not be the victims of a political football game and should not find themselves being vilified as activists when the vast majority of them simply want to improve their standards of living, their way of life, their life survival rates, their degree of literacy and their general state of health. Their concern is not to claim as much as possible for as long as possible to the extent that it can be demonstrated as a political gain to the disadvantage of the rest of the Australian community. That is a recipe for disaster. We fondly and perhaps naively believe that the Government will come to realise that the approach that it has taken in every other State is appropriate to Victoria. No doubt the Government has been misled into thinking that there is some political capital in Victoria; that somehow this can be used as a weapon to play politics in that State with not much downside risk at the Commonwealth level. I want to assure the Government that this sort of action is utterly counterproductive because it puts people in a position where they are forced to identify this type of legislation for what it is-a political instrument; something that will not assist in the resolution of the very real problems that beset the Aboriginal communities in Australia and, I think, in Victoria; and it certainly will not come to grips with the very real social difficulties that Australia experiences. The problems in this country will be solved only by a degree of general realisation that we are all in it together, that there are sacrifices that need to be made. As of yesterday the Government backed down in relation to its industrial relations legislation, if we can take its explanation at face value. If it wants to consult more widely it should ensure that it will not simply railroad through some contentious legislation which will gravely offend a significant section of the community. If that approach is good enough in the industrial relations area where the Government has what it regards as a very significant clientele of unionists who are pushing for it, why is it not appropriate where we are dealing with 99 per cent of the community who are not of Aboriginal extraction and who have a very real concern that initiatives of the sort that the Australian Labor Party has been arguing for go too far and do not tackle the very real problems? I am concerned to see a return to the days where the priority concern of those who had dealings with the Aboriginal community and the communities around Australia was that we should tackle the social problems that beset them. My travels around Aboriginal communities have convinced me that the great majority of persons in the Aboriginal communities are quite similar to the great majority of other Australians-that is, they are not political activists; they are not wanting to fight party political battles; and they are not wanting to go on a crusade to claim as much and more land as possible so that they can somehow claim that as a political victory. They want significant and real improvements in their standards of living and their quality of life. The tragedy is that a great amount of money has been misspent and misused by excessive bureaucracy playing politics when the people most in need have been deprived of those funds. I support land rights legislation. I think it is necessary that there be a degree of security given to Aboriginal communities. I welcome some of the local initiatives that have been taken. For instance, I recall visiting Oenpelli some years ago and finding that the local community there had decided to pool its welfare moneys. Members of that community had voluntarily decided that they did not want to have access to alcohol within a radius of several hundred miles. They had transferred the retail liquor outlet points so far away that it became unattractive for them to drive there and very dangerous for them to try to drive back, and they were taking steps in their own interests to try to improve the way in which they lived their lives. I think the outstation movement was an outgrowth of that. It was not an attempt somehow to escape from the real world; it was an attempt to maintain contact with their roots but, at the same time, to remain a part of the wider society. Those are the sorts of self-help initiatives that I think can be very valuable. There is no doubt that any Australian government should have a continuing commitment to improving the welfare of Aboriginals as a group. I do not accept the proposition that we should simply say that they are like everyone else. Whilst we might be able to point to a few members of the Aboriginal community who somehow do not have health and wealth problems, from my experience the vast majority of them can be regarded as disadvantaged. But that does not mean that they should then be given such a capacity and power over land that it has that divisive confrontation about it that we saw through the 1970s and 1980s in relation to the Northern Territory legislation. We do not want a situation where Aboriginals are forced either to exercise a right of veto over exploration which will bring them in direct confrontation with mining companies, or simply to cave in and be the victims of criticism on their own side. That is the sort of polarisation that this country does not want. I think the type of legislation that we are debating today simply goes down that tired and failed track of imposing a prescriptive solution that has not worked and that is really opposed to the best interests of the local communities who, by and large, have prospered under the current legislation. They do not need to have some political prescription imposed upon them. They do not need to have a Commonwealth government overriding a State government. If we have four Labor governments in the States of Australia that all profess to have a commitment to federalism-we no longer hear calls for the regional forms of government that Mr Whitlam was so keen on in the 1970s-we can assume that the Labor governments around Australia believe in federalism and believe in what they used to think was sheer rhetoric, that we can make the best decisions at local level. If that is so, surely the Victorian Government and the Victorian people are the ones best placed to make decisions about the form of land transfer. After all, if we believe in democracy and the view that the Opposition espouses in that State, that the alienable transfers of title are the way to go, and if that view is not acceptable to the Victorian community, presumably that will be reflected at election time. My strong suspicion is that it simply would not be an election issue and that there is a very great opportunity for compromise which the Victorian Government is not wanting to take because it prefers to try to derive cheap political capital by turning this into some sort of one-off exception to the otherwise acknowledged principle on all sides of politics that State governments should be the ones dealing with this type of legislation. Mr Acting Deputy President, I think we have come a long way in the past 10 or 15 years. I think the vast majority of Australians recognise that there is a lot that can be done to help our Aboriginal communities; there is a lot that they can do to help themselves. They will not be helped by ideological approaches; they will be helped by genuine local endeavours. One of the ways in which that can happen is leaving it to local communities and State governments to respond to local needs and demands. This legislation does nothing in that regard. It simply does not reflect the lessons from the Northern Territory legislation. It does retain all those powers of veto and the potential for division that became so apparent during the 1970s, with the result that mining exploration over a very fertile part of Australia fell away to almost zero. That is not the way to go and I am sure that there are many in the Aboriginal communities who regret that it ever got to the confrontationist level that it did. We do not want to have a situation where this legislation is simply an encouragement to make further claims for inalienable land transfers; what we want is to respond to the genuine needs of those local communities. I believe this legislation does not have their best interests at heart. It is somehow a pandering to those who still believe that we are back in the early 1970s and who do not acknowledge that the world has changed and that Australia has very real and competing demands on it that must be reconciled, not by confrontation but by discussion, and that unless we are able to develop all of our resources we will simply continue to slide down the international league tables. I hope the Government will rethink. We will put forward a number of amendments that seek to tackle the legislation in line with the approach I believe we should be taking around Australia. I hope ultimately there will be a recognition that this legislation is the last way of achieving social cohesion among the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(12.32) —We are today cognately debating four Bills. The first two were covered very satisfactorily by a senator for the Northern Territory, Senator Kilgariff. I shall address my remarks to the last two Bills. The legislation that is before us today is legislation that was unable to obtain passage through the Victorian Parliament. It is an affront to this Parliament to be treated as a branch office of the Victorian Parliament. The Victorian Parliament is made up of democratically elected representatives who are elected by the people of Victoria and they, for their own reasons, were not able to come to some decision on the passing of title of the two parcels of land covered by the two Bills. Therefore, the Premier of Victoria, Mr Cain, has asked the Federal Parliament to take over the legislation. I believe the Victorian voters have had their rights absolutely flouted by putting the legislation through this Parliament. I do not believe the Bills that are now before the Senate address the main problems that are facing the indigenous people of Australia. The Liberal and National parties will be moving amendment that in our view will bring the Bills into a form of legislation that will assist the indigenous people of Victoria. I am proud to stand in this Parliament as a senator for Queensland, a State that has done absolutely magnificent things for the Aboriginal people. As a senator, I find myself involved in the Torres Strait and to a lesser extent with Aboriginal communities as I move around Queensland as part of my duties. I am proud of what the Queensland Government has been able to achieve for the black people of Queensland. Not only has the Queensland Government made a valuable contribution by providing indigenous people with deeds of grants in trust but also a number of members of the Aboriginal and Islander communities have been asked by the National Party of Australia to represent the people of Queensland in Parliament. As a matter of fact, the first-and probably the only-full-blood Aborigine ever to be a representative in a parliament of Australia was Eric Deeral, who was the honourable member for Cook. At the last State election we offered candidacy to a young Islander, Getano Lui. The National Party believes in equal opportunity, no matter whether it involves sex discrimination and employment legislation or Aborigines being parliamentary representatives. The Queensland Minister for Community Services, the Hon. Bob Katter, has done a wonderful job and only this year a number of Aboriginal communities were handed their deeds of grant-Jarrobah, Cherbourg, Woorabinda and Palm Island. Fourteen of the inhabited islands in the Torres Strait have now received their deeds of grant and are operating in much the same way as a local municipal council would operate. The land is theirs in every way. The deed of grant passes the land across to the Aborigines and the Islanders and they hold exactly the same title as anyone else would receive, with the exception that the land can be sold or distributed only to community dwellers. In no way can a person who does not belong to a community go in and gain title to the land covered by the deed of grant in trust. So the Islanders and Aborigines are protected by the fact that that land will always be theirs and will always be in their communities. What the Queensland Government, supported very strongly by the National Party, is trying to do and is achieving is gradually passing over control of these communities to the communities, so that the people will control their own destinies and their own local government. They, in turn, will be able to issue parcels of land for grazing, farming or small business. As time progresses, the Queensland Government will be withdrawing the white government officers so the whole communities will be run for the black people by the black people. This is what we call self-development and we support it. It is working very successfully now. The first deeds of grant in trust were handed over, I believe, last October or November to the island communities in Torres Strait and already a number of those communities are developing their own industries. On Coconut Island they are developing a tourist industry that will allow visitors to live according to the traditional ways of the Islanders. Tourist accommodation is now being built on Coconut Island. It will not be flash but it will be reasonable and people will be able to visit the island and holiday or spend some time living in the traditional way of the Islanders. The Islanders will be able to provide them fishing and diving and many other types of pursuits. On other islands people are engaged in trochus fishing. There is also a crayfishing industry up there. A very successful crayfishing operation is being controlled on Badu Island by the Badu community. I believe that that operation is bringing into the island something like $6m a year and it is providing jobs for many Islanders. So in only a short period of time-since October or November-we have seen the Islanders start to advance and develop their own industries. The Queensland Government and the National Party of Australia believe that we should be helping the Aboriginals and the Islanders to perform, gradually to control their own interests and gradually to take over the businesses that operate on the islands and in the communities. Only two or three weeks ago I visited the Hope Vale community, which has been given a deed of grant in trust for 11,000 hectares. Already people of that community have been given by their council 400 and 500-acre farms. They are prepared now. They have fenced them off; they have planted grasses for cattle feed; some of them have developed hardware stores; others have developed cattle properties. So the people in Hope Vale are moving towards self-determination. But there are problems in these areas. These people are very keen to get on with developing their own future and that of their children. They are finding troubles. When I was in Hope Vale I visited a number of the community farms. Whilst the Queensland Government has given these people title of the land to be used for their own purposes, they are finding that they do not have sufficient tools, equipment or skills-such as marketing skills-to develop these blocks of land. There are 850 people in the Hope Vale community and I believe there are three tractors there. One is used exclusively to pull the garbage trailer; another is used for community services; and the third tractor has to be shared by 50 or 60 people who want to develop their own blocks. This is most unsatisfactory. I say this to the Federal Government. The needs of the people are simple. They want tools, equipment, and a healthy way of life. They want a future and an education for their children. They want to control their own destinies. But these people who have had the initiative to clear their 400 or 500 acres with the sweat of their brow and an axe do not have the equipment to develop their own small farms. These people are feeling frustrated and they need help. This Government should give that type of help rather than pouring $1.3m into legislation that will not provide satisfactory land rights for the Aboriginals in the State of Victoria. My concern for these Aboriginal and Islander people is that I feel that a lot of the funds are bypassing the mark. Funds that these people need to develop their own communities are not coming to them. A great amount of money is spent by the Federal Department of Aboriginal Affairs, and yet when we go out into the communities we find that this money is not getting through to the people who need assistance. Debate interrupted. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Senator CHANEY —Yesterday the Leader of the Government in the Senate said he would give no undertaking that the Government's industrial relations legislation would be withdrawn. I ask: Is it not a fact that sections 45d and 45e of the Trade Practices Act have been successfully used to bring to an end at least 80 serious industrial disputes, including such well-known examples of union blackmail as the Mudginberri abattoir and plumbers and gasfitters disputes? Will the Government give the Senate and the Australian people a guarantee that it will abandon the proposal in the industrial relations legislation to restrict and delay access to sections 45d and 45e-action which could bankrupt many employers-and will it agree to leave these sections within the jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Australia? Senator BUTTON —Yesterday I said that, following criticisms of the legislation by employer and union groups, the Government would embark on a process of further consultation. Senator Walters —There wasn't any consultation. Senator BUTTON —Presumably Senator Walters was under the bed when the consultations did take place. There is no point in her helping here. I said yesterday that the Government would embark on a further process of consultation with employer and union groups about the provisions of the legislation. Senator Chaney implied that the key phrase in this question is that the legislation would restrict and delay access to sections 45d and 45e of the Trade Practices Act. That is an assertion which is not supported by any facts in the legislation. I know Senator Chaney is a new shadow Minister for Employment and Industrial Affairs, but he may know that under the existing provisions of the Trade Practices Act-and he referred to 80 disputes having been resolved under those provisions-access to sections 45d and 45e has not been taken in a pre-emptory way by employers or manufacturers. It is not a matter in regard to which access will be delayed, denied or, in Senator Chaney's terms, restricted by the provisions of the proposed legislation. Senator Alston —So why take it from the Federal Court? Senator BUTTON —Senator Alston has not been here long so I shall tell him that it has been the view put by this Government for a long time that industrial relations matters are best dealt with initially in the one set of tribunals. The Government attaches tremendous importance to the conciliation function. Honourable senators on the Opposition benches can moan and groan and carry on, as they are now doing, but they are probably doing that because of a fact unpalatable to them-the fact that the instance of industrial disputes in this country has declined by more than half under this Government. Opposition senators interjecting- Senator BUTTON —I am happy to engage in debate with members of the Opposition, but I do not see any point in them shouting me down in their enthusiasm to ignore the fact that that is the level of industrial disputation the Government has attained by adhering to the process of consultation in respect of these issues. I come back to Senator Chaney's question. The issue of whether delay and restricted access might or might not occur as a result of the provisions of the legislation is a matter about which the Government is quite prepared to consult with employer organisations and others, and it will do so. The process of consultation will not be assisted by any noise from the Opposition in the Senate. Senator COOK —I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer whether his attention has been drawn to an article appearing on the front page of Monday's Australian Financial Review, headlined `Labor's $1 billion capital gains tax windfall'. Are the figures regarding the Government's capital gains tax cited in that article accurate? Does the Financial Review's interpretation of those figures accord with the Government's interpretation in terms of the stance of taxation policy in this country? Senator WALSH —I have seen the article and it leaves the impression, or assumes, that capital gains tax revenue accruing to the Government as a result of the passage of the capital gains tax legislation would come in the 1986-87 financial year whereas, of course, it would come in in the 1987-88 financial year. That is one background point that needs to be straightened out. I do not know where the figures in the article written by Mr Hywood were obtained because there can be no certainty of figures until such time as at least a substantial number of the income tax returns for 1986-87 are submitted. The article estimated that $1 billion would be collected from the capital gains tax provisions per se in section 160, but that because the Income Tax Assessment Act now has an explicit capital gains taxation clause, much more revenue would be collected under section 25, which is the traders section, and section 26aaa, which is the section that imposes, and has done for the last 13 years, tax at the marginal income tax rate on profits made by the purchase and sale of assets within a 12-month period. Mr Hywood's figures assumed that $900m would be collected under those two sections, whereas I understand that the normal collection under those sections is of the order of $500m. It would have been somewhat more accurate, even on whatever assumptions lay behind that figuring, if the article had said that there would be a $500m increase in tax collections rather than $1 billion, which was the total figure. Leaving that aside, however, the really important point on which the Treasurer has recently commented publicly is that there will be-I do not think the Treasurer has any definitive data on which to base his estimate, either-a capital gains tax section 160 collection vastly in excess of the $5m that was assumed at the time of the White Paper of May 1985 and in the 1986 Budget estimates. To that section 160 revenue collection, whatever it may be, should of course be added the increased collections under sections 25 and 26aaa. Whether Mr Hywood's figures are finally confirmed by the actual receipts or by more reliable estimates when a significant number of taxation returns have been received after the end of June, remains to be seen. The article does, however, draw attention to a very important point, and that is that it is absolutely essential to have an explicit capital gains tax clause in the Income Tax Assessment Act in order to put a safety net under the income tax base. That is evidenced by the fact that there is expected to be much larger collections under the pre-existing sections 25 and 26aaa. Ever since the late 1970s, if not earlier, the Labor Party has been saying that it is absolutely essential to have a catch-all capital gains tax clause in the taxation act or the tax base will be continually eroded and much more revenue will be lost than is collected by the explicit clause. In other words, it emphasises that the policy proposed by the Opposition on this issue, as on almost every other issue that one can think of, is absolutely irresponsible and, if ever enacted, it would see the income tax base fretted away, in the way that it was the last time that Mr Howard was Treasurer of this country, although it occurred by a different mechanism. Senator KNOWLES —I direct my question, which also concerns the Government's industrial relations legislation, to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is it not a fact that the union blockade of the Dollar Sweets factory in Melbourne was ended only by recourse to common law action? Will the Government give a guarantee that when it reconsiders the legislation it will delete clauses 216 and 217, which deny employers access to common law remedies against abuse of union power? Senator Cook —Something you know nothing about. Senator KNOWLES —I know more about it than Senator Cook. Senator BUTTON —Senator Knowles might know more about it than Senator Cook, and she might think that she knows more about it than I do, but that is not the point. As I have already said in answer to a question asked by Senator Chaney, the point is that the Government will be looking at renegotiating or consulting with industry groupings and unions about the provisions of the legislation. I would not anticipate that in those consultations the matter of recourse to common law would be argued by the major employer bodies as being of fundamental importance. It might be argued by people on the extreme right as being of fundamental importance-- Senator Chaney —Try the CAI, for example. Senator BUTTON —I am saying what I an- ticipate is likely to happen in the course of negotiations-but that is only what I anticipate. The fact remains, as I have already said, that we will undertake further consultations about these matters and when those consultations are complete the Government will announce the results of them. Senator FOREMAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance, representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. What recent indicators are available to access the performance of the Government's wages policy, and what do those indicators show? Senator WALSH —Two recent official publications have some relevance to this question. The first is the Australian Bureau of Statistics bulletin on average weekly earnings for the February quarter. That showed that over the three months to February average weekly earnings for all employees had increased by 0.3 per cent, that full time adult average weekly ordinary-time earnings had increased by 6 per cent and that for the year ended February average weekly earnings had increased by 4.9 per cent and average weekly ordinary-time earnings had increased by some 6.3 per cent. Those movements in the major wage aggregates, as reported there, are modest. I would venture to suggest that they are more modest than anticipated when the Budget forecasts were drawn up. The results certainly reflect a more satisfactory outcome than may have been expected from the two previous quarterly figures which the statistician had produced towards the end of last year. The only statistically significant movement since the November 1986 survey concerned an increase of 0.8 per cent in ordinary-time earnings for full time adult female wage earners. Those wage outcomes have been broadly confirmed-probably very substantially confirmed-by the national accounts figures, which have been published since then and about which the Treasurer has issued a Press release today. The Treasurer's Press release, based on a different measurement, that is, the quarterly accounts, as distinct from the ABS quarterly survey figures of wages paid, confirms that the wages outcome over the last year, and over the last quarter in particular, has been satisfactory and at least within the estimates made when the 1986 Budget was prepared. My final point is that such wage outcomes do, of course, testify to the continuing success of the accord, and they stand in stark contrast to the wages explosions of 1981 and 1982, when wages increased by 13 per cent and 14 per cent respectively, following the last government flirtation with a decentralised wage fixing system based on collective bargaining. However, given the weight of empirical evidence, Australia's recent experience, and that which has occurred in the United Kingdom, I find it quite astounding that there are people in this Parliament who are so bereft of the capacity which even the higher anthropoids are supposed to possess for trial and error learning that they want to return to the system which produced the disastrous outcomes of 1981 and 1982. Senator CHANEY —My question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate follows his answers to questions asked by me and Senator Knowles earlier in Question time in which he indicated that the Government would consult with industry and unions in respect of its industrial relations legislation, and in particular in respect of the impact that that legislation will have on sections 45d and 45e of the Trade Practices Act and on common law remedies at present available to employers for use against abuses of trade union power. I ask the Minister: Will he, on behalf of the Government, give a firm guarantee that the Government will carry out its consultation on the legislation? Further, will the Minister indicate the Government's intention in respect of the legislation and, in particular, its intentions with respect to both those sections which place the trade unions above the law and outside the ordinary courts and which restrict access to sections 45d and 45e and to common law remedies before the next federal election so that the people of Australia will be able to judge the Government's attitude? Senator BUTTON —I said that the Government would undertake a series of consultations with employers and unions about the provisions of the legislation. I am not in a position, during Question Time in the Senate, to give a guarantee as to when that will occur. The rest of Senator Chaney's question was rather more crude propaganda, using Question Time as a device, than anything I can contribute by way of response. I have nothing further to add to what I said earlier. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question. Ignoring the abuse from the Leader of the Government in the Senate, I ask by way of a supplementary question: Will the Government ensure that it has a clear position on this legislation prior to the next federal election, or does it intend to go to an election leaving the Australian people in doubt? Senator BUTTON —I have nothing to add to what I have said three times. Senator WEST —I direct my question to the Minister for Resources and Energy. Can the Minister confirm that Austen and Butta Ltd has today announced the closure of its Avon and Yellow Rock mines near Wollongong? What is the Government's reaction to this development? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am aware of the announcement made today by Austen and Butta Ltd to close its Avon and Yellow Rock mines near Wollongong, with a loss of 208 jobs. Naturally, the Government is very concerned at the impact that this decision will have on the men and the communities concerned, and I might say that in recent times we have received very active representations on this subject from the local members involved, Messrs West, Hollis and Martin. The decision to close the Avon and Yellow Rock mines is the most recent of a number of moves which have been forced on companies in recent times as a result of the deterioration in the international coal market situation. The Fernbrook and Gross Valley mines near Lithgow have closed due to factors broadly similar to those which have led to the closure of the Avon and Yellow Rock mines, including the ability of buyers to select higher quality coals in the present over-supplied market. Again, negotiations for the sale of the open cut Saxonvale mine in the Hunter Valley are presently under way with the prospect, as is well known, for a reduction of some 90 employees. There are closures in the West Moreton fields in Queensland scheduled next month. I have had occasion to refer to these recently with appropriately condemnatory references to the Queensland Premier. The Austen and Butta closures reflect a number of considerations including an aggregate productive capacity beyond the available market demand with the attendant unacceptable market exposure associated with it, coal quality considerations, which have been particularly important at these mines, and an inability to reduce costs at both mines sufficient to be competitive in existing markets. I might add that that is not as a result of any failure of effort and will on the part of either management or work force in this instance. The company's action is not a direct outcome of the steaming coal price negotiations currently under way in Japan although I must say that the expected flow-on of those lower prices is manifestly a consideration which is influencing assessments of the viability of most mines in this country. Again I must stress that the current closures to which I have referred give us an unhappy premonition of what may be ahead in a number of areas in the coal industry. The continued operation of several mines has been jeopardised as a direct result of the recent coking coal price settlements with the Japanese steel mills and now we have the prospect of significant reductions in steaming coal prices, constituting something of a double blow for some mines. The Minister for Trade, Mr Dawkins, and I have repeatedly emphasised to the Japanese in particular-and I take this occasion to do so again today-that if they require stable supplies in the future they must understand that prices need to be at levels that will enable the coal mines to obtain a fair return. I turn now to the impact of these closures on the people concerned. This is a matter of concern to the Government which, for its part, stands ready to assist through labour market programs such as the labour adjustment training arrangements and the relocation assistance scheme. The burden of accommodating the market realities must ultimately be shared by not only the work force but also the community generally in terms of lower export earnings and the impact on the whole economy. We must appreciate the macro significance of these sorts of events that we are now witnessing. My final point is that despite the present already oversupplied world situation, producers in other countries, such as Columbia, Venezuela and, above all, China, are planning to expand their exports. The implications for Australia, which relies on exports for some 70 per cent of our output, are clear. The message is very clear: We have no choice but to compete with the prices offered in the world market-place and if our coal companies cannot do so as a result of a co-operative effort between management and work force there will be further losses for all Australians in terms of exports, employment and all the economic and social benefits that flow from that. The closure of these two mines is a local tragedy; it is a premonition perhaps of larger tragedy looming on the national scene, which in turn is a function of world market realities. We must accept the existence of those realities and do everything we can at all levels-government, industry and union-to ensure that cost reductions and all the other policy strategies that are necessary to enable us to compete in that world market-place are brought about. Senator VIGOR —Can the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce confirm that the sales tax on citrus juice raised about $35m this year, equivalent to $70 a tonne for fruit, at a cost to the industry of $240m in lost sales? Is it expected that growers' prices this year will be below $120 per tonne for navels and $140 per tonne for valencias, whereas the cost of production is between $140 and $180 per tonne? When will the final Industries Assistance Commission report into dumping protection for the citrus industry be available? It was due in March. Can the Minister assure the industry that the anti-dumping provisions will be held in force for at least three years in order to give time for the industry to adjust and for prices to stabilise in this extremely important industry for Australia? Senator BUTTON —As usual, Senator Vigor seems to have a great command of the details, but at the beginning I must point out that there is no Industries Assistance Commission inquiry into the citrus industry and there is no report due in March. Having dealt with that fairly fundamental aspect, I turn to the other parts of the question. First, Senator Vigor asked me whether I could confirm that the sales tax on citrus juice had cost the industry so many millions of dollars. I am unable to confirm that; I think that it is unlikely. At the time of the introduction of sales tax on citrus juices that tax was also introduced on other non-alcoholic beverages and the information available does not differentiate between revenues raised on the different types of juices. However, should Senator Vigor wish to pursue that matter with me, I suggest that he put the question on notice. Secondly, Senator Vigor mentioned the suggested cost of production as against the prices obtained by growers of citrus fruit for juices. Information from industry sources indicates that growers' prices for navel and valencia oranges are likely to be $95 per tonne and $130 per tonne respectively, not the price that Senator Vigor suggested. Again, industry sources have estimated the cost of production as $125 to $130 per tonne and this figure is based on the previous year's cost of production with some allowance for inflation. I referred earlier to the question of the IAC. There is no reference to the IAC, but the matter is being considered by the Australian Customs Service, which is carrying out an independent investigation into the alleged dumping of citrus juices in Australia. The Customs Service is currently finalising its formal investigations. In the meantime provisional measures in the form of securities have been imposed on any further imports that might take place in the period of the Customs investigation. Other assurances cannot be provided until I have received and considered the report from Customs. Senator REYNOLDS —My question is addressed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. How can the Queensland Government charge local councils for the construction of the Burdekin Dam when this has been constructed with funds provided by the Federal Government? Will the Minister investigate the options of a legal challenge to this unscrupulous move which once again sees the Queensland Government manipulating its access to Federal grants which do not always reach the intended beneficiaries? Senator GARETH EVANS —The short answer is, as we say in Melbourne, the Queensland Government has more front than Myers. I understand that at a meeting with the Townsville Thuringowa Joint Water Supply Board, the Queensland Minister for Water Resources, Martin Tenni, indicated that a standing charge of $35 per megalitre would be set for the entire water allocation from the Burdekin dam to the Board, whether it took it or not. This charge is in addition to an operating or delivery charge which is estimated at about $28 for each megalitre delivered. The Commonwealth Government supports policies that distribute the costs of water supplies equitably and provide incentives for the economic use of national water resources. My understanding of Mr Tenni's proposal is that these arrangements, by contrast, are anything but equitable for the hard pressed water consumers and ratepayers of the Townsville and Thuringowa shire. In effect they are being asked to pay the full capital charge for their very small share of Burdekin water, whether they use it or not, while irrigators using Burdekin water would not be so charged. In effect, the urban ratepayers of Townsville, whom Senator Reynolds so admirably represents in this place and elsewhere, would be subsidising the irrigators of the Burdekin delta. The Commonwealth for its sins is providing a grant of $129m to the State of Queensland for the construction of the dam. For reasons best known to the Queensland Government the full benefit of this grant is being passed directly to the irrigators but is being denied to the people of Townsville. Along with the hidden taxes on the Queensland coal industry through rail freights, which I have mentioned on more than one occasion in this place before, this is just another example of the Bjelke-Petersen school of applied economics. Its basis is taxing non-rural industries and towns as hard as possible to give one's mates on the land a free ride. An editorial in today's Townsville Bulletin puts it very well in the following terms: Townsville and Thuringowa residents are being held to ransom by their State Government over an essential commodity: water. The State Government was elected to help Queenslanders, not rip them off. It is about time that message was understood. It is long overdue. Senator SHEIL —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. What actions have been taken to ensure that there is no repeat of last month's breach of the top security Australian National Animal Health Laboratory at Geelong when an employee became accidentally contaminated with Newcastle disease virus? Why did established emergency measures fail to ensure that the employee was totally free of the virus before re-entering the community? What assurances can the Minister give poultry producers that this dangerous virus has now been contained, and why has there still been no formal advice of the incident to the industry? Should there be an outbreak of disease as a result of the incident, what compensation arrangements for stock owners would apply if there were to be a mass slaughter of stock? Senator WALSH —I am not able to give a comprehensive answer to that question; I will see what I can get from Mr Kerin. From my recollection, there was a brief discussion about it almost two weeks ago. There was a possibility that the virus may have escaped outside the laboratory. It was not at that stage confirmed and, from my recollection of it, had it escaped it would now be known that it had. I will get a more adequate answer from Mr Kerin. Senator McKIERNAN —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs to an answer given by him in this place on 17 February and a reply given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 17 March on the use of Kerguelen Islands as a nuclear test site by the Government of France. I preface my question by indicating that, despite these assurances given on the abovementioned dates, considerable concern continues to be expressed by citizens of Western Australia about such a proposal. I ask the Minister: Has the Government investigated the Southern Raider incident, as reported in the New Zealand Sunday Times of 4 January? If so, can the Minister report on the conclusions of that investigation? Has the Government investigated a rumour that France is storing or proposing to store nuclear waste at the Kerguelen Islands? If France were to test nuclear weapons at the Kerguelen Islands, would such a test program be in breach of the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources which was signed in Canberra in 1980? Senator GARETH EVANS —As I have indicated previously, the Government has sought to check allegations by members of the crew of the fishing vessel Southern Raider concerning France's activities and intentions in the Kerguelen Islands. Indications remain that these reports are without foundation. French officials have firmly denied that France has any intention to move its nuclear testing program from Mururoa Atoll and repeatedly refer to President Mitterrand's authoritative statement of 3 February 1987, to which I have referred before, that Mururoa exists and will continue to exist for the purpose of carrying out nuclear testing activities. While the Government continues to monitor closely French activities and intentions in relation to nuclear testing, our assessment remains that a removal of the testing program from French Polynesia would be unattractive to France on political grounds and in view of the considerable economic cost that would be involved in relocation of facilities. As the Government has made clear on numerous occasions, we would be just as strongly opposed to French nuclear testing in the Indian Ocean as we are opposed to France's current testing in the Pacific Ocean. We simply have no evidence of the alleged French intention to store nuclear waste on the Kerguelen Islands, nor do we have any evidence that France is transporting, as has been suggested in some reports, large quantities of concrete there. In the last part of the honourable senator's question he asked about the relevance of the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources as it bears upon the issue. Strictly speaking, the Kerguelen Islands do not fall within the area covered by that convention which, under Articles 3, 4 and 5, are also subject to the provisions of the Antarctic treaty concerning demilitarisation and preservation of the environment. The convention does not contain any provision of its own relating to demilitarisation or nuclear activities. Again I have to say that the convention is limited in scope to the conservation of Antarctic marine living resources by establishing the principles for harvesting and associated activities in the convention area. Notwithstanding all that, in the Australian Government's view, were France to undertake nuclear testing on the Kerguelen Islands its actions would certainly be contrary to the spirit of that convention and our reaction, as a government, would be governed in turn by that consideration. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I refer the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce to the statement made by the Chairman of the South Coast Labour Council workers compensation committee, Mr Paul Matters, that Australia `no longer has a steel industry' and that `there will be no coal, no grain and no steel from this region'. In view of the Minister's previously expressed concern about industrial action in the steel industry in breach of the Government's steel plan, will he join me in condemning yesterday's decision of New South Wales south coast unionists to strike indefinitely? What action can or will the Government take to bring an end to this destructive strike action? Will the Government support moves to deregister key unions involved in the dispute? Senator BUTTON —I very much regret the industrial action which has been taking place at Port Kembla. I remind the Senate that in 1981 and 1982 in Port Kembla and Newcastle there was the worst record of industrial disputation that this country has seen since the Depression. Since 1983 there has been a continual improvement in the levels of industrial disputation, productivity and profitability for Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd, arising particularly from the activities at Port Kembla. The recent outbreak of disputation plus some technological difficulties which the company has encountered with new equipment have set back production significantly at Port Kembla. I spoke about this matter at the conference of the Federated Ironworkers Association of Australia on Monday. I made my views very clear on that occasion, and I have since been in constant touch with unions involved, the company and the New South Wales Government. I am not particularly interested in the views of Mr Paul Matters. Currently I suppose he sees himself as being launched by this level of industrial disputation into a place of prominence in this country which he does not deserve and which in my view he will not maintain. It is unfortunate that a person who has the views which the honourable senator attributes to him in the comments that he made is in a position of influence in Wollongong. I am primarily concerned about the future of that city, which could revert to being an industrial ghetto if people espouse the sorts of views which Mr Matters is quoted in the newspapers as having expressed. I have a great affection for the people of that city and I have a great respect for the role that it has played in Australian industry and manufacturing over many years. I want to see that continue. Insofar as action which can be taken in respect of this matter is concerned, as honourable senators are probably aware the company has made further applications to the New South Wales Industrial Commission for certain orders to be made. That matter is essentially between the parties to the dispute. The dispute is allegedly about changes to the New South Wales workers compensation legislation which will be passed, I believe, by the New South Wales Parliament on Thursday. At that stage there will possibly be a resolution or more capacity for a resolution of that problem. It is very easy in a volatile industrial environment for people outside that environment to give advice and to say what they would do if they had magic wands. In respect of this matter there are no magic wands which can be waved by governments-either this Federal Government or the New South Wales Government. Anything I say is directed to the steel workers in the city of Wollongong. I am saying to them that I am more concerned about the future of their families, their children and their city in years to come than I am about the issues involved in the workers compensation legislation in New South Wales. I ask the steel workers to consider those issues in relation to the future of their industry when they meet again on Friday. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I first thank the Minister for this reply, and I share his concern. However, I draw the Minister's attention to a portion of his response in which he said, in response to my asking him whether the Government would support moves to deregister key unions, that that is a matter between the parties. Do I take it from his answer that the Government will not overtly, covertly, or in any way, support moves to deregister key unions involved in the dispute, not simply the Federated Ironworkers Association of Australia and the Australian Metal Workers Union to which he referred as the unions against which BHP will take action, but also the Waterside Workers Federation, the Seamen's Union, the Federated Firefighters Union, the Deckhands Union, the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union and the mining unions that are involved in closing down this vital region of Australia? Senator BUTTON —Perhaps Senator Baume alone did not understand the answer I gave. I indicated in my answer that I was concerned about the future of Wollongong and the future of the steel industry and the workers in it and I repeat that statement. I suppose the honourable senator grew up in the days of Malcolm Fraser when governments believed they could-- Senator Michael Baume —Do I look as young as that? Senator BUTTON —Well, if the honourable senator ever grew up. Governments believed then that by intervening in these matters they could change the course of history. I do not believe that that would be sensible or tactful. As I have indicated, these matters have to be resolved by the best possible method and by the parties. I have said to both major parties that if there is anything the Government can do to assist a resolution of this dispute, it will do it, but it will not barge in on the basis of the sorts-- Senator Michael Baume —Only if the unions let you. Senator BUTTON —Oh, come on. Senator Baume interjected: `Only if the unions let you'. Senator Michael Baume —That is exactly what you said. You said that you would intervene if they let you in. Senator BUTTON —I am trying to answer a question which is a difficult one-difficult not because the honourable senator asked it, but because it involves a difficult issue for this country. In the course of my answer I will not be misrepresented by lies from the honourable senator-because that is what I got. Senator CHILDS —My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and relates to the difficult legal situation faced by the Australian War Memorial in that it was possibly in breach of relevant legislation relating to its collection of firearms. A decision has recently been made to allow the Australian War Memorial to collect military firearms for exhibition and research as well as to endorse changes to the Customs regulations which allow for the importation of such items. Will the Minister outline the likely effects of these changes? Senator GIETZELT —The Special Minister of State and I issued a Press statement on this matter-within, I think, the last 24 hours-which recognised that the Australian War Memorial is the only institution in Australia which has a charter to collect military firearms for exhibition, reference and research. This matter has been given the approval and recognition that the Australian War Memorial needs by the Australian Police Ministers Council. I thank my colleague Senator Tate for the assistance he has provided in that respect. The Australian Police Ministers Council has also agreed to a request by the Australian War Memorial to be exempted from the Customs regulations prohibiting the import of machine guns and semi-automatic grip firearms. The reason for that is that it enables us to acquire them and place them on public exhibition, an essential feature and function of the Australian War Memorial. I particularly welcome the decision because it puts on the public record the importance of the Australian War Memorial and it also puts it in the same classification, in an international arena, as such important overseas institutions as the Imperial War Museum, the Smithsonian Institute and the Canadian War Museum, which have already been able to get the approval of the appropriate authority for what has now been formally recognised by the Australian Police Ministers Council. This will enable the War Memorial to acquire many more weapons and place them on exhibition, and therefore it will be able to carry out its functions more effectively. Senator DURACK —Does the Minister representing both the Minister for Primary Industry and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations share the concern of the Australian Wheat Board that Australian farmers stand to lose millions of dollars because of union bans on shipments to Fiji? Is it a fact, as claimed by the Board's General Manager, that Fiji now has less than seven days' supply of wheat and that local millers are being offered American grain to replace the thousands of tonnes stranded on the docks by Australian Council of Trade Unions action? Will the Minister initiate action under section 45d of the Trade Practices Act to ensure that this market is not jeopardised by totally irresponsible secondary boycott action by trade unions? If not, what action does the Government intend to take? Senator WALSH —I understand advice is being sought from Fijian sources in Fiji-not Australian sources-as to what is the view of the local population about the matter. Of course, the Fijian situation is a very delicate one. The most substantial negative contribution that anybody who I can think of has made was the one made by the shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and Deputy Leader of the Opposition when a couple of weeks ago he said, effectively, `Well, it was a leftist government in Fiji anyway, and therefore it was fair enough that it should have been swept from office by a military coup'. Senator DURACK —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Senator Walsh has quite deliberately ignored the whole of the question that I asked, and I will repeat it. Is it a fact that, according to the Wheat Board's General Manager, Fiji has less than seven days' supply of wheat and that local millers are being offered American grain to replace that which is stranded on docks by ACTU action? Will the Minister initiate action under section 45d of the Trade Practices Act to ensure that the market is not lost by irresponsible secondary boycotts? If not, what action does the Government intend to take? Senator WALSH —I am not sure whether it was this morning or yesterday that I heard a statement on the wireless by a Mr Paice-I think that is his name-that Fiji had only seven days' wheat stocks left. I do not know whether that statement is true. One hears many things on the wireless that are not true. I will check with Mr Kerin and seek confirmation of that or otherwise. Senator VALLENTINE —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Defence whether he has seen the article by A. W. Glazebrook in the Pacific Defence Reporter in which it is stated that there is no strategic justification, let alone necessity, for the Royal Australian Navy fleet relocation to Jervis Bay from Sydney Harbour and in which it is concluded that for the Navy there will probably always be much higher priorities on defence funds than the luxury of a new base. Could the Minister say whether the Government accepts this position in light of the recent defence cuts announced in the May economic statement and whether, as part of the cuts, it has considered dropping the $1 billion program for the move to Jervis Bay? How can the Government justify the $1.5m environmental study when no adequate notice of intent has been given for the full relocation, when there are obviously strong feelings against the move within the Navy and when we all know that the ultimate cost of the relocation will be vastly greater than $1 billion? Senator GARETH EVANS —As to the first part of the question, as a result of Senator Vallentine's anxieties on the subject I have become aware of the Glazebrook article in the Pacific Defence Reporter. The answer to the second part of the question, as to whether the Government has accepted the position to which Senator Vallentine refers in light of the recent defence cuts and as to whether we have considered dropping the $1 billion program for the move to Jervis Bay, is no. As to the third part of the question-that is, how can we justify the environmental study in relation to a move-the situation is this: The Minister for Defence, in his tabling speech on the fleet base relocation study report of 25 February this year, indicated the need to consider a fleet base at Jervis Bay against the longer term prospects of the need to move the base from Sydney. That situation has not changed. Environmental studies are, accordingly, necessary if the Government is to be aware of the options available to it and take them into account in decisions on future Navy facilities requirements. Senator PARER —I refer the Minister for Education to her many recent Press releases on increased student retention rates to year 12 because of what she claims to be the result of the May economic statement. Is the Minister aware that Queensland has the highest retention rate of any State in Australia and that only one in four who qualify can gain entry to a tertiary institution in Queensland, compared to one in three only two years ago? If so, can the Minister explain where in the economc statement there is provision to rectify the totally unacceptable and discriminatory lack of tertiary places in Queensland? Senator RYAN —Here I go again. Queensland has a high measured participation rate to the end of year 12, although it is also the case that the way of counting participation in Queensland includes technical and further education students whereas there is a different method of counting in the other States. So the Queensland figure probably comes out a little higher than it should. However, Queensland has a high participation rate to the end of year 12 and for that the Queensland Government should be commended. It is also true that our Government has assisted in increasing participation rates in Queensland, as in every other part of Australia, through increases in the Austudy allowances-that is, the education allowance paid to 16- and 17-year-olds; through the four-year participation and equity program funds which have flowed into many Queensland schools and assisted in their increased participation rates; and through the increased general recurrent payments to all students in government and non-government schools which again have assisted government and non-government systems to accommodate more students to the end of year 12. However, it is not the case that Queensland has done badly in terms of its share of newly created higher education places. In recent years Queensland, which has about 16 per cent of the relevant population, has received about 22 per cent of the new higher education places. I have explained this to Senator Parer and the Senate before. It is true that Queensland was very much behind in the number of higher education places it had when we came into government. The reasons for that were that when funding of higher education was a State responsibility, prior to the Whitlam Government coming into power, Queensland State governments had not given a high priority to this area so there was an under-provision. There was a period of growth under the Whitlam Government. During the period of the Fraser Government there was an absolute contraction of funds available to higher education in all States, which badly affected Queensland because it was still behind. In every year we have been in office we have given preferential treatment to Queensland and given an above-average number of new places for Queensland enrolments. I noted that the Queensland Minister for Education, Lin Powell, acknowledged publicly recently that we have been taking positive action to overcome the backlog which we inherited. As I said, about 22 per cent of new places have been going to Queensland whereas it has only 16 per cent of the appropriate population. It is also the case that the higher unmet demand figures in Queensland reflect the fact that the Queensland Government spends less than other State governments in the TAFE area. It is basically the responsibility of State governments to fund enrolments in TAFE-we assist with this, but it is a basic responsibility of State governments-and the Queensland Government has been slower than other States in providing for growth in the TAFE sector. Therefore, many students who seek to do diploma or other award courses in the TAFE sector do not have that option and seek entrance into higher education institutions. There is unmet demand in Queensland, as there is in other States. Every year our Government has increased the number of places available. We have increased the number of new places available for higher education nationally by about 40,000 in the four years we have been in office, whereas the Fraser Government achieved an increase of only about 8,000 over a four-year period. We will continue to address in a positive way the question of unmet demand in Queensland as in the other States but with the recognition-it is a recognition, as I said, that the Queensland Minister has made publicly recently-that we are taking steps to give preferential treatment to Queensland. Senator COLSTON —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism to the Government's policy to upgrade Australia's capacity to service the tourism market. Can the Minister inform the Senate whether the Government is planning any initiatives designed to equip people in the tourism industry with foreign language and culture skills? Senator RYAN —My answer to Senator Colston's question will provide another example of how our Government is sensitive to the education and economic needs of Queensland. I have been able to announce today the commencement of a new training course specifically designed to equip people in the tourism industry with Japanese language and culture skills. As every honourable senator will know, the tourism industry is of great importance to Australia generally, and to Queensland in particular, and the Japanese tourism market is the most important target market for us. Until now the tourism industry has had no special capacity to assist Japanese tourists while they are here to ensure that their visit to Australia is a positive one and, therefore, to create further demand by Japanese tourists for visits to Australia. As a result of an initiative by the Asian Studies Council, established by us recently, we are setting up a three-month Japanese language and culture course which will be carried out in co-operation with the Queensland Department of Education, the Queensland technical and further education sector, the Queensland tourism industry and the Commonwealth. Courses being piloted in Cairns and on the Gold Coast will enable people who are destined to work in the tourism industry to get a basic understanding of Japanese language-though obviously not fluent language skills in three months-Japanese culture and the expectations of Japanese tourists when they visit Australia, thereby enabling them to be better able to serve this very important and growing market. It is my expectation that the program will be a success and that we will be able to use the Queensland experience to extend this very important and economically relevant Department of Education initiative throughout Australia. Senator ARCHER —Does the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce anticipate that an increase in smuggling may occur as a result of the extension of the duties of Australian Customs Service officers into more closely valuing passengers' luggage items on the institution of the $400 duty free limit announced in the May statement? What additional staff, equipment and building alterations will be necessary to implement the decision and what is the budgeted cost thereof? Does the Minister see any risk that the revenue raising function of the Customs Service could impair its duties relating to the detection of contraband goods? Senator BUTTON —I do not envisage any increase in smuggling, as Senator Archer puts it, arising from the decision. Senator Walsh has just drawn my attention to the fact that it will no longer be possible for people to smuggle colour television sets. We do not anticipate any great increase in smuggling as a result of the changes which have been made. The other matter to which Senator Archer directed my attention was that of additional staff and whether additional Budget appropriations would be required to administer the changed system. It is not the view of Customs that there would be any requirement for additional staff or revenue in respect of this decision. That view was put to the Government by appropriate officers of Customs when this matter was being considered. It is very important to remember that all items of clothing are excluded from the limit which is now imposed. Senator Archer —But the bears aren't. Senator BUTTON —Is the honourable senator interested in bears or in an answer to the question? Senator Chaney —Does that exemption cover the Treasurer's suits? Senator BUTTON —I do not know whether it will cover the Treasurer's suits. That is not the point. The point of Senator Archer's question is the time that would be devoted by Customs officers to administering the new requirements. Their estimate is that there will be no increased demand for personnel or funds as a result of the decision. One of the difficulties which I was seeking to explain under the pre-existing regulations related particularly to clothing. That is removed under the changes which have been made. So the answer, I suppose, to the honourable senator's question is no, we do not anticipate an increase in smuggling; we do not anticipate that extra revenue will be required; we do not anticipate that additional staff will be required as a result of this decision. The honourable senator asks a question about Customs staff in general. That always is and always has been a difficulty in terms of a wide range of functions which Customs has to perform. Senator ARCHER —I ask a supplementary question. Will the Government be able to maintain or improve the existing Customs Service without more staff. Senator BUTTON —The answer to that part of the question is yes. Senator GARETH EVANS —Yesterday Senator MacGibbon asked me a question about the status of serving Army personnel off Fiji. I now have a more detailed reply from the Minister for Defence in the following terms: As the Prime Minister's statement of 21 May made clear, the purpose of embarking the company is to assist in an evacuation operation should it be required. The company's role would be to assist with the security of Australian citizens and the provision of administrative and communications support. Again, as the Prime Minister stated, the company of about 110 personnel would be the minimum number of personnel required for such a task and would be totally inadequate for any broader purpose. The Australian Defence Force personnel serving in the vicinity of Fiji are not on active service. Consequently, they are not entitled to the benefits that active service attract. Contingency rules of engagement for the company have been promulgated to operational commanders and relevant personnel have been briefed. The rules of engagement are strict and entirely consistent with the limited purpose of embarking the company, as explained by the Prime Minister; that is, administrative support and assistance with any protective measures which may be necessary for Australian nationals. More specific details of contingent rules of engagement are of necessity classified and must remain so if the effectiveness of possible evacuation operations is not to be impaired. The PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter, dated 27 May, from 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 for a clear undertaking from the Government that it will delete from its industrial relations legislation all provisions which further entrench the privileged position of trade unions and which in any way restrict or limit existing legal sanctions.' 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)(3.05) —I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for a clear undertaking from the Government that it will delete from its industrial relations legislation all provisions which further entrench the privileged position of trade unions and which in any way restrict or limit existing legal sanctions. We bring this forward as a matter of urgency because we believe that the Government in the legislation it has brought into this Parliament is seeking to place trade unions above the law. We believe that that is not the wish of the Australian people and the Government, knowing that, is seeking to obscure its intention by temporarily withdrawing the legislation until it can have its Federal election. We regard that situation as sleight-of-hand and politically dishonest. It is a matter on which the Australian people feel very considerable dissatisfaction with this Government. Today in Question Time, as yesterday in Question Time, we sought by questions of Senator Button to get some assurance as to the Government's intentions. All that Senator Button would tell us was that there would be consultation. He was able to give us no indication at all as to whether the Government was prepared to move away from provisions which will further weight the power balance in favour of trade unions and reduce the capacity of employers to take action to remedy abuses of trade union power. Instead we have the sort of sleight-of-hand to which I have referred-a situation in which the Australian people are left in doubt as to the Government's intentions. Yesterday we had the quite extraordinary spectacle of legislation which had been under preparation for some four years-a couple of years of inquiry by the Hancock Committee of Review of Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems, a couple of years of consideration by the Government and extensive consultation among the Government, the Confederation of Australian Industry and the Australian Council of Trade Unions-and which clearly had the full backing of the current Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), being withdrawn on the very morning that a widespread and representative meeting of employers had determined to campaign against this legislation. There is no doubt about the Government's political cynicism in this matter. We believe that this Senate should state the view that it is time the Government gave a clear undertaking as to its intentions and, in particular, undertook to remove those provisions which place trade unions above the law. The issue of principle that lies between the Government and the Opposition on this matter, and indeed between the Government and the Australian people, is very clearly set out in a paragraph of the report which the Government's Hancock Committee brought down a couple of years ago. This paragraph in the report explains better than anything else the attitude which the Government brings to bear when questions of controlling the activities of trade unions arise. This question of the control of trade unions is not an academic matter. A Government senator asked a question about the coal industry today. The coal industry has a record in industrial relations of having over 40 times as many strikes as Australian industry generally. Whether we look at the coal industry in Queensland or New South Wales we find a hair-raising record of strikes. It was four times as bad last year as that of the mining industry generally, and 45 times as bad as Australian industry generally and that is in our key export commodity. The Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) today in the Senate bemoaned what the trade unions are doing in Port Kembla. They are destroying the future of the steel industry and the future of the men and their families and children who will be affected by this destruction which is being undertaken by the trade union movement in Port Kembla at the moment. Yesterday there were reports of the despair of primary producers in New South Wales that the endless industrial dispute, again at Port Kembla, at the erection of a grain terminal will impede the export of grains from New South Wales. Notwithstanding all the claims of the Government about an improved situation, postal workers are preventing the delivery of tax payments to this Government. In other words, the Government's own servants are preventing the delivery of mail to it. A succession of strikes go to the welfare of our country and are destructive of our welfare. Why has the Government this attitude? Let us see what Professor Hancock and his colleagues said. They talked about how we can make unions accountable for their actions. They said in paragraph 10.293: . . . the analogy with civil litigants and sporting contestants ignores a major ingredient of the industrial relations scene-- I interpolate that the analogy being drawn is that civil litigants are required to obey the law and to submit to the judgments of courts and sporting contestants are obliged to follow the decisions of umpires but, of course, trade unions seem to follow the dictates of no-one. The report went on: . . . the phenomenon of power-- Again I interpolate that that is the distinguishing feature of trade unions as against civil litigants and sporting contestants. The Committee went on: If we ask why litigants and sportsmen usually accept the adjudicators' decisions, we find part of the answer in the ethics accepted by the disputants; but part, too, lies in their relative weakness. The two factors are interrelated: the ethic of accepting decisions gains strength from the difficulty of doing otherwise. By contrast, trade unions are, to varying degrees, centres of power: they replace the powerlessness of individual workers with collective strength. It is a mistaken view of the pluralistic society to assume that every `subject' is equally dominated by the might of the state and its arms of enforcement. Some may wish that things were different: but vain hopes are no basis for effective policy. The important thing is that the Hancock Committee is saying that, because trade unions are powerful, they cannot be made subject to the law. Honourable senators opposite are bound by the law, I am bound by the law, the corporations and the great employers are bound by the law. But, according the Hancock Committee, we cannot expect trade unions to be bound by the law because they are too powerful. We made an attack on that proposition back in 1977 in the days of the Fraser Government when we referred to section 45d of the Trade Practices Act. Section 45d made trade unions accountable for secondary boycotts. Recent years have shown that section 45d and its companion, section 45e, are capable of bringing trade unions within the law and of applying the same rule to trade unions as applies to the rest of the community. That is what the people of Australia want. They do not want trade unions running out of control. They do not want the sort of pathetic situation that was described by the Leader of the Government in the Senate today where a few renegade trade unionists can hold Australia's future and a city's future to ransom. They want a situation where trade unions, like other sections of the Australian community, obey the law, obey the rules and are subject to penalties if they do not. We in the Liberal Party of Australia-we are joined in this matter of urgency by our colleagues in the National Party of Australia-espouse the view that the trade unions, just like everybody else, should be subject to the law. Honourable senators opposite giggle because most of them in their working lives, before they came into this Parliament to loll around on the back benches, were lawless trade unionists who upset the Australian community, who drove employers broke, and who generally behaved in a disgraceful way. I am sorry that Senator Peter Cook is not in the chamber because he is notorious for his activities as a leading official in the Trades and Labour Council in Western Australia. The approach of the Liberal Party and the policy which we have adopted in common with our National Party colleagues are to ensure that we have an industrial relations system in which trade unions, employers and others involved in industrial matters are equal before the law; that the law applies to all; and that it is enforced. We say in our policy statement, which we have jointly adopted, that we will encourage the use of the common law in the civil courts in appropriate cases as a means of obtaining redress for unjustified industrial action. We stress that we stand for the streamlining of procedures to such court actions to ensure more simplified and swifter trials. When we originally embraced the concept of section 45d in the Trade Practices Act that was a matter of academic understanding. The people of Australia did not really understand what a boon that would be to them. It took the actual use of the sections within that Act to demonstrate to the people of Australia that unions can be brought within the rule of law. Honourable senators should just remember the Mudginberri dispute, which has been much discussed in this Senate chamber. The significance of Mudginberri was that it provided the working example that the Australian people needed to understand-that trade unions, just like everybody else, can be made subject to the jurisdiction of the courts. In the Mudginberri case we saw the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union thumbing its collective nose at the employer and his employees-not just at the employer, Mr Pendarvis, but at the employees who were trying to work with him within the confines of a decision made by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. We saw that union thumbing its nose at the Arbitration Commission, the Northern Territory Government and the Commonwealth, and we saw that union capitulate only when the courts came into it and when proper penalties were imposed for the breaches of the law that that trade union undertook. The Mudginberri case and cases like it have taught Australia that there is an alternative to this pathetic assumption by the Hancock Committee that trade unions are too powerful to be subject to control. In Australia in 1987 there is a great public demand for the trade unions to be made subject to the same laws as everybody else. People are sick of a country in which the trade unions are above the law and where they can get away with murder. We find in the Hancock Committee report itself an acknowledgment of the public demand for improved sanctions against trade unions, not the reduction of sanctions against trade unions. In the section of the report headed `Public Opinion', we find the Hancock Committee reporting: An overwhelming majority of members of the general public supports the imposition of some form of penalty for non-compliance with `rules'. That Committee commissioned its own public opinion poll and that public opinion poll bears out precisely what is borne out by other public opinion polls that have been commissioned privately on this vital issue. Let me quote from the reports that were made at the time the Hancock Committee report was tabled. One stated that, according to a survey conducted by the Roy Morgan Research Centre in October 1984, Australians believed that trade union power and union demands for higher wages pose the biggest problems for the system and that 90 per cent of the people interviewed favoured some form of penalty. We find in a more recent survey in 1986 that eight out of 10 Australians believe that unions in Australia have too much power. Indeed, more than half of Australians-80 per cent-believe that they have far too much power. About 70 per cent of trade unionists believe that trade unions in this country have too much power and that there ought to be effective remedies against that. We find again that there is massive support-80 per cent-for voluntary unionism; something which is not acknowledged in the legislation which the Government has brought back. In fact we have a situation where the whole community is crying out for an end to industrial lawlessness. The response of this Government is to introduce legislation which will reduce the limited remedies that are available to employers when they face industrial lawlessness. There could be no more flagrant attack on the desires of the Australian people than the Government's industrial relations legislation. That is why it is hiding this legislation away until it has had an election. It desperately wants to get it off the table because it knows that this legislation faces not only the united opposition of the employees, large and small, city and rural, but also the united opposition of the people of Australia. That is what we are representing in this debate as clearly and as forcefully as we possibly can because it is the wish of the Australian people that the remedies against trade unions should be strengthened and not decreased. What is this Government doing in the legislation? It is removing the right to seek an injunction under common law which might be obtained if a federally registered union was taking unlawful industrial action against an employer. The common law injunction is feared by the trade unions because it means that, once the court orders that the union must comply with the law, a breach of that injunction puts the union in contempt of court. Again let us not look at this as a theoretical matter. Let us look at the recent dispute with the plumbers and gasfitters. Month after month the plumbers and gasfitters ignored the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, the Government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions. They took continuous strike action against employers which tied up building sites around Australia and they openly, and before the Industrial Arbitration Commission, flaunted their position and admitted that they were in breach of the ACTU, the Arbitration Commission and everybody in the industrial scene. Month after month there were painful attempts to use the industrial arbitration system-the system that is so beloved of practitioners opposite such as Peter Cook who waxed fat on the proceeds of professional trade unionism. These are the people who are supporting a system that has no intent. Senator Cook —Mr Acting Deputy President, I take a point of order. I object to the remarks made by Senator Chaney. They are a gross misrepresentation and they should be withdrawn. I ask you to rule that they are offensive and that they should be withdrawn. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Townley) —Order! Senator Chaney, the words have been found to be offensive. Will you withdraw them? Senator CHANEY —Mr Acting Deputy President, I was using the words in a metaphorical sense. If they are offensive to Senator Cook-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The honourable senator should withdraw. Senator CHANEY —Mr Acting Deputy President, I withdraw as I do not want to waste any more time. The point is that these trade union officials are typical of what occurred in the plumbers and gasfitters case. In that case, Mr Acting Deputy President, the plumbers and gasfitters continually defied the Commission and their trade union colleagues in the ACTU, as well as this Government and the employers. What we find, after months and months of this open and overt defiance by the union in breach of all of the applicable rules and the final attempts by the employers to get the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to impose the penalties open to it under the system, is the Deputy President of the Commission who dealt with that dispute saying: Reluctantly because in the long term its value is, to say the least, very doubtful, I have no alternative other than to issue the record and certificate as provided by Section 33 as sought by the employers in this matter- After months of procrastination and abuse by the unions of their position the Deputy President of the Commission issued a certificate under section 33 and he went on to say-and this is the sort of person the Act would require to be appointed to the Labour Court: I must say it is no secret that I have firm views about the value of penal sanctions and actions of this type, and I have expressed those during these proceedings. I have great doubts about their long term value, but that is not a matter for me to decide, it is a matter for the employers to decide whether they wish to use it. Mr Acting Deputy President, my point is that these people have shown an enormous reluctance to come to grips with the fact that there have to be some sanctions against those elements of the trade union movement that are prepared to abuse their power to the detriment of Australia and of the whole community. What the plumbers and gasfitters case proves is that the arbitral authorities are exceedingly reluctant to see any form of penalty, even a minor penalty, imposed. In that dispute it was not until the Federal Court of Australia came into it-it was not until there was an injunction, a breach of the injunction and the imposition of a penalty of $280,000-that the plumbers and gasfitters finally went back to work as requested, not by the Liberal Party, but by the ACTU, the Arbitration Commission, the employers and everybody who was concerned. It is in dealing with that sort of rogue conduct, Mr Acting Deputy President, that this Government is wilfully at fault in its legislation. It is proposing to deprive Australians of the right to go to the courts of the land when their rights are being threatened by the trade union movement. Senator Cook —That is not true. Senator CHANEY —That is true and that is why this Government has succeeded in uniting the employers of Australia in a way in which we have not seen them united for years. We have seen them united because of these blockages to access to the Federal Court, the destruction of the jurisdiction of the Federal Court and the establishment of a special Australian Labour Court. There is no right to use sections 45d and 45e of the Trade Practices Act without the certificate of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission-no right to use the common law injunction. Senator Cook —You are wrong, wrong, wrong. Senator CHANEY —Senator Cook says that I am wrong, wrong, wrong but they are the facts. This Government is putting logs in the way of those Australians who would seek to enforce their rights in courts that are accessible to everybody. The Government wishes to get these matters hidden away in a special court composed of people who are part of the system. We will oppose this legislation but we demand, Mr Acting Deputy President, that the Government come clean on its intentions before it goes to the people. The Government knows that the people of Australia do not want this legislation; it knows that they want the rule of law to be enforced; and it knows that it is engaged in a confidence trick. It is a disgraceful political performance. Written in every line of the face of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, was his anguish at what the Government was doing to the legislation he has laboured on for so many years. Mr Willis is an honest man. Let us see a bit of honesty from this Government and let the Government tell the Australian people whether it intends to destroy the rule of law and put trade unions above the law. Senator AULICH(Tasmania)(3.24) —The Industrial Relations Bill and the Industrial Relations (Consequential Provisions) Bill, which involve a major overhaul of the industrial relations system of this country, were introduced recently. Already, within a few days, this legislation has been subjected to deliberate misinterpretation, some lies and a great deal of misunderstanding on the part of people out there who have relied-- Senator Chaney —Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. A point of order was taken on me because I used a metaphor about waxing fat. That came from a gentleman who is not altogether slim. Senator Aulich has just suggested that I said lies. I insist on a withdrawal. I will not tolerate any of the usual Labor nonsense in this debate. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Townley) —Order! As I understand it, Senator Aulich did not say that you had in fact lied. If Senator Aulich did say that, I should be grateful if he would withdraw. Senator AULICH —Mr Acting Deputy President, it is very interesting. I said-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! Will you withdraw, please. Senator AULICH —I have said, and I will repeat what I said for your benefit, that this Bill has been subjected to lies. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! Will you withdraw, please. Senator AULICH —There was no personal remark intended at all. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! Will you withdraw, please. Senator AULICH —I then raise a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President, and I shall speak to the point of order that has been raised by Senator Chaney. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Aulich, I will name you unless you withdraw. Honourable senators interjecting- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! I will hear the honourable senator briefly on the point of order. Senator AULICH —Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I have indicated that this Bill has been subjected to lies and some deliberate misinterpretations. I have not said `in this chamber'; I have said that out there in the general community there have been some people who have been doing this. At no stage did I indicate that Senator Chaney was in that position. Therefore, no offensive remark was made about any person in this chamber and at this stage I do not believe a withdrawal is required. I am sure that Senator Chaney does not believe I called him a liar. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! Senator Chaney, Senator Aulich has said that he is not reflecting on you as an individual. Are you willing to accept that? Senator Chaney —If Senator Aulich is saying in his explanation, as I understand it to be, that he is not suggesting in any way that what I said in this chamber was lies, I accept his explanation and do not require a withdrawal. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Thank you, Senator Chaney. Senator AULICH —Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. One can see that tactics that are being adopted to ensure that the Government is not able to put its case in the full 20 minutes allowed. I have indicated that the Government will lay these Bills on the table to allow time in which those misunderstandings can be cleared up, for opinions to be given by practitioners in the community and the community at large and for those opinions to be taken into consideration. The Bills are important and contain many valuable changes, many of them long overdue and expected by the community at large. However, as a government we are prepared to give the community time to understand and debate the issues before the Bills become law. It is a pity that many of the positive changes contained in the legislation have been overlooked or lost somehow or other in the debate about certain individual provisions. I should like to deal briefly with some of the more positive aspects of the Bill, those that have escaped the attention of the Opposition. For example, let us look at some of the major concerns that have been expressed by people involved in industrial relations and by the community at large. The first one is the number of unions. There will, as a result of these Bills, be a dramatic reduction over the next 20 years in the number of trade unions representing workers in this country. At the moment we have something like 300 unions, which on a per capita basis must be the greatest number in any member country of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. West Germany has about 19, Britain about 40, and America about the same; but Australia has about 300. Of course, this is a cause of many demarcation disputes. It is a cause of problems in covering all workers fairly and equally. Everyone in this chamber who has a sensible view about industrial relations will support that proposal. That is just one positive aspect. The next concerns smaller unions; new unions will not be permitted to register unless they fulfil certain minimum membership requirements. Union elections will be stringently controlled. They will be conducted officially by the Australian Electoral Commission, which conducts all political elections, unless a special exemption is granted by the Registrar. Secret postal ballots for all elections will be made mandatory. Provision has been made, also, to protect individuals against discrimination against them by their own unions. I could go on to talk about controls over unions and discuss the discipline that will be imposed by this Bill on the trade union movement-and, I must say, on employers as well. Let us look at the overall economic viewpoint contained in this Bill: What discipline is imposed on the Australian Industrial Relations Commission in making its decisions about what wages and conditions it will grant to workers in this country. For example, the Commission will be required under this Bill to take into account, as a priority, the economic interests not just of employers and employee groups which are part of the system but of the whole community. It will not be allowed to compromise on wages at the expense of the general community by coming up with a compromise, for example, which certain industries or the community at large cannot stand. Decisions will have to be made in the light of a totally responsible economic attitude on the part of the Commission. That is a major provision contained in this Bill, one that has not been mentioned at all by any member of the Opposition in public over the last week. To deal with other areas, the major problem we have in industrial relations in this country is the division of responsibility between State and Federal tribunals. We have six State tribunals and a Federal tribunal. In some cases they work against each other and allow certain misinterpretations and certain disorganisation to occur in industrial relations. This legislation will make provision in a number of areas for a sharing of personnel, a sharing of decisions, if you like, and a sharing of the overall economic responsibility to be taken by those tribunals and commissions. That is a signpost for the future that again has not been mentioned by the sorts of people out in the community who want to misinterpret what is contained in this legislation. Let us have a look at what the legislation is all about. It does not deal only with structures, although structures are a very important part of creating and maintaining a viable and productive industrial relations system. We have to have the right atmosphere. This Government, for example, and the senior parts of the trade union movement have helped to create that right atmosphere. This has been shown, for example, in the dramatic reduction in the number of strikes that have occurred in this country over the past three or four years in which the Hawke Government has been in power. That did not happen by accident; it happened by dint of hard work, negotiation and a totally responsible attitude on the part of certain senior people in this Government and in the trade union movement. This is not a perfect world. There will be occasions when unions, for example, are irresponsible. There will be occasions when employers will be irresponsible and selfish. The right atmosphere is a very important component in ensuring that that irresponsibility on both sides is kept to an absolute minimum. I believe we, as a government, have helped to create such an atmosphere. Of course, we get down to tin-tacks when we hear talk about `the intervention of government' in this system. The Government has gone to the Arbitration Commission and has put its view about what decisions ought to be made about wages and conditions in this country. It has said: `As a Commission, we ask you not to give handouts which this country cannot afford'. In that light, real wages in this country have decreased over the past three years in line with Australia's reduced viability as an exporter. As we become more productive and as our export industries are able to compete more effectively-as a result, for example, of the restructuring that is taking place in this economy-it may well be that real wages will rise again. But they will rise within the guidelines that have been set down as part of the decisions made by a responsible industrial commission which, as I said, will be required by this legislation to take into account all the major economic priorities that face the whole country and not just the individual interests of particular groups. The fourth part of what constitutes or helps to make a good industrial relations system is flexibility. We have had that flexibility. We have had a period in which the accord tended to govern the relationships between the Government, the trade union movement and, I must say, the employer groups in the community. That accord served a very important purpose in holding down an explosion of wage increases during a period when productivity in this country was improving, when this economy was starting to get back on its feet again after the seven years of the Fraser economic desert. Since then we have moved, as a flexible government in a flexible system, into the two-tiered wages system, which will make allowance for those increases in productivity, particularly in those areas that have undergone restructuring under this Government. In other words, there is under the system we have now, and there will be under the new system we intend to bring in, potential for wages and conditions to reflect fairly accurately and fairly what the community at any given point in time can afford. That flexibility has been part of this Government's policy. We do not resile from that. We do not resile from the fact that the Government has a significant role to play in industrial relations in setting overall economic directions and in asking the Arbitration Commission, as it is now, to take that into account. This Liberal Opposition motion shows a central prejudice against working people and those organisations which have been established to represent the interests of working people-I mean in particular the trade union movement and the Australian Labor Party. Let us not beat around the bush: This motion is part of a campaign not only to attack the concept of trade unions but also to ensure that they are ineffective representatives of ordinary people in the community. I believe this indicates a fundamental misunderstanding about the way people relate to each other in an employer-employee situation. Let us go back to that particular basic concept that there is a way that employers and employees presently relate to each other and a way that they would relate to each other if unions were not present in the system. At the heart of the Liberal approach is the view that, left alone, employers and employees are equal and are able to strike bargains about wages and conditions that will result in a fair deal for all concerned. On the face of it, that laissez-faire or liberal approach can be seen as attractive-`Leave them alone and they will fix their own arrangements in terms of wages and conditions'. But in practice it falls down because of a number of factors. These factors relate to the way people work as human beings and to the work environment. Firstly, it is extremely rare to find and employer-employee relationship that is equal. After all, employers hold the purse strings. They have the legal right to hire and to fire. Secondly, of course, the major aim of employers is to make a profit, which generally motivates them to see labour as a cost which ultimately affects their capacity to make that profit. That is fair enough; that is part of their brief as employers. Thirdly, in an economy where unemployment has been and will remain high, very few workers have the luxury of seeking work elsewhere should their wages and conditions be unsatisfactory or insufficient. In a society where mortgages, hire purchase and other forms of credit are necessary financial commitments, a worker's ability to seek employment elsewhere is even more limited. In short, then, the employee is at a disadvantage in all sorts of ways, and unless a union is involved to represent workers' interests they will not have the control over their own lives in the work environment that they should have and they will remain vulnerable to the wishes, the motivations and the power of employers. So, as we all know, unions were established to provide group protection for individuals who otherwise would have remained extremely vulnerable. The industrial relations system in this country has reflected that concept-that there has to be a structure and that there have to be unions to protect the interest of individual workers. It is a recognition that ordinary Australians are entitled to a decent standard of living-not something which is handed out at the whim or the wish of employers, or at the capacity of employers from time to time. Australia led the world in encouraging that fairness and in enshrining it in the type of legislation that we have had for over 80 years and which is now being modified positively by this Government. In fact, the Liberal Party viewpoint reminds me in some ways of those halcyon days in education when we imported holus-bolus from America ideas for open plan classrooms which said: `Young people can be themselves and teachers will withdraw from any form of discipline and somehow or other they will all learn'. Like the Liberal Party industrial relations policy, which is also based upon the American model of `Let it all hang out', the education system, I believe, suffered from that. In fact, incompetent teachers who were not very good in the traditional system just simply gravitated to these new open plan schools and wreaked their havoc there in an even more uncontrolled way. I believe that that is basically where the Liberal Party industrial relations policy would take us as well. People who could not cope when they were in government between 1975 and 1982, who mucked it up and who had the highest level of strikes that had been seen for many years in this country, now want to open the door and say: `Let it all hang out; let it all be free; let unions and employers bargain between themselves; let the market prevail'-despite the fact that in 1982, the last year of their government, they started that policy. It ended in the most massive wages explosion we have seen in this country for many years, an explosion which ruined the manufacturing base of this country for nearly a decade. It is only now that that manufacturing base is starting to come out of the wilderness that Malcolm Fraser led it into. The $39 metal trades award right across the board was all part of the so-called free bargaining arrangement the Liberal Party was pushing at the time. Did it learn from it? No; the Liberal Party is still pushing the same policy and the same principle of operation that failed during the time that it was in government. People who do not learn from history are condemned to keep repeating the same mistakes, and I can see that happening here today. This Government is all about reshaping industrial relations in a responsible manner. I heard the personal remarks being directed at Senator Cook by Senator Chaney. Right from the start he attacked my distinguished colleague on a personal basis because that is the way the Liberal Party is organising and running the debate. It is misrepresenting, and forcing people to fear that something will happen to them. I refer to that one area where the Liberal Party has concentrated its efforts-common law and statute rights for employers to seek redress in courts. The Bill does not take away the common law rights of employers to seek immediate redress in civil courts. They can take out action, for example, for compensatory damages against any union at any time in any court in any State in the country. If a union goes over the top and becomes thuggish and irresponsible, it is quite within the rights of employers, both now and after the Bill becomes law, to take action against those unions or some of their officers. Employers are not losing those common law rights under this Bill, despite the misrepresentation that occurred during Senator Chaney's speech. Even under sections 45d and 45e of the Trade Practices Act, which the Opposition holds up as being the only way to discipline legally a trade union if it goes over the top, all that is required is a period before the Commission to put the case. Ultimately, if the case is justified, certification will be given to a particular employer to take action under sections 45d and 45e of the Trade Practices Act, which will now be taken in the Labour Court. That option will not be taken away, and sections 45d and 45e of the Trade Practices Act will force people to seek some form of negotiated arrangement or some sort of conciliation before they go into what is basically a semi-judicial system. I see nothing wrong with that. Injunctions can be taken out elsewhere. If an employer wants to put all his cards on sections 45d and 45e and make them the only way to discipline a trade union, he has been misinformed by the Liberal Party and a number of employer groups who, for political reasons, want to make that an issue. The last point I want to make, and I have only a few minutes in which to do so because of the deliberate interruptions-- (Quorum formed) The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Townley) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator Aulich —Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. Obviously my speaking time has elapsed because of the deliberate interruptions of the Opposition. I raise a point of order on the basis that when the light was on during the last one minute of my speech, a quorum was called. I ask for your interpretation of the attempt to silence me from making the point that, under the new legislation, unions will be subject to new fines that are much higher than those contained in the present Act. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! I have heard enough debate. There is no point of order. It is quite appropriate at any time for a senator to call attention to the state of the House, and the fact that it was done towards the end of Senator Aulich's speech was just a misfortune. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(3.46) —This debate must be seen as an effort by the Opposition to discuss legislation the Senate will not get and which almost certainly will not be debated in this Parliament. The Senate will not get it because of the caution of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) who is, in many respects, turning himself from a hawk into a sparrow who wants no boats rocked because of an early election. That is a pity because the Industrial Relations Bill 1987 has a good deal of merit in it. However, it is not possible in an urgency motion to debate the Bill in anything more than a piecemeal fashion. The Opposition motion is fundamentally flawed in its concepts, and it has never been the policy of the Australian Democrats to vote for propositions that are half-baked or based on wrong premises. Indeed, putting forward such spurious propositions is one of the oldest tricks in the game, particularly on a day when the proceedings of the Senate are broadcast and with an election in the air. The public has come to rely on the Australian Democrats to serve their best interests at all times and to serve the interests of real debate. Hence, the Democrats will not support the motion, for reasons that I will shortly canvass. I was interested in some comments by Mr Michael Taylor in the Australian. Among other things-and I suggest that it is worth listening to-he says: Employers and other opponents of Mr Willis's legislation should remember they were equally critical of the existing laws and will run the risk of locking themselves into the bad old days unless they can ensure that the Industrial Relations Bill is amended rather than buried and forgotten. The Australian Democrats agree with that. It hoped that substantial amendments to the Bill would be brought forward in the Senate but the Government is running scared on this matter because it believes it will get flack from the business sector. I shall continue to quote Mr Taylor: Despite their misgivings- that is, the employers and other opponents of the Bill- about certain sections of the legislation, they should remember that the Bill was not all bad and, overall, represented one of the few genuine attempts to drag Australian industrial relations laws into the 1980s. The employers and the conservative political parties should remember that in the absence of Mr Willis's legislation they must live with the existing law, a law acknowledged by all to be badly flawed and out-dated-a law that originated in 1904. Somewhat later in the same article some further good points are made: A new mood of conservatism permeated the industrial relations debate, with the so-called New Right emerging to threaten the laissez-faire attitude of mainstream employer groups such as the Confederation of Australian Industry and the Business Council of Australia. At the same time, the prices and incomes accord began to change rapidly in complexion, with the Government, confronted by a dramatic economic downturn, being forced to eschew the central tenets of its relationship with the unions such as full wage indexation and comparative wage justice. Though they have been viewed as voices of extremism, the members of the New Right have been effective in hardening the attitudes of employers and conservative politicians. Indeed, it is arguable that in the absence of the New Right the CAI and BCA would have been somewhat less vociferous in opposing Mr Willis's legislation. They have said that their opposition will stand, despite the Government's decision to let the Bill lie on the table of the House, but it is to be hoped that they can yet find common ground with the Government. They are wise words, and words which those who shout and scream about the Bill should think about. The Australian Democrats will not support the urgency motion for a number of reasons. First, the motion contains an implication that the Industrial Relations Bill 1987 contains a number of provisions which `further entrench the privileged position of trade unions'. The Bill does not contain such provisions. Secondly, the motion implies that the limitations that the Bill imposes on existing legal sanctions will further entrench the privileged position of the trade unions. We do not accept that proposition, either, for reasons which I will give later. Thirdly, this motion is yet another example of the Opposition's wasting of the time of the Senate by engaging in a posturing exercise when we could be dealing with one of the many Bills that still have to be considered by the Senate. We still have our work to do, despite an election being in the air. As I said a moment ago, the Industrial Relations Bill 1987 does not entrench a union privilege; it restores effective sanctions to the Commission and integrates those sanctions effectively for the process of conciliation and arbitration-which I would have thought was something that we all want. Mr Taylor in his article pointed out that it is common knowledge that the Commission has been unable to enforce its recommendations under the existing Conciliation and Arbitration Act. If one looks at the penalties contained in that Act, one sees that they are far below the penalties to be imposed by the new Industrial Relations Bill. Under clause 119 of the existing Bill, for instance, breach of an award is punishable by a maximum fine of $1,000 if the penalty is imposed by the Federal Court-otherwise the penalty is a maximum of $250. Breach of the statutory prohibitions in the Bill on an industrial action are punishable under clauses 5, 122, 132, 138, 144a and 188, with penalties ranging from $40 to $400. Clause 209 of the Industrial Relations Bill 1987 imposes a maximum penalty for beach of an award or failure to follow the directions of the Commission of $5,000 per breach. Those words `per breach' are very important. Clause 215 provides that, where the failure to abide by the direction of the Commission has resulted in an injunction and the union has failed to abide by that injunction, a penalty of $5,000 per day applies for breach of the injunction. The Opposition and employer groups have been noticeably silent on these provisions, and I suggest that they have been less than honest in that regard. They have shrugged them aside and said: `Well, that is all very well but the really important point is the loss of common law injunctive relief and the limitation imposed on injunctive relief under section 45d and section 45e of the Trade Practices Act'-the secondary boycott provisions. I find that a quite extraordinary position for them to take. Had the Commission had effective power to enforce its directions in the case of the Mudginberri dispute, the Dollar Sweets dispute or the plumbers and gasfitters dispute, there would not have been the need to seek injunctive relief under section 45d of the common law. It worried me indeed that Senator Chaney instanced in his speech the plumbers and gasfitters dispute in such a casual and partial way. In the plumbers and gasfitters dispute, for instance, the sanctions imposed under the new Industrial Relations Bill would have resulted in fines of $350,000 per week. That represents $5,000 a breach for each day on each of 10 work sites. That is the situation and that is the penalty that could be imposed by the court under the Bill-$350,000 per week. All this talk of a $5,000 maximum being inadequate has been fraudulent to the extent that employers and the Opposition have omitted reference to the fact that the $5,000 maximum can be applied per breach, per day, per work site. They are not advancing their cause by bringing forward all this spurious nonsense that we have heard on the media. If the employer groups think they are going to impress the Democrats because they say they are spending $1m or $4m, or whatever it is, over this sort of thing, when they ignore the kinds of truths to which I have referred and try to impose on the people of this country a partial truth-near enough to a lie-then that is not good enough for us. As I have said, we are here and we are responsible to the people of this country to see that the truth is served, and that should be the purposes of the Opposition too. I think it is very unfortunate that members of the Opposition are neglecting their duty in this regard. If subsequent Opposition speakers can get up and say that what I have said is not true, I will be most interested in hearing that. I think that they ought to make some reference to what I have said. If I am in error, I am willing to be corrected, but if I am not then indeed the Opposition should front up and level with the people of this country, some of whom will be listening today, and give them the truth of the matter and not simply a part of the truth which is designed for a political end-and I fear for an extreme political end. While I am at it, I would also suggest to members of the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia that they should not be over-influenced by the New Right. Those in the New Right are not representative of the Australian people; they are deeply distrusted by Australians, just as any extremist group from the Left would be. None of us in this place ought to be interested in extremist views of that kind, from people who are there to push their own barrow and to serve their own selfish interests. We know that perfectly well and, for that reason alone, they ought to be utterly discounted in relation to any consideration in this country. They have disqualified themselves from any consideration in Democrat councils by the fact that in relation to this matter they have brought forward what in fact is a pack of lies and half-truths. I have heard that it has even been put forward on the media this week that the Labour Court will have no power at all to operate against any contempt of its proceedings. That is rubbish and it is scandalous that such things should be brought up in public debate in an issue of this importance. For the sake of completely meeting the objections of the Opposition, I would now like to consider briefly the way in which this Bill does in fact limit existing rights to injunctive relief. Does it limit them? I refer first to the provisions in sections 45D and 45E. The new Bill leaves intact the definition of a secondary boycott and the penalties for imposing a secondary boycott. I hope that we have agreement on that, because that I think is a fundamentally important principle. Jurisdiction for hearing actions under sections 45D and 45E has been moved from the industrial division of the Federal Court to the new Labour Court. That court is not, as one propagandist for the New Right has called it, `just the Commission in legal drag'. That is a wrong and disrespectful way to approach any branch of the judiciary. We in this place ought to have the assumption at least that the judiciary is going to work and do it that credit. If it does not work, then I think we have every right to criticise it. The Labour Court would appear to be designed to be a superior court of record, equivalent to the Federal Court and the State supreme courts. In order to be appointed to that court the appointee must already hold judicial office or be a legal practitioner with at least five years standing before a Supreme Court or the High Court. The attempts by some members of the Opposition and employer groups to impugn the integrity of that class of people seem to me to be shameful and not convincing and, here again, totally counterproductive to the cause that they are trying to serve. That is the ridiculous thing about it; these people are not doing themselves any good with all this nonsense. In order for the Labour Court to hear an application for an injunction under section 45d or section 45e, the Commission must grant a certificate. However, this requirement does not involve the Commission exhausting the processes of conciliation and arbitration, as has been asserted by those who apparently have not read the Bill, or who have read the Bill but for political reasons have chosen to misrepresent what it says. Clause 197 (3) of the Bill provides that a certification will be immediately granted `where the Commission decides that it would cause a substantial injustice to the party if the party were prevented from instituting that proceeding while the Commission is exercising conciliation powers in relation to an industrial dispute'. That is a very clear and precise piece of legal drafting, which I think does the draftsman credit. It states quite clearly what the situation is. This would clearly cover the situation of an innocent third party who gets dragged into an industrial dispute or who becomes the target of a boycott whose business is endangered by the dispute. If the Commission is not of the opinion that a substantial injustice will result from continuing to conciliate the dispute before issuing an injunction, nevertheless, under clause 197 (1) the Commission must issue a certificate once `it appears to the Commission that it will not be able to settle the boycott dispute promptly'. Had this legislation been in place, in the case of the Mudginberri dispute, and in the Dollar Sweets case, injunctions would have been issued months earlier than was actually the case. I refer now to the common law injunctions. We are told by the Opposition and employer groups that right to a common law injunction is essential because: First, a common law injunction is an essential backstop or last resort if negotiations fail to stop industrial action and, secondly, a common law is essential because it can be so speedily obtained, within 24 hours it is sometimes asserted. Leaving aside a certain logical inconsistency between these positions, what is the existing position and how is it modified by the Bill? The existing position is that resort to common law injunctions is extremely rare. Where injunctions have been sought, as in the Dollar Sweets case, the industrial action has been continued for some time. The injunction has been sought only where resolution of the dispute by normal industrial relations processes has broken down. As I stated earlier, the procedures laid down in the new Bill for enforceable directions of the Commission which, if breached, would give rise to an injunction under the Act, will prevent a Dollar Sweets Co Pty Ltd type of situation arising. But there is another answer to those who claim that common law injunctive relief is necessary. That answer is contained in the Senate Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills report on the Industrial Relations Bill. Paragraph 4 of that report states: It is suggested that clause 216 does not trespass unduly on an individual's right to bring an action in tort against a trade union, since at least Waddell J., in the Supreme Court of New South Wales in David Jones Ltd v Storemen & Packers Union (1985) 14 I.R. 75 has already expressed the view that remedies available are inappropriate when the parties' dispute could be settled by the application of principles of industrial law In the Dollar Sweets case judgment, on which employer groups have so heavily relied, Murphy J. of the Victorian Supreme Court stated that the Court was willing to intervene in an industrial dispute despite the general understanding that interlocutory injunctions would not be granted by civil courts on industrial matters because the normal processes of resolving the dispute through the industrial relations process have been tried and failed. An improvement in industrial relations will come not from attempts by people such as Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen to crush the union movement and not from attempts by those in the New Right to use the courts to circumvent the Commission. It will occur if the present centralised industrial relations system is strengthened and the authority of the Commission is increased. The Industrial Relations Bill would have achieved that end. For that reason, with the modifications to it which have become a matter of record in the Press in recent days, it will have our support. Senator PARER(Queensland)(4.01) —This matter of urgency moved by Senator Chaney is of vital importance to the future of Australia and it is vital for the people of Australia to know the intent of the Government in regard to the Industrial Relations Bill. For the time being it has been shelved and the question that is being asked is why. The question was asked of Senator Button in Question Time today. His answer was similar to the remarks made by Senator Aulich in his speech. Senator Button's answer was that the delay would enable consultation between the parties concerned. Both of those senators have a reputation in this place of being relatively straightforward and honest. However, I would like to question those two observations about them. In a Press release on 14 May 1987-the day on which he introduced this Bill into the House of Representatives-the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) said: The changes to the industrial relations system embraced in the Bill are evolutionary and were carefully developed through a process of wide consultation over the life of the Hawke Government. So here we have the Minister saying that the legislation came about after a period of wide consultation during the life of the Hawke Government and now we are told it is being shelved to enable consultation to take place. There is a basic dishonesty somewhere in this. This Bill will very effectively prevent legal action being taken against one class of citizen, namely trade unionists and their officials involved in industrial disputes, for conduct which would make the rest of us liable for proceedings under established civil law. By whatever statistics we use, whether it be interest rates, inflation, taxation, the size of the debt or whatever, this Hawke Labor Government has delivered to Australia an economic crisis. Probably no single person has contributed more to that than the Prime Minister himself, not just in his term in government but also in his previous role as President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. A major cause for Australia's demise has been the loss of competitiveness and lack of reliability not only on world export markets but also on domestic markets. This reduction in competitiveness came about because we paid ourselves too much-this has been stated often by people on the other side of the House-and because we introduced work practices and restrictions at the work face. In the main these were forced upon the community by the then shortsighted militant trade union leaders led by the present Prime Minister of this country, Mr Robert Hawke, whose totally irresponsible actions destroyed not only individual companies but also whole industries. In the 1970s the trade union movement had been running rampant in the name of improving wages and conditions. But what did it do in the medium to long term? It destroyed jobs. Who can forget the phoney reputation of the President of the ACTU in the 1970s-the same Mr Bob Hawke-as solver of disputes. By drawn out industrial disputation an industry or company would be bludgeoned to its knees and then would be delivered the coup de grace. Inevitably the settlement flowed on and so the vicious cycle was compounded. No account was ever taken of the capacity of the company to pay or survive. I can recall in the mid-1970s an extraordinary claim in the central Queensland coalfields. After weeks of dispute, the President of the ACTU lurched into the area and like a mafia boss told the overseas management of the company that, if it did not agree to the conditions demanded, he-Bob Hawke, President of the ACTU-would personally ensure that the mines would close down and would never open again. No doubt he returned to the bar of the Black Nugget Hotel and bragged about the benefits of conciliation. No wonder that in Japan, Asia and the United States he was looked upon as the Australian version of Jimmy Hoffa. He set about consciously or otherwise to destroy the manufacturing industry and the jobs of hardworking Australians. I will quote a statement made by this man, this destroyer of jobs and destroyer of industries. He said in August 1979: We know inflation is at 16 per cent and we believe it is quite likely to reach 20 per cent in the next two quarters. I remind honourable senators that there was no devaluation of the dollar to bring that about-it was simply wage induced inflation. He continued: But we will not indulge in a trade-off in wages for some conjectural reduction in inflation. That was Bob Hawke, the same Bob Hawke who currently presides over the disastrous economy he and his cronies have inflicted on the Australian people. It is easy to say that management was at fault in capitulating. I have heard that on many occasions. In many-perhaps most-cases with borrowings to service and contracts to honour or be lost, it was a matter of capitulate or die; pay the protection money or else. It was also a period when we saw great export industries disrupted by all sorts of ploys, the most notable of which were the so-called green bans at places like Port Kembla where we have disputations going on today. Because of this, in 1977 the then Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, Mr John Howard, introduced section 45d-the secondary boycott provisions-into the Trade Practices Act. The aim of section 45d was to enable employers to take action in civil courts should illegal activities be taken against an organisation by people not engaged in that organisation. The then President of the ACTU, the now Prime Minister of Australia, Mr Bob Hawke, threatened John Howard that if he proceeded with section 45d there would be blood in the streets. This attempted intimidation of a Minister of the Crown, the blatant bullying tactics of the power-bloated leader of the ACTU, did not succeed and section 45d became part of the Trade Practices Act. Why the concern? The reason he was so concerned and was threatening blood in the streets was that for the first time there was a piece of legislation in place to enable those affected by the brazen abuse of monopoly trade union power-and I deliberately choose those words because many trade unions do not fit that category-to seek remedies through the civil courts. Injunctions could be obtained quickly and proven damages would be claimed. It has been estimated that since that time sections 45d and 45e of the Trade Practices Act have been used between 80 and 300 times. It is a little hard to get an exact figure because on many occasions just the presence of sections 45d and 45e or the threat of their implementation has been sufficient to prevent secondary boycotts. This legislation never sat comfortably with the Labor Government or its masters within the trade union movement. The Hawke Government tried once before to remove these sections but was blocked in the Senate. I am amazed to hear Senator Mason in here do a 180-degree somersault. Perhaps I should not be amazed because I think honourable senators on both sides are used to that behaviour from the Australian Democrats anyway. The legislation has been used in recent times in the much publicised cases of Mudginberri, Dollar Sweets Co. Pty Ltd and the Plumbers and Gasfitters Employees Union. It will be recalled that in the Mudginberri case the management and the employees worked out a deal which was of benefit to both parties, and an export contract was gained. The employees received more money, Mudginberri management achieved greater productivity and the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union did not like it. It did not like it because it had in place an outdated restrictive work practice called the tally system and it was in fear that the deal might spread to other abattoirs in Australia and make them more productive. People who were not employed by the Mudginberri abattoirs were flown in to picket the operation; damages were claimed against the AMIEU and were awarded to Mudginberri. This would not have been possible without section 45d. The ACTU has recently produced a document on the future of unions. The report and comments by Bill Kelty were summarised in the Australian of 26 March in an article which states: . . . Mr Kelty believes the well-publicised legal victories against the union movement-Mudginberri, Dollar Sweets and the Plumbers and Gasfitters Employees Union-represent `only the tip of the iceberg'. `Employers are exhibiting an increasing willingness to seek legal redress (especially under section 45d and common law) in dispute situations. The common law and statutory rules are so heavily loaded against organised labour that such attempts to obtain legal redress are almost invariably successful in legal if not in industrial terms.' What an amazing statement! The ACTU goes on to warn unions to restrain the use of boycott tactics, to make careful selection of targets, to adhere to dispute settling procedures and to ensure that any industrial action is supported by the membership. That is a turnaround-it wants it to be supported by the membership! Unions are also urged to keep disputes within the framework of the conciliation and arbitration system. Mr Kelty says: Be prepared to beat a strategic retreat where that is the prudent course . . . recognise that legal action can destroy a union. The article goes on to say: However Mr Kelty stresses that such defensive, `avoidance tactics' will never be entirely successful. In order for the union movement to take the offensive it would demand `a disciplined professional trade union organisation with a collective commitment and a considerable measure of employee support'. Mr Kelty says: These pre-conditions do not yet exist in Australia. Even if they did exist it would probably still be necessary to try to change the law. There we have it; that is what it is all about. That is what Senator Aulich did not refer to; he conveniently neglected it. It is interesting to see, too, that one of the great supporters of the campaign against section 45d of the Trade Practices Act is the communist newspaper Vanguard. In the Industrial Relations Bill the Government has emasculated section 45d. It is all very well for honourable senators on the other side to cover up with a bit of gloss and a bit of glib stuff and say that it is still there. It is claimed that it is still available through the Australian Labour Court. Technically that is correct, but for practical purposes it is incorrect. It will need a certificate from the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to trigger it, and that certificate will not be issued unless it is satisfied that the process of conciliation and arbitration has been thoroughly exhausted. Senator Cook —Not in all cases. Senator PARER —That process can be such that it will render section 45d totally inoperable. Senator Cook interjected: `Not in all cases'. He knows and I know that for practical purposes it will, in all cases-in all cases that count. Senator Cook —No, I don't know that. Senator PARER —Senator Cook has had a lot of experience in this field, and I would be very surprised if he did not ensure that section 45d does not get to the ball park. Why should an illegal industrial act be subject to conciliation and arbitration? Why is institutionalised trade unionism to be removed from the law that applies to every other institution? For the time being this Bill has been shelved because the Government is considering calling an election. It is not because it wants consultation. Senator McKiernan —It is not because I want one. Senator PARER —Senator McKiernan interjects that it is not because he wants an election, I know that is his view. It is because someone else out there feels otherwise. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator COOK(Western Australia)(4.16) —It has been said that the industrial relations field is one in which all those with no experience claim to be experts and all those who have had experience know that they are not. If that statement is anywhere near true, we have heard this afternoon from a parade of people with no experience claiming to be experts, not the least of which is the person who moved this urgency motion, Senator Chaney, who has recently been appointed to the new right wing, ultra dry look front bench of the John Howard Opposition. Senator Childs —He is a pretty face. Senator COOK —Yes, and will try to put a more human face, I suggest, on the industrial relations portfolio than that of his predecessor Mr N. A. Brown. However, we have heard yet again the tired old parade of cliches used to attack unions as though that were the answer to a rational industrial relations policy. The Liberal Party of Australia has proven in this debate that it has no expertise in industrial relations. It has only rigid, iron-clad pet and pat solutions which come out of abstract theory from the New Right and which are not appropriate to a modern day, advanced economic society such as Australia. This motion has been moved, as I said, by Senator Chaney. At least he got it a bit more correct than did Mr Shack in the House of Representatives yesterday. He proposed a matter of public importance asking for sections 45d and 45e of the Trade Practices Act to be retained. It may be that when Mr Shack put forward that proposal he had not read the Industrial Relations Bill 1987 which is being attacked in this debate. That Bill which has now been opened for further consultation contains those sections of the Trade Practices Act, so Mr Shack put forward a huge and glaring example of why the Liberal Party is ill-equipped to join the fray in this debate; that is, it simply does not know or does not want to know. It wants to propound the malicious half-truths that are bruited in the public domain as though they were fact in industrial relations. In this debate it is important to remember that one of the reasons the Hawke Government was elected in 1983 was that it had as its slogan `Bringing Australia Together'. It had as a subsidiary slogan `National Reconciliation'. It sought co-operation, not confrontation. Those were meaningful words in 1983 because we had lived through a period of the Fraser Government in which confrontation was the norm. In Western Australia, under the Court Government, whenever an election approached, new industrial legislation which was supposed to provoke industrial unrest was introduced so that that Government could, as the Bjelke-Petersen Government in Queensland is now doing, point to that industrial unrest and demand yet sterner legalistic powers of sanction to justify a law and order election. In this debate we hear a parade of those cliches again, as the Liberal Party runs after the pyrrhic prize that if one can stir up public animosity against unions one can somehow improve one's political credit. I do not believe that that is possible. In 1983 when the Australian Labor Party came to power on those slogans that I have mentioned it was not. Honourable senators who have an historical view of industrial relations in this country will remember that in the 1890s, after major industrial disputation around this nation-in the maritime and pastoral industries-there was a generally acclaimed slogan in the community that `There must be a better way'. The slogan gave birth to the Australian arbitration system, which has served this country well. In 1983 the slogan `Bringing Australia together' meant that we had a government in power in Canberra, at the helm of national affairs, which sought co-operation. This has meant a lowering of industrial disputation figures around the country. It has meant that unit labour costs have fallen dramatically, that wages outcomes have been moderate and attuned to the needs of the economy-even at a time, in the early stage of this government, of massive economic expansion-and that the economic adjustments have been smooth. It has also meant that unions, which have been brought into the consultative process, have worked out co-operative arrangements with the Government. Those who have been freed of union organisation-the professional sector or the executive salaries sector-have zoomed ahead and shown no co-operation with the economic objectives of the Government. Anyone who listens to Question Time in the Senate will be familiar with what the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, has often said about the Australian Capital Territory doctors union, which is the prime example of what the Liberals would call a maverick union but about which we have heard from them nothing but praise, certainly no condemnation. We have certainly heard from the Liberals nothing in opposition to the Bjelke-Petersen so-called legislation in Queensland. They are silent and they are condemned by their silence on that legislation. Therefore, they come into this debate with no credit at all. The truth about the Opposition is that it hates unions and it despises workers. It encourages misinformation about industrial relations either deliberately or through its own ignorance. It believes, as an article of faith, that more penalties and more sanctions will deter people who have serious and just economic claims to be answered, as if that ever worked. It is captive of a New Right philosophy which shares an essentially extremist right wing notion that, if unions were destroyed, the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission could be removed, and that employers versus workers in direct bargaining would somehow result in a fair and equitable economic outcome. That is not true; no industrialised country in the world believes that to be true; certainly no one practices that. In the dying stages of our last three-week sitting period, I referred in the adjournment debate to the anniversary of the sailing of the First Fleet in 1787. On the weighing of anchors of the First Fleet there was an industrial dispute because of exploitation of the crew by their contract owners. The ultimate industrial penalty that the sailors crewing the First Fleet ships faced was hanging for mutiny. However, this did not deter them from mutiny because they had a justifiable economic claim that was later answered by Captain Phillip, later Governor Phillip. The fact is that, if people have no belief that penalties do not work in settling industrial disputes, they do not know Australia's history; they have not read the settlement to which I referred. Penalties did not work in 1787; they will not work in 1987 or at any future time. If industrial relations is to be a political football, as it is now being promoted by the Opposition, there can be no rational debate or any serious analytical discussion about what is the best way of achieving an outcome most necessary for the future growth and equity of this nation. If industrial relations is argued through penalties, we are doomed to an endless disputes cycle. If industrial relations is aimed at trying to destroy the public standing and credit of unions which are protecting their members' economic well-being, again we are doomed to an endless disputes cycle. However, if industrial relations is aimed at finding out what is the problem, what are the equitable solutions and what is the best way, we can have a rational debate. A starting point for such a debate is for a country such as Australia to ask itself: which other advanced and mature economies have, as we do, a high level of union membership and an institutionalised union system, and perform better in industrial relations than we do? If that question is asked, one looks at the countries of Scandinavia, at West Germany and at Austria, to name a few. All of those countries have well developed and high levels of union membership. Unions are an established institution. Indeed, in some of those countries they are so recognised by the country's constitution. We also see that those economies have very few disputes at all. They have strong economic growth, low inflation, and low joblessness; they include unions in their economic planning; they have high levels of skills training; and they have a strong welfare and social security base. That is, they have traded insecurity, instability, uncertainty and the political exclusion of unions for consultation, information exchange, common acceptance of joint problem solving, security, stability and confidence. That is the philosophy that this Government seeks to advance in Australia as a natural extension of the legislation that exists. It is important to go back to the record and see what this Government has achieved so far. The Liberal Party attacks us on industrial relations. How dare it compare its record with ours! The Australian Bureau of Statistics reported that to the 12 months to January this year, in Australia 1.4 million man days were lost through industrial disputes. That was fewer man days lost than in any comparable period in the whole of the eight years of the Fraser Government. Average working days lost under the Fraser Government were three million per annum; under this Government 1.4 million per annum have been lost, a reduction of 53 per cent. Because there is higher employment under this Labor Government than there was under the Fraser Government, if one disaggregates those figures and works them out in terms of the number of thousands of employees, the reduction is 60 per cent, which is lower than the figure during the Liberal Government. This has occurred for a Labor government during a time of high economic growth, a time in which classically a union's bargaining position, and therefore propensity for industrial disputes, is higher. A high level of industrial disputes has not occurred under this Labor government because it has involved unions in a discussion of economic objectives and what would be the best outcomes for the economy. This has also occurred at a time in which per unit labour costs have fallen by about 7 per cent. It cannot be alleged that this Government has bought off workers. Workers have made real sacrifices in order to achieve the economic outcomes that are now the basis of this Government having the across the board support that it has, support across the business, labour and economic spectrums. The reason for that is that the Labor Government has supported the prices and incomes accord, which has been a useful and important document. The Opposition has said in this debate that, as the urgency motion propounds, the Government wishes to further entrench the privileged position of unions. All one can say about that statement is that it is utter nonsense. Even on the framework of the words used in this urgency motion-`which further entrench'-the legislation we are seeking to modify is legislation that was on the books during the whole period of the Fraser Government. Can anyone who recognises the anti-union streak running up the back of the Liberal Party believe that the Liberal Party entrenched union power and that what the legislation is about is further doing that? Of course it is an utter nonsense. As the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) has said, we are amending the legislation as a natural development of a serious and considered concern of industrial relations problems by seasoned and veteran practitioners who sat on the Hancock Committee of Review into Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems. It is important, since this debate has degenerated from what it should be to an attack about penal sanctions, to know what the Bill contains about penal sanctions. It is not true-this should be said as loudly and as often as necessary-that this Bill diminishes the range of penal sanctions open to employers. It does not do that. As for the continued parroting of an argument that it does, one only has to ask oneself: Why does the Australian Council of Trade Unions not support this Bill? It does not support it. It has criticised the Government for bringing it in. Why do a number of unions criticise the Government for this Bill? It is simply because the penalties that are available under two forms of statute-the Trade Practices Act and the Conciliation and Arbitration Act-are now brought into the covers of one proposed Act. However, the use of those sections is open, as it is now, to employers. To concentrate simply on the argument that the proposed Act is to reduce the available mechanisms to employers is a nonsense. The good thing about these changes is that they bring at least this certainty into industrial relations: If the Commission has a dispute before it and it is conciliating on it, as long as an experienced practitioner in industrial relations in the form of a commissioner believes they are producing some result, those conciliation procedures have a chance to work before one brings in penalties. But if they do not work or they cannot work because of capricious action on behalf of individuals or organisations a range of sanctions is open which is, I would argue, more extensive than what applies now. That point ought to be remembered. In the very short time I have remaining to me in this debate I raise the question of common law. It is passing strange for a legislative body such as the Senate to raise to some exalted level judge-made law as opposed to parliament-made law. Common law is made by judges, by judicial precedent. To abdicate the responsibility of a body such as a parliament to judges is to deny the political process and the democratic rights of ordinary citizens. Common law does not have a special place. All parties in the parliamentary process intervene over the common law and have done so to guarantee consumer protection, such as in regard to the law of corporations-because after all common law could not cope with the limited liability of companies-trade practices and road accident compensation. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(4.31) —We have just heard Senator Cook defending in his usual way the trade union movement and his involvement in it. Along the way he indicated that senators on this side of the chamber have a hatred of unions and despise the workers. I would venture to say that those on this side of the chamber have probably had as much, if not more, to do with unionists at a coal face level as honourable senators on the other side of the chamber, including Senator Cook, and certainly we have not operated from the hallowed chambers of the Trades Hall. I would venture to say that more senators on this side of the chamber would have had dirt under their fingernails before they became members of parliament than honourable senators on Senator Cook's side. Many have had active involvement in the trade union movement. In World War II when Benito Mussolini's axis partnership with nazi Germany was not going all that well he said: We cannot change our policies now. After all we are not political whores. This saying has special significance in the light of the Hawke Government's handling of industrial relations, especially as outlined in the Industrial Relations Bill that has been withdrawn from the Notice Paper. `We cannot change our policies now. After all we are not political whores'. In other words, the Hawke Government has every reason and desire to see the current industrial relations system entrenched and does not want to change it, irrespective of all the harm and damage it has done to this nation over a long period. The reference to Mussolini is, of course, quite apt. If the Government has its way the corporatist state, so beloved of the fascists, will be born. A council of fasces will be formed by big government, big unions and big business, and to hell with the rest of us. What we really debate with any mention of the industrial relations legislation is the integrity of this Government and how it has succumbed to the Australian Council of Trade Unions. The Government has further degraded itself by withdrawing the legislation in the heat of election fever. The heat of election fever is on us, as anyone walking around the corridors of power now would know. The legislation has been withdrawn not because of a need for further consultation, as we have been told, but because of the massive public campaign which was to be mounted against it. I might add that that would have been a very successful campaign. As Senator Chaney said when he led the debate for the Opposition on this matter, never has anything so brought employer groups, big and small, together-and indeed the whole community-than this iniquitous legislation. The more people begin to understand it, the more united they become against the Government. No wonder the Government does not want to go into an election with this iniquitous legislation hanging over its head. The Government may be sure that, having brought it to light and having let it open to the air, it will be remembered all the way through the campaign. The Government will rue the day it ever thought of bringing this legislation in. The present industrial relations legislation needs an overhaul. I would agree with that and my colleagues in the National Party would agree with that, as would my colleagues in the Liberal Party. But I guess we differ on how the legislation should be changed. I suppose that one could say we should have started to change it as long ago as 1904 when legislation was formulated and the industrial relations club was founded. Clause 51 (xxxv) of the Constitution indicates the Commonwealth's responsibility for conciliation and arbitration. But why do we have it? Australian workers are not different. They are not intellectually inferior to any of their overseas counterparts. Why do we need a patronising and paternalistic Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to look after their interests? Overseas a lot more is done on a discussion and consultation basis even before matters get to conciliation. If a court decision is needed, the matter usually ends up in a civil court after consultation, on either an industry or an enterprise basis, has failed. One of the major problems with the present system is that it does not encourage good industrial relations. It encourages an adversary relationship. It relies on antagonism and consultation. The whole conciliation and arbitration system as it exists now needs confrontation and antagonism to survive. The legislation would discourage good relations in many ways by, for example, its entrenchment of existing unions and the fact that it would be a well nigh impossible task to form a new one. The membership required for registration of a union would go from 101, as it exists now, to 1,000. I have received correspondence on my desk quite recently from a group which is not satisfied with the existing union it belongs to and which seeks to start another one. This legislation would make that well nigh impossible. In other words, these members would have to put up with something that is diametrically opposed to all they believe in. Unfortunately, the Australian system was founded on the British craft union system. That system is still pretty well entrenched, to the detriment of workers and business generally. We should at least have industry unions. I would like to see unions established on an enterprise basis, but it would be impossible for that to happen under this legislation. The Queensland legislation which is lying on the table of the State Parliament now for debate in the Budget session allows and encourages the formation of enterprise-based unions, which should be encouraged at all levels. The very basis of an enterprise union is that there be room and time for consultation, even before conciliation becomes a necessity. I would be the first to admit, as a practising unionist and union official at a branch level in times past, that many of the industrial problems we have today are management-oriented. They result from management not really trying to manage. With enterprise-based unions at least we would be forcing management to recognise their work force, one of its biggest assets, and consult with it on a regular basis. This would be far better than the no consultation situation we have now. Many disputes would be headed off at the pass instead of leading to a confrontation situation and the need for parties to go before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in an adversary situation. They would not even get to that level. So enterprise-based unions are to be encouraged. The Queensland Government is to be applauded for the fact that provision for that is in the legislation that is on the table and for enabling discussion on the matter before the legislation is ultimately debated in the Queensland Parliament. One of the other problems with this legislation is that it entrenches the Australian Council of Trade Unions as a major political force. We have seen this happen in the last few days. It has been the cause of some questions from the Opposition to the Government. If people doubt this let them consider the bans on trade with Fiji at this time. The Tolpuddle Martyrs would roll over in their graves if they saw what they had started to work towards-to serve the interests of union members-being so prostituted by union officials today. I thought it was the Government that decided foreign policy and had to use export controls. Yet right here and now in this country there are bans on exports to a South Pacific nation which have been brought about by nothing other than the ACTU subverting this Government in doing what it should be doing-exercising foreign policy and export controls. We now have a union movement which is a self-serving industry, serving an entrenched officialdom and certainly not the welfare of its members. The reason for this matter of urgency is that the industrial relations legislation consolidates the power of the union oligarchy by removing its actions from the ambit of civil courts. As has already been discussed by my colleagues, we are vitally concerned, within this removal of trade unions from the ambit of civil courts, with the removal from the Federal Court of Australia of responsibility for section 45d and section 45e of the Trade Practices Act. Instead of the Federal Court having responsibility for that, we will have this Clayton's court, the proposed labour court, or as I have heard it said, the judiciary in drag. Much mention has been made, and quite rightly, of the fact that the Mudginberri and Dollar Sweets situations could not have been handled as expeditiously, efficiently and with justice done under this new legislation if it were ever to take effect. There is much cause for concern on our side of the chamber and, indeed, amongst the business community and the community generally, given the record of responsibility dodging by the present Commission, from which the labour court will draw on existing personnel. Dare I instance the live sheep export problems that arose a couple of years ago. The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union and Borthwick and Son Pty Ltd colluded on live sheep exports. Ultimately, the court found in the union's favour. Fortuitously the civil court threw the matter out. Irresponsible members of the union movement often hold a firm to ransom and after days, weeks or months, we find that the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, or a commissioner, will say that the reality is that the Commission has to give in. Once again another battle is lost and quite often a firm goes out of business because of it. It is quite interesting that in February 1987 the Roy Morgan Research Centre did a fair bit of research on attitudes to trade unions. It was fascinating to hear Senator Mason talk in this debate. He is completely out of step with what Australian Democrats voters think on many matters. One of the questions asked was: `Do you think membership of trade unions should be voluntary or compulsory?' Overall, the result was that 81.2 per cent said it should be voluntary and only 13.9 per cent said compulsory. Interestingly, of Australian Labor Party voters, 73.1 per cent said voluntary and of Australian Democrats voters 88.8 per cent said voluntary. The next question was: `Do you believe trade unions have too much power, the right amount of power, or too little power?'. Overall, 69 per cent said too much. Eighteen per cent said it was the right amount and 3.1 per cent said it was too little. Of ALP voters 57.1 per cent said it was too much and of Democrat voters 66.5 per cent said it was too much. The next question was: `. . . three ways in which wages and conditions of employment may be decided. Which one way would you prefer wages and conditions of employment to be decided?'. Overall 22.9 per cent said they prefer it to be by the Arbitration Commission, 19.8 per cent said it should be by agreement between unions and employees, and 50.6 per cent said it should be by agreement between employees and employers-in other words, by enterprise-based unions, as I have indicated. The greater number of Labor voters, 40.7 per cent, opted for that as did 52.6 per cent of Democrat voters. The last question was `Do you believe employers should or should not have the right to take action in the Supreme Court against a trade union?' which is what this legislation which the Government will ultimately foist upon us will stop. Overall, 82.9 per cent said that it should, 76.4 per cent of Labor voters said yes and 96 per cent of Democrat voters said yes. Democrat voters were even more gung ho than National Party voters-only 90.1 per cent of them said it should. It is just as well that Senator Mason is retiring from the Senate at this election which is about to be announced because he is completely out of step with Democrat voters. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator CHILDS(New South Wales)(4.46) —We are discussing an urgency motion which was introduced by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney). Normally, Senator Chaney is a sophisticated and plausible speaker but I am afraid that he is off form today despite the desperate cheer squad that he had in the Opposition ranks. He has been given the job of selling the Liberal Party industrial relations policy. That is an impossible task. If I could use a rugby expression, he has been given the dump-he has been sold the dump-because he has had to take the path of Liberal Party policy which is completely unacceptable. It has the hallmark of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Menzies, Mr N. A. Brown, who is the architect of this policy. Mr Brown is Mr Howard's right hand man in every sense and the Liberal Party policy in this area is a radical policy of all the extremism of the New Right. As we are going into an election it will be debated by us and we will show Australian people that it is a policy that seeks to give complete power to the New Right-the millionaires who back the Liberal Party and who make up the New Right. It is a further attempt to entrench the privileged position they hold in society. That is what is entrenched, not the reference to union power that appears in the matter of urgency. Whether the Australian people will allow the New Right through the Liberal Party and the National Party to experiment in its plans of confrontation and disruption is another matter. The Liberal Party and the National Party unfortunately are puppets to their outside masters. It is ironic that Senator Chaney in introducing this matter should talk of the weight of trade union power because the only difference between the Liberal Party and the National Party is: Which of the two sets of millionaires tell which politicians what to do? It is interesting that Senator Collard, who has just spoken, talks about my Labor Government being associated with big business and big government. In Queensland, where he comes from, it is the white shoe brigade of millionaires behind the Premier with, of course, Mr Stone in the background, who advise him and his Party. Mr Elliott is the leader in waiting of the Liberal Party. He lacks only a seat. He has the money and the influence in the Liberal Party. He could not get a seat but he is there too. There is a whole list of people including Copeman, Hay, West, Porter, McLachlan and Houlihan. All these people are associated with the New Right. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Mr N. A. Brown, admitted that the New Right's input on 5 December last year into the Liberal Party's industrial relations policy included members of the H. R. Nicholls Society. They played a leading role in developing that policy. Mr Brown said that he had discussed the new policy with people such as Andrew Hay, and Peter Costello and Paul Houlihan from the National Farmers Federation, asking for their views. Of course, Mr Brown is the only parliamentarian in the whole of the Parliament who was soft on the military coup in Fiji when the Fijian junta took over. So when he follows the dictates of the New Right it is no accident at all. If honourable senators doubt the confrontationist attitude of the Liberal Party they should remember that included in its secret plan for government was a warning that it should be prepared for a general strike and the likelihood of another election within six months of coming to power. It was very embarrassing for Senator Messner and other front bench members of the Liberal Party when this plan to turn Australia literally into an industrial holocaust was exposed, because the Opposition plans to experiment. I admit that I am talking only about a hypothetical situation when I talk about a Liberal government, but if we can imagine it, the Liberal Party would have the whole of Australia in a mess before Christmas. Business people have to remember that, in contrast with the tranquil atmosphere that exists in industry at present, a Liberal government would guarantee that sort of confrontation. Is it that this is just something from the firebrands on the back bench? It is endorsed by the Leader of the Liberal Party, Mr John Howard; the extremism starts from the top in the Liberal Party. Senator Messner is lower in the order because Mr John Howard said: `As far as I am concerned we need more Mudginberris all round Australia. I want to see them breaking out like wild flowers all over the country'. That is Chairman Mao Howard talking, indicating the revolutionary path that the extreme Right wants in this country. Of course, we have to contrast that with the industrial relations policy of this Government. But the serious thing, which we have just had repeated by Senator Collard, is that the Industrial Court itself is being denigrated. That is proof of the Liberals getting to the stage where they are actually denigrating the judicial system. Senator Collard referred to the Industrial Court as being judiciary in drag. What about all the other judges? What about the Clerks and the Deputy Clerks of the Senate? Where will this denigration of honourable people following the laws of the land stop? There is no reason for industrial court judges and people in that area to be denigrated unless the Liberals are out to destroy the whole tradition of the industrial relations climate in this country. Senator Messner —What about your secret plan? Senator CHILDS —We have to contrast this plan that a hypothetical Liberal government would introduce before Christmas and the disruption that that would cause with the four years of relative peace that we have had in Australia under this Government, where we have had co-operation among the Government, and the unions and most employers in this country. These people have worked for stability in the economy and they have tried to ensure that working days are not lost. They are now at a level of 60 per cent compared with when the Liberal Government was in power. Today the trade unions have been denigrated again and wage and salary earners, through their organisations, have been attacked, as is the wont of members of the Liberal Party who are so determined to defend their big business backers. We have found that wage and salary earners, through their organisations and the Australian Council of Trade Unions, are accepting reduced wages. Indeed, the figures show that there was an increase in wages of 11 per cent under the previous Government but that under this Government the yearly rate of increase was 7 per cent. So in the interests of Australia, these terrible trade unions have been prepared to reduce their own salaries, knowing that this Government, through the prices and incomes accord with the trade union movement, has put three-quarters of a million people into jobs. Australian trade unionists were prepared to do that in the common interests of this country. We have also been able to co-operate with the trade union movement-a word that would be impossible to be used in connection with both the Liberal Party and the National Party. Those parties could not introduce the industrial packages that this Government has introduced in order to try to make our industry competitive with the rest of the world. Included in those packages are the steel plan, the shipbuilding plan, the textile, clothing and footwear plans, and the heavy engineering plan; all those plans that, on an industry basis, have helped to make Australian industry effective. But it goes further than that. The very legislation that Senator Collard referred to earlier allows for industrial agreements in individual enterprises. When members of the Liberal Party actually examine the legislation they will see that it will allow industrial agreements that have occurred over many years in a whole range of jurisdictions that can cover the needs of a particular enterprise. Those agreements will be policed in a proper way by the arbitration authority and they will give us an opportunity to get away forever from the Liberal Party style of confrontation and allow us to move in the way in which the most successful countries have moved. The countries that are showing economic progress are Japan, Germany and Sweden, to pick out three of the most notable. It is not the way in which those countries follow the policy of confrontation but the way in which they put a premium on human resources. Unfortunately, that is the basic weakness of the Liberal Party's industrial relations policy because it seeks to underestimate the importance of co-operation if we wish to change our society. That is what we want to do, and that is the value of co-operation. As my colleague Senator Cook has said, it is the whole process of trying to solve problems. We cannot solve problems if we have the ideologues of the New Right attempting to follow through their almost religious dogmas of attacking people. Unfortunately, that New Right faction is dominating the Liberal Party. This means that we have great problems because we will just not have the industrial relations policy that we need. In fact, as somebody has said, the New Right is not trying to take policy back to the 1930s; it is concerned about the 1830s. The Liberal Party is trying to follow the dictates of the New Right. I just want to use a typical example of the Liberal Party and the National Party following the model of the Peko-Wallsend dispute in the Pilbara where 1,100 people were dismissed overnight. These workers were offered their positions back provided they accepted the loss of accrued leave and benefits. Qualified tradesmen were told to dig holes and truck drivers were told to clean toilets. In my State of New South Wales a classic example of the mentality of people in the Liberal Party is that 400 people who were sacked at Besco Batteries were given half an hour's notice. That really sums it up. The Liberal Party's industrial relations policy is designed to ensure that untrammelled rights are given to the employer. The Liberal Party wants to make sure that other people will not have any rights. That is not on because we are going to have an election. The Australian people have had four years of peace. They do not want the war that they will get with the Liberal Party and the National Party. The only thing that the Liberal Party can do to prevent a war with the National Party is to have a war on the whole of the Australian community. But, as far as the coalition parties, as they were, are concerned, the problem does not concern only an attack on a small group of militant unionists. The Liberal Party's policy is designed to attack all wage and salary earners. What members of the Liberal Party are not saying about their industrial relations policy, because it is very embarrassing, is that they propose to allow firms with fewer than 50 employees to opt out of the arbitration system. Some 2.1 million people will be affected by this, some 2.1 million people will not have the protection of their unions, but the employer will still have access to the industrial relations power of the employer organisations. Only the people in small business will be disadvantaged. That is what the Liberal Party policy is and as a result fewer benefits will be provided. It would mean that even the company that is decent and proper in what it is doing for its employees would be undermined by the place down the street that would become a sweatshop. There is a clear difference between the Government and the Opposition. I cannot wait until we get out on to the hustings and tell the people of Australia what the real policy of the Liberal Party is all about. Question put: That the motion (Senator Chaney's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 36 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 8 —— Alston, R. K. R. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller)Archer, B. R. Knowles, S. C. Baume, Michael Lewis, A. W. R. Baume, Peter Messner, A. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Newman, J. M. Boswell, R. L. D. Parer, W. R. Carrick, Sir John Puplick, C. J. G. Chaney, F. M. Reid, M. E. Collard, S. J. Sheil, G. Durack, P. D. Short, J. R. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Vanstone, A. E. Hill, R. Walters, M. S. Jessop, D. S. Withers, R. G. Aulich, T. McKiernan, J. P. Black, J. R. Macklin, M. J. Bolkus, N. Maguire, G. R. Childs, B. K. Mason, C. V. J. Coates, J. Morris, J. Coleman, R. N. Powell, J. F. Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S. Reynolds, M. Cooney, B. Robertson, E. A. Crowley, R. A. Ryan, S. M. Devlin, R. Sanders, N. K. Elstob, R. C. Sibraa, K. W. Evans, Gareth Siddons, J. R. Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C. Georges, G. Vigor, D. B. Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A. Haines, J. West, S. M. Jones, G. N. (Teller) Zakharov, A. O. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Richardson, G. F. Brownhill, D. G. C. McIntosh, G. D. Townley, M. Gietzelt, A. T. MacGibbon, D. J. Button, J. N. (Senator Watson did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Grimes). Question so resolved in the negative. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-I wish to make a brief statement on behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). Mr President, within the past two weeks two events of fundamental significance for the future of Australia have taken place. I refer to the May statement of initial measures for the 1987-88 Budget and the Premiers Conference. Those events must be placed firmly in the context of the continuing work of this Government. The great need now is for certainty and continuity. In the past 2 1/2 years, and especially in recent months, the people of Australia have demonstrated a willingness to shoulder and share burdens and a sense of responsibility in the face of the huge difficulties imposed upon us by the changes in terms of trade which have wiped $9 billion from our national economic capacity since December 1984. The Government believes it is essential for Australia's future that this sense of national responsibility, this new awareness and understanding of the problems, should now be harnessed to a great, continuing and decisive national effort. The basis for this national effort is a renewed mandate from the people, a mandate to continue the directions now so strongly established-a mandate to finish the job. Opposition senators interjecting- Senator BUTTON —Mr President, I understand the excitement of honourable senators on the Opposition benches; it will be their last opportunity. Accordingly, the Prime Minister today met with the Governor-General and advised him to exercise his power under section 57 of the Constitution and dissolve the House of Representatives and the Senate on 5 June 1987, with a view to elections for both Houses being held on 11 July 1987. The dissolution is, of course, subject to the Parliament appropriating sufficient funds to enable the work of the administration to be carried on during the election period. I am pleased to inform the Senate that the Governor-General has accepted the Prime Minister's advice. In addition, the Government expects that the legislation presently before the Parliament necessary to implement our high priority programs will be enacted before the Parliament is dissolved. The May statement and the Premiers Conference together constitute the substantive part, and certainly the toughest part, of the budgetary processes for the year ahead. The large areas of fiscal policy-social security, education, community services, health, defence and Commonwealth-State relations-have been compre- hensively reviewed. We will not be returning to them to secure further savings of any magnitude for the 1987-88 Budget. Our strategy is now firmly in place. There has been a decisive reordering of policy from monetary to fiscal discipline. By cutting government spending in this unprecedented fashion we have continued to improve the climate for reductions in interest rates. Our measures will provide greater scope for lifting business investment in the export sector and in industries which compete against imports. There is, however, a significant element in our long term commitment which is being thwarted. The Australia Card Bill is an integral part of the Government's tax reform package, and it is aimed at restoring fairness to the Australian taxation and social welfare systems. The Bill's rejection by the Senate significantly reduced the Government's ability to crack down on tax and welfare cheating, and the Budget deficit in the years ahead. The most conservative estimate by the Australian Taxation Office of revenue gains in the tax area alone is $724m, once the program is fully operational. Gains in social security and Medicare expenditure are estimated to be in the order of $153m. Thus the total gain to public resources from this measure would be nearly $900m. This is the ground on which the Prime Minister has advised a double dissolution, and we are committed to reintroduce the legislation in the new Parliament. The Senate's rejection of the Australia Card does not stand in isolation. Only today in this chamber the Senate refused to reconsider the Government's legislation to extend television services to rural areas; that is, the Government's intention to give five million of our fellow Australians living in the country equal access to television services has been frustrated, for the time being. The pattern of conduct by the Senate introduces an element of uncertainty and instability into our national affairs at a time when Australia's greatest need is certainty, stability and continuity. That is the crucial issue in the election ahead. The measures we have taken give this nation the tools for national recovery and reconstruction. Now let us finish the job. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —Mr President, I seek leave to move that the Senate take note of the statement. The PRESIDENT —Is leave granted? Senator Gareth Evans —Leave is granted to make a statement. Senator CHANEY —I did not seek leave to make a statement. I sought leave to move that the Senate take note of this critically important statement. It is quite absurd. I seek leave. The PRESIDENT —Is leave granted? Senator Gareth Evans —Leave is granted to make a statement. Senator CHANEY —All right. Mr President, I seek leave to make a statement. Leave granted. Senator CHANEY —I thank the Senate, and I indicate that we will move for the suspension of Standing Orders when I finish my statement so that we can deal with this statement in a proper way. I might say that the next government-the Liberal Party of Australia and National Party of Australia government-will not have a Manager of Government Business who so wastes the time of the Senate. This is a very important announcement by the Government. It shows once again that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is incapable of telling the truth. We have had a succession of statements from Mr Hawke about his election timing. We have had a succession of statements and claims about the integrity of the Prime Minister. He went early in 1984 after he had said that he would not go early. In the course of that campaign he said that this Parliament would go its full term. We now have a situation where, well under the full term, and, most importantly, before the Government has brought down its Budget, Mr Hawke is going to an election. Senator Michael Baume —What has he got to hide? Senator CHANEY —Of course, the simple question is the one that has been asked by my colleague Senator Michael Baume: What does the Prime Minister have to hide? What he said on 1 April, eight weeks ago-I suppose he felt he was entitled to mislead the public on April Fool's Day-was: I have decided that the election will be held towards the end of this year or early next year. Two weeks ago, on 14 May, he said: I don't see any reason, I can't envisage any reasons for a July election. On Michael Schildberger's program a day later he said: I said yesterday it can't be July in any circumstances that I can imagine. No new factor has emerged in that time. The pathetic excuses trotted forth by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) were all known to the Government when the Prime Minister made those statements on 14 and 15 May. The reality is that the Government has decided to run for cover-to run for an election before the August Budget is brought down and before its attitude on the industrial relations legislation is determined. We welcome this election because it is a chance to tip this hopeless Government out of office, and that is what we will do. Just as the officials of the Australian Labor Party have been warning the Government about the fragility of its standing in the electorate, let me remind the Government that the dent in family living standards that has been made by this Government will be a central issue of this campaign. When the Fraser Government left office families were told by the Labor Party that they were in a difficult position. The reality is that after nearly four years of Labor the tax burden on families has increased. It has gone from about 17 cents in the dollar to 20 cents in the dollar. The burden of interest has increased, and the people in the small businesses and on the farms of Australia have been crushed by high interest rates. We welcome the opportunity that is being given to those voters to tell this Government what they think of it. Today we had a debate on trade union power. We can understand why the Australian Democrats are very pleased about this result because, of course, it gives them some faint chance of evading the annihilation which they would have faced in a half-Senate election. But we should note the way the Australian Democrats today supported the Australian Government in its preparedness to insulate trade unions from the operation of the law. In a society in which 80 per cent of the Australian people believe-- Senator Cook —That is not so. Senator CHANEY —Listen to the ex-trade union officials such as Senator Peter Cook, who terrorised the people of Western Australia with his antics as a trade union official. Listen to him getting hot in his defence of trade union power in this country. I hope that Senator Peter Cook campaigns a great deal. Senator Cook —Mr President, I raise a point of order. Senator Chaney has done this several times today. He insists on using that word with respect to myself in ways which are demeaning. The word `terrorise' is an inappropriate and unparliamentary expression in these circumstances and he should be required to withdraw it. It is not only inappropriate; it is also untrue. Senator CHANEY —Perhaps I may speak to the point of order. I can understand Senator Peter Cook wishing to hide his antecedents, Mr President, which are not particularly pleasant, but I would say that there is nothing unparliamentary about saying that the honourable senator, as a trade union official, terrorised the people of Western Australia. I am sure I could produce a stack of affidavits to confirm that that was the view. I would say that there is no precedent that would suggest that that is an unparliamentary expression. The PRESIDENT —It is a reflection on Senator Cook to which he took personal offence and, in those circumstances, Senator Chaney should withdraw. Senator CHANEY —I assure you, Mr President, that out on the hustings I shall be happy to use the same expression. I withdraw, in deference to your ruling and the sensitivity of Senator Cook. Having seen Senator Cook in action when he was working with the Western Australian Trades and Labour Council and when he was inflicting such harm on the Western Australian economy, I can only say that he did not show the same sensitivity at that time as he has shown in the chamber today. Senator Cook —Have you withdrawn or haven't you? Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I cannot help it if Senator Cook's hearing is defective or he was not listening. The PRESIDENT —Senator Chaney has withdrawn. Senator CHANEY —I invite that wonderful phalanx of ex-trade union officials who warm the benches opposite to take an active part in this campaign and to draw the attention of the Australian people to the fact that their Government was bringing forward legislation that it has now hidden away until after this election is held. It is hidden away forever now because this Government will not be there to reintroduce it after the election. I invite all of those ex-trade union officials and ex-trade union lawyers, such as Senator Button, to remind the Australian people that their Government is trying to prevent the legal remedies that were utilised in cases like Mudginberri, Dollar Sweets Co. Pty Ltd and the recent strike by the Plumbers and Gasfitters Employees Union of Australia being available to the Australian people. Some 80 per cent of the Australian people are absolutely horrified by the abuses of trade union power that are occurring to this very day. Senator Cook —That is not true. Senator CHANEY —Senator Cook will defend the trade unions if they order the massacre of the innocents; that is the extent of his loyalty. Senator Crowley —Mr President, I raise a point of order. I think that is called going over the top, and I ask Senator Chaney to withdraw. The PRESIDENT —Order! There are too many interjections from both sides of the chamber and I ask that Senator Chaney be heard in silence. Senator CHANEY —The point I am making is that many of the elected members of the Labor Party have direct personal experience of abuse of trade union power, and I invite them to present freely to the Australian people their proposition that they wish to prevent Australian citizens from taking trade unions to the courts when they breach the common law, and obtaining an injunction that would be prohibited under the legislation. The Government is trying to restrict access to the Trade Practices Act; it is trying to prevent future successes like Mudginberri, Dollar Sweets and the termination of the plumbers and gasfitters strike. I invite the Labor Party to campaign on that issue because the people of Australia are totally fed up with the approach of the Government. What are the actual reasons that have been trotted forth by the Government for bringing about this double dissolution? An examination of those reasons shows what a sham we have on our hands. The Government has said that the Australia Card Bill will be defeated-it was defeated some months ago and the Government could have had a double dissolution then-and of course the legislation with regard to rural television services was not re-listed today. The rural communities of Australia will not forgive this Government for the hardship it has imposed upon them in recent years. Honourable senators opposite know that there is vast discontent in rural Australia about what has been inflicted on them. I do not think we will see many of the honourable senators opposite campaigning in the rural areas of Australia because the 20 per cent interest rates which have been inflicted year after year upon the farming community of Australia are driving farmers from their farms and forcing others into poverty. That is the legacy the Government is offering the rural community. When it makes some cheap crack about rural television services and expects to win the rural community, it will be treated with the contempt with which the suggestion has been treated by the Senate. What is the Government's own evidence about the savings that would accrue from an Australia Card? There would be no net savings in the next couple of years at least, on the Government's own figuring. This is another example of a sham. The reality is that the Government has brought down two-thirds of its Budget. It has brought down a mini-Budget, which has dealt with part of the August Budget. The Government has dealt with the Premiers Conference and, needless to say, it wants an election before the results of that conference show. With the exception of the Premier of Queensland, who rushed off and made sure that some of his charges are raised immediately, the impact the conference will have on the voters of Australia will be felt, in the main, only when the States bring down their Budgets later this year. No wonder the Government wants an election in July. If it waits for the full course of this Parliament to run or if it waits until December, the States will have brought down their Budgets and the full effects of the Government's maladministration of this country will be seen. What has the Government got to hide? It has to hide the State Budgets as well as its own Budget. The Liberal Party will be pursuing the Government before the election on 11 July to expose what it is going to do to the Australian people in the Budget. The Government should come clean and tell the people of Australia what it is going to do. It would not be game. Senator Elstob —What about your tax policies? Senator CHANEY —Senator Elstob ran for election in 1984 on the promise to have a tax summit, and he babbles away now trying to justify this sham on the part of the Government of which he is a member. It is quite clear that there is no justification for an early election. The only justification the Government has for having an early election is that it is frightened of what the next few months will bring for the people of Australia. This Government, having introduced its mini-Budget, is now trying to have an election before it discloses to the Australian people what the full impact of its budgetary measures will be. That is a simple fact. The necessary hard measures are to be hidden from the Australian people, while the Government will produce the sweeteners in the form of its election campaign. We have been told that there will be a package dealing with family living standards, so I shall now turn to what the Government has done for families over recent years. The Government has taken two million people out of the health insurance system. The proud effect of Medicare has been to produce a queue of 100,000 people waiting for operations and to force two million people out of the health insurance system. There is now the prospect of greater medical charges, higher insurance charges and still more Australian families being refused the capacity to insure their health. That is one contribution. Another contribution of the Government has been to take the cost of buying a house from something like 19 per cent of family income to about 26 per cent of family income. That is the sort of change that has put the squeeze on people in the suburbs of Australia, and it is the sort of change that will lead to the rejection of the Government in the suburbs of Australia. For years the farms of Australia have been faced with interest rates of 20 per cent. That is going to tell against the Government in the election it has called for 11 July. The purchasing price of families has declined under Hawke; real incomes have declined under Hawke; and the price of the family car has gone up by 42 per cent or more under this Government. In every area, families have been put under the squeeze. The most significant action by the Government is that which it is now trying to hide from the Australian people-its concession to trade unions that they are not to be subject to the law. The Australian people will hear a great deal about those issues over the next few weeks. The Opposition knows the Australian people totally reject the Government's attempt to put trade unions above the law. They totally reject the idea that somebody like Senator Cook, when he is the Secretary of the Trades and Labour Council, cannot be dealt with under the Trade Practices Act whereas ordinary people can be. They reject that sort of protection being given to trade union officials; they will reject this Government, and I look forward to this election and seeing many of the honourable senators opposite not returning to this place. Finally, I turn to the Australian Democrats. One of the reasons why the Labor Government is having a double dissolution is that it knows it cannot win a majority in the Senate in its own right. It knows that since it fiddled the Parliament and increased its size, it cannot get a majority in the Senate. It is common knowledge that the Government believes it can get anything it wants while the Australian Democrats hold the balance of power in the Senate. It is common knowledge that the Australian Democrats are almost indistinguishable from the left wing of the Australian Labor Party on critical issues. The attitude of the Australian Democrats in relation to the nuclear issue, defence, environmental matters or taxation is almost totally consistent with that of the left wing of the Australian Labor Party. All I can say is that in this election the betrayal of middle Australia by the Australian Democrats will be amply rewarded by the electorate, which will repay them in kind by failing to support them in the campaign that lies ahead. The fact remains that, in relation to the Government's key legislative proposals, particularly those proposals which are not wanted by the Australian people, it has been the Australian Democrats who have provided the means of the Government getting its new taxes and the various other things that this Government has wrought on the Australian community. We believe that the election has been called at this time so that the Government can seek to hide from the consequences of its actions, but we say, Mr President, that we welcome the election. We look forward to the people of Australia throwing this Government out on to the street. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —by leave-Before I make some general comments on the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has seen fit to call an election some six months or more earlier than was required, I think I ought to take up a point that was raised by Senator Chaney and say that just occasionally the honourable senator ought to let the facts get in the way of a not very good argument. In this instance Senator Chaney ought to look at the voting figures of his Party relating to the last session. If Senator Chaney does the same sort of checks that I have done, he will find that more of this Government's legislation went through on divisions last session when he and his Party voted with the Labor Government than was the case in relation to the Australian Democrats. In case his memory needs jogging, let me mention things like increases in the wine tax, an imposition of 10 per cent sales tax on fruit juice and milk products, cuts to the English as a second language program, delays to the poverty traps implementation legislation, and a delay to the normal November consumer price index increases to pensions. Senator Alston —Would you have blocked Supply? Senator HAINES —Oh, the honourable senator should come here for a few more years and he will learn the difference between the Supply Bills and other legislation. If members of the Liberal Party are going to argue that they have to support every piece of legislation that is introduced in the Budget session, I suggest that in order to save this country a lot of money they go back to their electorates between August and December and come here only during those months when they think that they can consider legislation on its merits and vote accordingly. Senator Chaney —You do? Senator HAINES —Senator Chaney should not give me that sort of rubbish. There are plenty of people in rural Australia who are only too aware of who is responsible for the problems facing the grape growers, the citrus growers, the dairy industry, and families in rural Australia generally. So, Senator Chaney should not get all hysterical about our voting record before he has looked at his own. However, Senator Chaney's comments indicate why the Prime Minister has taken, to put it charitably, the rather pragmatic stance of calling an election as early as he has. I suppose that those of us who are a little less charitable would call it plain opportunism. In any event, whether it is pragmatism, opportunism, or whatever else, clearly, the Prime Minister has weighed up all the facts that he has had at his disposal and has decided to call the election, as I have said, some six or more months earlier than was necessary. One of the reasons why he has felt so confident was indicated quite clearly in the drivel that we have just heard from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. The Prime Minister knows, as does everyone else, that, short of hysteria, the opposition Parties have very little to put against him. They are in total disarray. Their communication spokesman cannot even work out their policy. He makes statements such as: `They sounded like a good idea at the time'. Then he has to go against them. The Liberals have more wings in their political party than does the Labor Party, and those in the Liberal Party spend most of the time not talking to each other. There is no doubt at all that, had the Opposition been united, even the Liberal Party within itself, much less with the National Party at the same time-with which it is sometimes in coalition while at other times it is not-the Government would not have perceived that now is an appropriate time to call an election. Furthermore, that disarray in the Opposition ranks has led the business community, so assiduously wooed by the Prime Minister over the last few years, I might point out, to indicate that it would prefer a Hawke led Labor government to win the next election than a Liberal government led by what could be anybody-assuming that the Liberal Party can find anyone at all to lead it. Of course, the May economic statement sealed the support that the big business New Right buddies of the Labor Party were giving it. Of course, those people who are not part of the New Right, who are not people involved in big business-those ordinary people like pensioners and members of families on low incomes-have been ignored by the Labor Party, although the Labor Party believes that those people represent captive votes and that they are unlikely, as indeed is the case, to vote for the Liberal Party. Finally, of course, Mr Hawke believes that, with confusion reigning over the media legislation, the owners, the media barons in this country, are going to be particularly kind to the Labor Party during an election campaign, secure in the knowledge that the Labor Party is prepared to legitimise the purchases that were made illegally in the past six months, in the hope that the whole package of legislation will get through. Having made that point, I acknowledge that Senator Chaney is perfectly correct in one statement that he made. I would be less than honest and in fact less than an appropriate leader of the Australian Democrats if I did not acknowledge the fact that since the election has been called early I am of course pleased that it is going to be a double dissolution. The speculation is now over; we can get ourselves into an election mode, and I acknowledge that it is going to be somewhat easier for us with a double dissolution. At least I am honest enough to admit that. I do not pretend, as Senator Chaney does, that I am opposed to everything that members of the Labor Party put forward. When one looks at the voting figures one realises that clearly he is not, or he would not have sat in their arms as often as he did in the period between August and December of last year. During the next few weeks we will be doing what every political party in this place ought to be doing, namely, going to the electorate with policies and a past record of which one can be proud. That sets us apart from other parties, and the Australian Democrats will campaign along those lines. I think that our support for the average Australian family-as distinct from families who live in Toorak, or on the North Shore in Sydney, or in any other well to do suburb-is well know, as is our demonstrable effectiveness in relation to anti-nuclear and environmental protection issues and our responsible role in reviewing every piece of legislation on its merits. We are not concerned solely with when it is introduced into this place or whether it is part of a Budget strategy or whether it is introduced between February and June. The Australian Democrats exercise a responsible role in reviewing every piece of legislation on its merits and that is something that we will be able to campaign on. The other point that of course needs to be made during the election campaign-and I am sure we will not be the only ones making it-concerns, as Senator Chaney said, the matter of the control of the Senate. Neither of the major political parties can get control of the Senate in its own right; it can become neither a rubber stamp nor totally obstructionist. So, the choice that the Australian people will have in the coming weeks is between putting the balance of power in the hands of a political party such as the Australian Democrats, which in fact does review legislation on its merits, or letting it slip into the hands of a party such as a Joh Bjelke-Petersen led National Party, for which of course the ends have always justified the means. This election campaign will be not just a matter of policies and issues but also something that focuses entirely on the Senate as a house of review. Therefore, I found it rather interesting that during his impassioned speech Senator Chaney was able to focus on only one campaign issue, the old spectre of union power. We know that Senator Chaney and many others in the Liberal Party of Australia would prefer to have the employers in total power in this country. If they do not actually want children back down the mines, they come perilously close to it. Quite clearly, the Liberal Party is devoid of policies if all it can do at the beginning of a fair election campaign is start a series of scare tactics in its attempts to win office. Liberal members can be assured that the sorts of people whom Senator Chaney mentioned-those in rural Australia, Australian families, pensioners, ethnic and Aboriginal groups-will not fall for the promises and the rhetoric of the Liberal Party. They will be much more aware of how this place operates and what political parties really have to offer. It will not take much for them to work out that the Liberal Party is not only in disarray, but it also has nothing new to offer and that there is very little that is worthwhile in the old measures it is offering. We are looking forward-as I presume everyone else is-to the successful completion of a longer than usual campaign and to being returned to this place in increased numbers after 11 July. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —by leave-We are in the election mode; the button has been pressed and away we go. When I heard the Leader of the Australian Democrats (Senator Haines) speak to the statement put down by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button), I could not help but think of the words of a senator in the United States of America whose name escapes me. He described the Democrats in the United States as being `indeed like the mule-without pride of ancestry or hope of posterity'. I often think that that applies to the Democrats in this country as well. In this instance, their only hope of posterity is to sidle up to the Labor Government and they have done that quite effectively. Indeed, it is quite amazing. Senator Macklin —What about you? Senator COLLARD —Despite the length of time that the Democrats have been in this place they do not seem to understand the basic principle that is accepted by both major political influences in this nation-that the government of the day is entitled to its Budget. The Democrats should have a look at the speeches in the Budget debate in order to see what we really think about that. That has always been a principle. Having said that, I will look at the reasons the Leader of the Government in the Senate has given for holding this election. First, he talked about the May mini-Budget and the Premiers' conference. However, he did not speak about the matter which Senator Chaney said he should have spoken about-that is, the forthcoming Budget. We have seen that previous Budgets have been out in their growth and inflation predictions. It was as if the Government was heading for massive budget deficits which it knew it could not handle. Because of that we had to go through the sham of a mini-Budget. The announcements in the mini-Budget were greeted by the Press at first blush as something which it could embrace. We were to have $4 billion in cuts. Once we saw the fine print we realised that only a small proportion of that would be this Government's cuts. The rest of the cuts would be made by the States, by the sale of assets and by increased charges which would ultimately be passed on to the consumers through Telecom Australia and Australia Post. So we come down to the fact that the chickens have come home to roost and this Government will not face the hard decisions that it should have faced all along for the 1987 Budget. The Government has required an election before the Budget. Hopefully when we are in office we can take the hard decisions that are needed to get this economy back on the road. The Labor Government has had all its opportunities; it has had what could be described as a government-led recovery which worked quite well. It had the pump priming with $15 billion extra in government expenditure in the first two Budgets and that went quite well until the overseas money markets began to wake up to what this was all about. Then we began to see the dollar go down the tube. Then, of course, to prop up the dollar and save some sort of credibility in its fiscal management, the Government had to increase interest rates. Thus we had this government-led recovery being put down by the overseas money markets. Then we had-- Senator Reynolds —I rise on a point of order, Mr President. Could the honourable senator make his position clear as to which party he represents? Does he represent the new National Party of Queensland or the National Party of Australia? The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. Senator COLLARD —What else would one expect from a government that is under siege and that will not bring down a responsible Budget? The Government has had to prop up interest rates to support the dollar which was put down by the rest of the world when it saw the incompetence of this Government. However, those interest rates have had a disastrous effect across the length and breadth of this nation and on every aspect of society. We have seen small businesses, through no fault of their own, folding because of interest rates. We have seen farmers being physically carried off their properties, not through any lack of expertise and hard work or through bad budgeting, but because the artificially high interest rates which this Government introduced to prop up the dollar have put them out of business. We have seen home owners who have quite legitimately borrowed money from lending institutions at a certain rate-a rate which they could meet-being forced to leave those homes after scrimping and saving because the homes have been repossessed. Those people have lost all the money they had saved plus all the money they had put into their homes, all because of the interest rates brought about by the incompetence of this Government. No wonder the Government wants an election; it is fearful of the hard decisions it will have to take in the next Budget. Next I turn to the current account deficit. We have seen that rocket to figures that we would never have thought possible-more than $1 billion month after month. When this deficit suddenly goes below the $1 billion mark the Government thinks it has achieved something. It is like the difference between belting one's head against a brick wall and belting it against a wooden wall because the wood is somehow softer. The cold, hard fact remains that every month this country has been buying more than it has been selling and consuming more than it has been producing. The world money markets have reacted to that. Our total foreign debt from the time of Federation until this Government took office in 1983 was $23 billion. Now it is more than $100 billion. Such is this Government's incompetence in its handling of the affairs of this country! The Leader of the Government mentioned the Australia Card and Senator Chaney dealt well with that. We had a Senate select committee to look at the Australia Card. Its report told us that all the things that the Government said the Australia Card would do, it would not do except, perhaps, in the area of taxation. We know from other reports-those of the Auditor-General and the House of Representatives Expenditure Committee-that the Australian Taxation Office has it well within its own capabilities to fix up any problems in the tax system. The Government also mentioned the television legislation. Let us talk about that. When the Liberal and National Parties were in government they first gave rural Australia the opportunity to have greater access to television. This Government chose not to do that. Instead, it sold itself out to the major moguls in this country. I find it hard to believe that a Labor government, which purports to represent the small people of this nation, has sold out to two or three people in the television industry. I am not in the business of voting for legislation here which allows two or three people the right to print money. Then we had all the talk about this Government running its full term. Senator Chaney dealt with that well, but it is another of the many statements that we have heard. Do we not remember the statement: `Let there be no misunderstanding: There will be no capital gains tax.'? There were many others that will be brought home to the people of Australia during the coming election campaign, such as the recent one that this Government will run its full term. Now we see what Labor integrity is all about. Today we have had a debate about trade union power. This Government is really entrenching it and, worse still, taking it away from the ambit of the civil courts. As well as the high interest rates we have high tax rates. In spite of all the tax cuts that we supposedly have had and the ones that we are still supposed to get on 1 July, the average taxpayer will be worse off than he was in 1983 when this Government came to power. Like my colleagues, I welcome the opportunity of getting out on the election trail and bringing home to the people of Australia what this Government is all about, its record and what it has done to ordinary people, business, farmers, home owners and Australia's record on the international scene. It will give me very great pleasure to bring that home to the people of Australia, and I welcome the opportunity to do that. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria) —by leave-There is no doubt in my mind that the Government's calling of a snap double dissolution is a blatant exercise of political pragmatism. There is no other reason for the Government to call a snap election at this time other than that it is concerned about the way the economy is performing. As an industrialist, as one who has to keep an ear close to the market-place, I have detected in recent weeks a dramatic downturn in the economy. There is no doubt at all that this snap election is being called simply because the Government is concerned that the chickens are coming home to roost, that its mismanagement in the last few months, particularly its mismanagement in relation to the May statement, is having a dramatic and disastrous effect on the economy, which is turning down quickly. The Government wants to get an election out of the way before this becomes obvious to the general public. The Unite Australia Party, the newest political party to be represented in this Parliament, welcomes an election nevertheless. It welcomes it for this reason: It will be fielding a first-class Senate team in all mainland States. It has an important message to get across, that there is an alternative way to manage the economy. Debate on this is not occurring in this Parliament; it is not occurring in the media at the moment; but that message, I believe, can be got across in an election mode. It will be a challenge for and the task of the Unite Australia Party to say that something has to be done about the fact that we are borrowing $10 billion a year and that we are selling $4 billion of our assets every year to make up the shortfall in our trading position. We are spending more than we earn, to the tune of $14 billion a year. The Government has been congratulating itself that it will save $3 billion to $4 billion in expenditure, but we are overspending to the tune of $14 billion every year. They are the significant figures. That fundamental problem of living beyond our means, borrowing money and selling our assets has not yet been addressed by this Government, and unfortunately there has been no real debate about it because there has been no strong criticism or constructive suggestion of an alternative from the Liberal Opposition. Mr Howard is on record as saying just the other day that the Australian Labor Party is pinching the ideas of the Liberal Party of Australia, that it is putting the Liberal Party's policies of deregulation into effect before the Liberal Party has the opportunity of doing it itself. Only last night in the Senate I quoted a reputable academic who stated that Australia is more deregulated than any other Western economy-more than the United States of America and the United Kingdom. We carry the prize for having the most deregulated economy, but we sit back and watch the country going down the tube and overspending to the tune of $14 billion every year. The Unite Australia Party will be putting forward an alternative approach for a more managed economy, with some innovative suggestions as to how we can work our way out of debt, how we can stop borrowing money and how we can become self-sufficient over five years. That is the challenge and that message of the alternative approach to economic management has to be put across. It is a great pity that in recent months the Australian Democrats have done very little other than support what this Government has been doing. It was in a glorious position to put pressure on the Government, to debate alternative economic approaches to the management of this country. Instead of that, it has bent over backwards to support the Government on every one of its economic initiatives. Only yesterday the Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Janine Haines, said on television what a pity it is that the Democrats cannot support the Government in its dismantling of sections 45d and 45e of the Trade Practices Act which apply to secondary boycotts. It shows complete disregard for small business and for the fact that small business is the cutting edge of this economy and that, unless it is given a better deal, we will never earn our way out of debt. All these points have to be made clear to the electorate. The voters of this country, the ordinary Australians, have a very difficult choice to make. The economy is at a crossroads. The country is on the verge of bankruptcy. Who can lead the country in a new direction? Who can lead it away from the brink? It is a difficult choice because there has not been a constructive debate this time as to what alternatives face this country. I hope this debate will become clearer to the Australian people during the forthcoming election campaign. The responsibility will be fairly and squarely on their shoulders. The Democrats have thrown aside a golden opportunity to put alternatives before the Australian people. They have thrown it away in their desire to be the lapdog of the Government. It will be a very interesting, very difficult and critical time. The country is at a crossroads. I have confidence that the Australian people will exercise the common sense that they have exercised in the past and will choose a new direction for the economic management of this country. Senator GEORGES(Queensland) —What started off as a joke-- The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Georges, do you seek leave to make a statement? Senator GEORGES —I seek leave to make a statement. Leave granted. Senator Gareth Evans —It would be a joke. Senator GEORGES —I do not think Senator Gareth Evans was game to refuse me leave. What started off as a joke about an hour ago has now lost its humour. I think those who made this decision have misjudged the electorate. I recall a Premier of South Australia going early to the electorate to get a cheap advantage, and he lost. I recall also that Prime Minister Fraser went early to the electorate to take advantage of what he considered to be a weak opposition and a weak Leader of the Opposition, and he lost. My feeling is that the Government may lose because the electorate is a little more enlightened than some people believe. What I find extraordinary is that on the most flimsy of excuses we are now in a double dissolution situation. It is the flimsiest of excuses, because I do not think there has been very much obstruction by the Senate. If honourable senators look at the record, they will see about three occasions when the Senate decided that it ought not to pass a piece of legislation. On most occasions the Senate has passed legislation-sometimes with amendment; as much amendment by the Government as by the Opposition. The Senate cannot be accused of obstruction. If rejection of the identity card legislation is put as a reason for racing to a double dissolution, that reason is not sound enough. There would need to be sounder reasons. I cannot understand why the Governor-General has consented to a double dissolution. In any case, the Government will have to bear the cost of the decision, as far as the Senate is concerned. By having a double dissolution, it will be possible for the character and representation of the Senate to change very much. As I see it, the electorate has had a gutful of what has been happening in the national Parliament. The reputation of this Parliament has been diminished. The reputation of this Parliament is very low in the electorate. If anyone considers that the electorate does not take note of, or is not interested in what is happening here, he had better think again. People in the electorates listen to our debates. At any one time, even on the lowest audience, 6,000 or 7,000 people are listening to what is happening in this Parliament, and they are not encouraged by what has been going on in the House of Representatives. They have certainly not been encouraged by what has been going on in the Senate. The electorate will react. We shall find that changed representation in the Senate will not suit either of the major parties. The electorate will determine that there will be people in this place who will have an independent view on what happens in the House of Representatives. They will demand it, and I will tell honourable senators why. It is because they no longer trust either party in the House of Representatives. They do not trust the emergence of the Right in the Liberal Party; and they do not trust the pragmatism of the Labor Party, which seems to be more concerned with the rights of the powerful than with the rights of the people they are supposed to represent. The media legislation, to which we have objected and which we are endeavouring to frustrate and, I hope, will frustrate next week if we are given an opportunity, was meant to advantage certain people who have the ear of Government-I will go even further and say people who influence the Government, the Executive of the Government and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). Those people would gain great advantage from the legislation which I had hoped this Senate would reject. The electorate knows; it will make a decision, and it will produce a result which may be the defeat of the Government. However the real problem in the minds of people in certain sections of the electorate with which I am closely associated is that if we do not support the Government, if we do not work for the Government and the Labor Party, the alternative is horrific. That is what the electorate faces at present. It has to make a choice between a government which is in the control of the Executive, to support a party which has been hijacked by its Executive, or to support the Opposition, which is suffering the same problems. There are manoeuvrings within the Opposition by a section of the corporate sector which seeks to entrap political parties at present. The National Party of Australia is being entrapped, and it has been set up. It is in the process of being bought by very powerful people in the community who would like the Government to make decisions which suit their interests. What we have to be afraid of is those people outside this Parliament, powerful and rich people, who seek to control this Parliament by controlling a party. My objection is that the Labor Party has been entrapped by such interests. Many people in the electorates are supporters of the Labor Party and they have been hurt by Labor and its movement away from policy. They will work for the Labor Party to ensure, if possible, that it is not defeated. In spite of their reservations, they will continue to work. I remind leaders of the Labor Party of those people who established the policy of the Party by various democratic means and expected it to be carried out. It has not been carried out. It has been denied, defied and broken, and the hearts of many Labor supporters have been broken. However, they will continue to support the Labor Party because they cannot risk what the Opposition appears to stand for. The emergence in the Opposition of extremely conservative forces is quite frightening. Out of all this all I can say is that I am really sorry for the electorate. The choice that has been suddenly presented to it is not a choice at all. The economy is staggering, and it will further stagger under the impact of the May statement. All of a sudden an election is thrust upon us. Why? It is for the pragmatical reason only that the Opposition is in a weakened position; it is disorganised-- Senator Lewis —He thinks we are. Senator GEORGES —The Opposition is disorganised. As an Opposition, it is a disgrace. As a party organisation it does not have any good sense. If it had had any good sense, it would have got down to the task of sorting out its problems. But the Opposition's problems also happen to be the electorate's problems. Senator Newman —You believe what you read in the newspapers. Senator GEORGES —I walk around these corridors, Senator. I understand; I hear, and I know what the problems are. I know just what is going on. My office is alongside Senator Withers's office. I am not suggesting that I listen through the wall. He can hear the music that I play, but I cannot hear what he says. How do I know just what is happening? I know something is happening by the number of people who walk through his door and who those people happen to be. Not only that, but occasionally I hear the odd comment around the place. If one has been a senator long enough, one knows where to get the stories; one knows where to get the information; one knows what is likely to happen. The Opposition is in complete disarray. Senator Michael Baume —Rubbish! Senator GEORGES —Wait a moment. That does not necessarily mean that the Government has an advantage, because when the election date was declared today it was surprising how organisations tightened. I will say this to the Government: It has a problem. The problem is explaining to the electorate what is happening to individuals in the electorate-and what the Government has done, not what the Opposition has done. The electorate votes against governments; it does not vote for Oppositions. It is too late for those who made the decision to hold an early election to reconsider now. The election is on. Senator Walters —The mortgage rates are still up there. Senator GEORGES —Senator Walters will have to do better than that. The election is on. The fact that it is a double dissolution means that the quota is 7.5. The results of that ought to be considered. One ought to consider one's personal position. It has been handed to me on a plate-7.5. Senator Colston —It is 7.7. Senator GEORGES —Yes, 7.7 people in every 100 people have to have a particular view. It could be horrific to come back. That will be decided on Saturday, incidentally. But I have gone too long, Mr President. I thank you for the opportunity to speak. I have put my views before the Senate. I think the Government has made a mistake. It has raced into this decision with great enthusiasm. I hope that it does not regret it. The reason I hope that the Government does not regret it is that, as I have said, the alternative is too horrible to contemplate. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate)(6.12) —Mr President, pursuant to standing order- Senator Durack —On a point of order, Mr President: I have sought your call at the conclusion of the statements which have been made by leave, and which have been going for about an hour now, because Senator Chaney foreshadowed that he intended to move a motion for the suspension of Standing Orders in order to move that we take note of the statement made by Senator Button. Senator Chaney was refused leave by the Manager of Government Business, Senator Evans, to move that motion, which was a most extraordinary but, I am afraid, typical action by Senator Evans. On behalf of Senator Chaney, who is not present at the moment, I wish to move for the suspension of Standing Orders. I believe that in those circumstances I am entitled to the call. The PRESIDENT —Precedent is that I give the call to the Manager of Government Business. If there is any doubt about that I think it is covered by standing order 65. There is no point of order. I call Senator Evans. Senator Lewis —I take a point of order, Mr President. With all due respect to what you have just said, the point I wish to raise is that if the Manager of Government Business intends to speak to the motion that the Senate take note of the paper or seeks leave to make some sort of response to the speeches which have been made, we could continue the debate. But if it is the intention of the Manager of Government Business to introduce some totally new subject or in some way or other divert the attention of the Senate, with all due respect, Mr President, the motion which Senator Chaney foreshadowed is entitled to priority, I suggest. The PRESIDENT —There is no motion before the Chair. Therefore, I call Senator Evans. Senator GARETH EVANS —Thank you, Mr President. Senator Durack —Mr President, I take a point of order on the basis of a standing order you have referred to. You have dismissed my point of order on the basis of a standing order which reads: Any motion connected with the conduct of the business of the Senate may be moved by a Minister of the Crown at any time without Notice. That does not determine the priority of the Manager of Government Business and me. The Manager of Government Business has merely risen. We do not know what he is going to move, whether it is a motion to do with the conduct of the business or some other motion. As I have said, Senator Chaney indicated very clearly his intention to move a motion for the suspension of Standing Orders. I believe that in those circumstances it is your obligation as President to call me-Senator Chaney is now here, too-in preference to the Manager of Government Business. The standing order clearly does not cover the question of priority in regard to who you will see seeking the call, Mr President-whether you will see the Minister at the table or the Leader or Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Senator Chaney made it perfectly clear that he would respond to the disgraceful attempt by Senator Evans to prevent debate on one of the most important statements that has been made in this chamber. Senator Chaney made it perfectly clear that he would move his motion after the process of leave being given had finished. When all is said and done, during that process it would have been entirely within the hands of any of us on this side of the chamber to refuse leave. We did not refuse leave because we were seeking to accommodate the ordinary traditional standards of behaviour of the Senate which are denied by Senator Evans. Every time Senator Evans gets on his feet or attempts to, he denies us the ordinary standards of behaviour of this chamber. He is doing so again. He is now trying to do so by stopping me from moving a motion. Senator Gareth Evans —On the point of order, Mr President: It was well known to all honourable senators that there was no motion before the Chair. There has not been a motion before the Chair for the last hour. Honourable senators have been speaking in sequence on the subject of the statement by the Prime Minister which was made by leave and which was not accompanied, as we know, by any subsequent motion. It was well known to the relevant senators that the desire of the Government was that all party leaders be given leave to speak for as long as they desired on the statement and that Independent senators equally be given leave. That was also known to the Chair. Under those circumstances the Chair properly gave recognition to the party leaders in rotation- Senator Lewis —You have never had any respect for the institution of the Parliament, the Senate or anything to do with it. Senator Gareth Evans —Under those circumstances-if the buffoon opposite would quieten-the Chair properly gave recognition to the three party leaders, plus the two Independents who are present in the chamber and who expressed a desire to speak, however unpalatable Senator Georges's speech might have been to the Government. Leave was granted. Having reached the end of that chain of people I then rose to my feet to move a motion pursuant to standing order 65, which I am fully entitled to do because the practice, precedent and tradition of this place is that the Manager of Government Business, when he rises and seeks the call on a motion of that kind relating to the business of the Senate, has precedence and is entitled to the call. Senator Chaney —Mr President, on the point of order: It would be a quite extraordinary parliamentary precept to suggest that a senator could not move for the suspension of Standing Orders at any time. The idea that the business of the Senate cannot be interrupted by the Senate itself moving for a suspension of Standing Orders is quite obnoxious to the proper operation of this parliamentary chamber. I make a most serious submission to you, Mr President, that, it having been indicated quite clearly by me that in light of the Government's attitude with respect to the Government's program-that having being made clear by Senator Evans when he refused leave for me to move a motion-- Senator Gareth Evans —It was made clear to you privately. Senator Chaney —It was made clear to the whole Senate. When Senator Evans indicated that he would not grant leave for the normal motion to be moved, which is that the Senate take note of the statement, a most important statement had been put down by the Leader of the Government. I immediately made it clear that I would accept the leave of the Senate to make a statement and follow the procedure indicated by the Manager of Government Business, and that I would then have the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders moved so that other senators in this place would have an opportunity to put a view on this matter. In those circumstances I believe that parliamentary propriety would require you, Mr President, to give the call to the senator who seeks to move for the suspension of Standing Orders. There may be a different situation in the lower House but in this place I do not believe that there is anything in the Standing Orders which precludes any senator at all from having the right to move for the suspension of Standing Orders. The attitude being adopted by the Manager of Government Business is not in the interests of this chamber. It is not a proper parliamentary attitude. Mr President, I ask you to accede to my wish and to give the call to Senator Durack so that he may move the motion on behalf of the Opposition which I indicated very clearly to the whole chamber would be moved. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. I am not preventing you, Senator Chaney, from moving a motion for the suspension of Standing Orders. When Senator Georges sat down it was the right of the President to call who he saw first. It is also traditional to call the Manager of Government Business. In those circumstances I called Senator Evans. I now call Senator Evans. Senator GARETH EVANS —Pursuant to standing order 65, because of the obvious pressure of legislative business, and with all party leaders and Independents present in the chamber having had an opportunity to speak to the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), I move: 1. That Government Business take precedence of all other business forthwith; and 2. That the Senate proceed forthwith to further consideration of Government Business Orders of the Day Nos 1, 2 and 3. I also move: That the question be now put. Question put. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 4 —— Aulich, T. Macklin, M. J. Black, J. R. Maguire, G. R. Button, J. N. Mason, C. V. J. Childs, B. K. Morris, J. Coates, J. Powell, J. F. Coleman, R. N. Ray, RobertColston, M. A. Reynolds, M. Cook, P. F. S. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Cooney, B. Ryan, S. M. Crowley, R. A. Sanders, N. K. Devlin, R. Sibraa, K. W. Elstob, R. C. Siddons, J. R. Evans, Gareth Tate, M. C. Foreman, D. J. Walsh, P. A. Giles, P. J. West, S. M. Jones, G. N. Zakharov, A. O. McKiernan, J. P. Alston, R. K. R. Lewis, A. W.R. Baume, Michael MacGibbon, D. J. Baume, Peter Newman, J. M. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Parer, W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. Puplick, C. J. G. Carrick, Sir John Reid, M. E. Chaney, F. M. Sheil, G. Collard, S. J. Short, J. R. Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M. Hamer, D. J. Vanstone, A. E. Hill, R. Vigor, D. B. Jessop, D. S. Walters, M. S. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Withers, R. G. Knowles, S.C. Richardson, G. F. Crichton-Browne, N. A. McIntosh, G. D. Brownhill, D. G. C. Gietzelt, A. T. Archer, B. R. Bolkus, N. Messner, A. J. (Senator Watson did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Grimes). Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question put: That the motion (Senator Gareth Evans's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Aulich, T. Macklin, M. J. Black, J. R. Maguire, G. R. Button, J. N. Mason, C. V. J. Childs, B. K. Morris, J. Coates, J. Powell, J. F. Coleman, R. N. Ray, RobertColston, M. A. Reynolds, M. Cook, P. F. S. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Cooney, B. Ryan, S. M. Crowley, R. A. Sanders, N. K. Devlin, R. Sibraa, K. W. Elstob, R. C. Siddons, J. R. Evans, Gareth Tate, M. C. Foreman, D. J. Vigor, D. B. Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A. Jones, G. N. West, S. M. McKiernan, J. P. Zakharov, A. O. Alston, R. K. R. Knowles, S. C. Baume, Michael Lewis, A. W. R. Baume, Peter MacGibbon, D. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Newman, J. M. Boswell, R. L. D. Parer, W. R. Carrick, Sir John Puplick, C. J. G. Chaney, F. M. Reid, M. E. Collard, S. J. Sheil, G. Durack, P. D. Short, J. R. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. Hill, R. Vanstone, A. E. Jessop, D. S. Walters, M. S. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Withers, R. G. Richardson, G. F. Crichton-Browne, N. A. McIntosh, G. D. Brownhill, D. G. C. Gietzelt, A. T. Archer, B. R. Bolkus, N. Messner, A. J. (Senator Watson did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Grimes). Question so resolved in the affirmative. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Debate resumed. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(8.00) —in reply-In speaking to what has been quite an extended debate on the Aboriginal land rights package, let me begin by saying that, as was noted by Senator Chaney, this is indeed an historic day. Perhaps it is historic for a second reason as a result of the announcement of the election this afternoon, but the particular circumstance to which Senator Chaney was referring, and the one which I endorse, is that this is the twentieth anniversary of the referendum giving overwhelming approval of the Australian people for the Commonwealth Government to make special laws for Aboriginal people. So it is appropriate, therefore, that we should be debating the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1987, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 1986, the Aboriginal Land (Lake Condah and Framlingham Forest) Bill 1987 and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Amendment Bill 1987, which are designed to further this Government's commitment to advance the Aboriginal cause. It does seem inappropriate that, on this day of all days, the Opposition should be so critical, in its contribution to this debate, of the Government which uses powers that were so clearly and explicitly granted to it in 1967-powers which, to the Opposition's credit, it was prepared to use in its better days. The Opposition must now bear full responsibility for the loss of bipartisanship which is now regrettably evident in Aboriginal affairs matters. The Opposition's recently announced Aboriginal affairs policy, if it can be dignified with that description, seeks to dilute the Commonwealth's role leaving the main carriage of Aboriginal advancement with the States. Aboriginal people will note, and they certainly will not forget, the Opposition's willingness to turn back the clock, to walk away from the responsibilities that the people of Australia gave to the Commonwealth 20 years ago. We agree that the States have to be involved. We always emphasise the need for States to use their own powers to help their Aboriginal citizens and to treat them as equals. But we do not agree that, where a State will not act or cannot act because of opportunistic political obstructionism of the kind that has been evident in Victoria, the Commonwealth should only wring its hands and simply say `Too bad, fellows', to the most disadvantaged, dispossessed group of Australians. Turning to the Bills before us, first up we have the Northern Territory Bills. The two Bills before the Senate amend the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. I remind the Senate that that Act has been the subject of one of the most, if not indeed the most, extensive processes of review and consultation of any piece of Commonwealth legislation. In 1983, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Holding, who has been such a doughty fighter, requested Mr Justice Toohey, a former Aboriginal Land Commissioner and now not only a prominent Federal Court Judge but also a prominent High Court Judge, to review the Act. His report entitled `Seven Years On' was presented in December 1983. Many of the amendments in the Bills before the Parliament flow directly from Mr Justice Toohey's proposals. In 1984 Dr Joh Altman undertook a review of the Aboriginals Benefit Trust Account. Some of his proposals are picked up in the Bills, others are being implemented by administrative means, and others are still under examination. Overlaying these processes of expert review has been a most careful and painstaking process of consultation with interested parties about possible changes to the Act. The Northern Territory land councils have had the opportunity, as I can personally attest, to make frequent representations, written and oral, and they have had extensive discussions with the Caucus committee on Aboriginal affairs. The Northern Territory Government and the pastoral and mining industries have also been given many opportunities to make submissions and to meet with Ministers and officials. Whilst there have obviously been some differences of opinion about the Act, leading in some cases to deferment of possible amendments which will need to be picked up later, there can be no doubt that it has substantially achieved the objectives for which it was created. As Mr Justice Woodward put it, land rights is `the doing of simple justice to people who have been deprived of their land without their consent and without compensation'. I think it is pertinent to recall some of the views that were expressed by members of the Opposition parties when, as the Government in 1976, they introduced the Act that we are amending tonight. Mr Viner, the then Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, said: The Government's proposals to recognise Aboriginal land rights in legislation is one more expression of the Government's commitment to liberal and progressive reform. Certainly those are the sorts of words that we would no longer expect to hear from the present Opposition. Mr Viner also said: . . . the Government believes that this Bill will allow and encourage Aborigines in the Northern Territory to give full expression to the affinity with land that characterised their traditional society and gave a unique quality to their life. Sam Calder, the member for the Northern Territory at that time, said: I support the introduction of land rights for Aborigines in the Northern Territory. This Bill, it is hoped, will give Northern Territory Aborigines the ability to practise their law and traditions on their own land in their own manner. This is good. Certainly the Government can be fully bipartisan with views such as that being expressed. It is a pity that views such as that are no longer being expressed by senators on the Opposition benches today. The amendment Bill No. 3, which I introduced into the Senate earlier this month, provides for a totally new regime for mining and exploration. There is no doubt that the present Act has caused difficulties. The new regime will provide for considerably speeded up decision processes. It will limit, but not remove, the power of Aboriginal land holders to say no to exploration and mining-a power, I remind the Senate, which was seen as basic by Mr Justice Woodward when he said that to deny Aborigines the right to control mining on their lands would be to deny the reality of their land rights. After exhaustive negotiations-again I can testify personally to that-we have come up with a package of amendments that have been accepted by the land councils and acknowledged by the mining industry and the Northern Territory Government as a significant improvement. I can assure honourable senators that that particular package of responses is pretty heroic stuff given the passions that have been swirling around this issue for so long. The Opposition has foreshadowed amendments that would involve the scrapping of these hard won compromises. I will be saying a little more about that-I hope not too much-in the Committee stage, but I simply wanted to ask members of the Opposition: Can they assure us that these amendments are acceptable to Aborigines? Have they been discussed and agreed with the land councils? Of course not! It is arrogance of the kind that only the Opposition is capable of producing. Senator Kilgariff —They have all been discussed with the land councils. Senator GARETH EVANS —Discussed and accepted? How do the land councils react to them? Perhaps the honourable senator will tell us in the Committee stage. Senator Durack —Are you governed by the consent of the people? Senator GARETH EVANS —Not at all. We make our own decisions but we do so on the basis of consultation and consent, where it is possible to reach it, and that is what we have achieved in this instance. We are pleased that we have been able to do it and we draw the contrast with the approach of the Opposition. The same is undoubtedly true of its approach to the first Bill which was introduced last year. Some matters have been under consideration which are not encompassed in these Bills, such as providing an estate or interest in Aboriginal land to the Northern Territory Government for the provision of essential services, and also the question of further claims on pastoral properties for which Aborigines hold the leases. I hasten to reassure the Senate that these matters have not been dropped. They have simply been held back for further consideration and negotiation. Our paramount concern, having reached a settlement on exploration and mining, was simply to ensure that there would be no further delay in implementing these much needed improvements. Of course, that is the reason why we are pressing on with these Bills tonight, notwithstanding the announcement of the election. We regard these Bills as a very high priority and we do so not only from the perspective of the Aboriginal people concerned but also the whole future of the Northern Territory and indeed Australian mining industry. There has been too much delay for too long and it has been in nobody's interests. We want to break the log jam, and these Bills will do it. Turning to the Victorian Bills, I fully agree that the more preferable course would have been for Victoria to have enacted this legislation. That would have happened but for State Opposition intransigence. In this instance, the Commonwealth is essentially acting as the agent of the State, and we make no apology for it. It is odd that the Opposition should be uncomfortable at the idea of Commonwealth-State co-operation in Aboriginal affairs as its policies are in favour of it. This is just a logical extension of the Opposition's kind of approach. The Victorian Government has held extensive consultations with Aborigines in the development of the legislation. The mining industry, the scientific community and others have all had their opportunity to comment. Against that background there is no need for the Commonwealth to start again from scratch. We changed some aspects of the Victorian Bills, in consultation with the Victorians, to meet Commonwealth requirements. To address a point made by Senator Short, a number of criticisms of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills were acknowledged by amendments moved in the House of Representatives by the Minister, Mr Holding. Senator Short also raised concerns in relation to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Amendment Bill about matters such as powers of delegation, powers of inspectors, and the interests of museums and the scientific community. I can say that the Commonwealth has looked carefully at these matters and we believe that the Bill will not raise the problems that were feared. If problems do arise we will certainly look sympathetically at suggestions for improvement. Finally, on the question of titles to the Lake Condah and Framlingham Forest lands, the Commonwealth's preference is for Aboriginal land to be held in inalienable freehold title, as in the Northern Territory. This is what Aborigines themselves prefer. The land, to them, is not a commodity to be traded. In a real sense, as has so often been movingly said, they are the land and the land is them. They want to be sure that their land will not be lost to them a second time. However, we accept that to insist on inalienable title would, in some instances, deny Aborigines the opportunity to control their lands under some other form of secure title. I would have thought that that was an essentially sensible approach with which the Opposition could have no quarrel. It will, of course, have a quarrel with that and all sorts of other things but, no doubt, we will hear more about that, mercifully at lesser length than was the case in the second reading stage, in the Committee stage. With that set of comments, I commend the package of four Bills to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(8.10) —by leave-I move: (1) Page 2, clause 3, line 22, after ``lease'' insert ``, or an application for the grant of such a lease,''. (2) Page 2, clause 4, line 36, leave out ``shall be applied by the Land Council''. (3) Page 2, clause 4, line 37, leave out ``shall be applied by the Land Council,''. (4) Page 3, clause 5, after proposed subsection 41 (2) insert the following subsection: ``(2a) If the application is not made as required by subsection (2), the consent of the Northern Territory Mining Minister under subsection (1) shall be deemed to be withdrawn.''. (5) Page 5, clause 5, line 6, leave out ``41'', substitute ``42''. (6) Page 5, clause 5, line 22, leave out ``, or refuse to consent,''. (7) Page 5, clause 5, after proposed subsection 42 (2) insert the following subsection: ``(2a) The Land Council shall not refuse to consent to the grant of the licence unless it has, before the end of the negotiating period, to the extent practicable, consulted the traditional Aboriginal owners (if any) of the land to which the application relates concerning the matters referred to in paragraph (2) (a). (8) Page 6, clause 5, line 15, leave out ``the first meeting'', substitute ``the meeting, or each meeting, referred to in paragraph (3) (a)''. (9) Page 6, clause 5, line 18, leave out ``applicant'', substitute ``Minister''. (10) Page 6, clause 5, lines 19 to 23, leave out proposed subsection 42 (5). (11) Page 7, clause 5, line 9, after ``applicant'' insert ``, the Northern Territory Mining Minister''. (12) Page 7, clause 5, line 10, leave out ``The'', substitute ``If paragraph 42 (7) (a) does not apply, the''. (13) Page 7, clause 5, line 21, after ``means'' insert ``whichever of the following periods is the longest''. (14) Page 7, clause 5, after proposed paragraph 42 (13) (c) insert the following word and paragraph: ``or (d) if the period is extended by subsection (15)-the period as so extended;''. (15) Page 7, clause 5, line 29, after ``Council'' insert ``within what would otherwise be the negotiating period''. (16) Page 7, clause 5, line 31, leave out ``at any time''. (17) Page 7, clause 5, at the end of proposed section 42 add the following subsection: ``(15) Where the Land Council makes a request under subsection (14): (a) if, within 30 days after receiving the request, the Minister refuses to extend the negotiating period, the negotiating period shall be deemed to include the period up to end of 7 days after the Land Council receives notice of the refusal; or (b) if, at the end of that 30 days, the Minister has not consented, or refused, to extend the negotiating period, the Minister shall be deemed to have refused to extend the negotiating period, but the negotiating period shall be deemed to include the period up to the end of 7 days after that 30 days.''. (18) Page 8, clause 5, line 5, leave out ``90'', substitute ``180''. (19) Page 8, clause 5, after proposed subsection 43 (2) insert the following subsection: ``(2a) Subsection 42 (14) applies for the purposes of subsection (1) as if the references to the negotiating period were references to the period referred to in subsection (1).''. (20) Page 8, clause 5, line 32, at the end of proposed paragraph 44 (1) (b) add ``within the period referred to in subsection 43 (1)''. (21) Page 10, clause 5, line 23, leave out ``payment for any other purpose'', substitute ``for any other purpose or consideration for giving consent to the grant of the exploration licence''. (22) Page 10, clause 5, line 28, after ``lease is'' insert ``applied for or''. (23) Page 10, clause 5, line 30, leave out ``exploration retention'', substitute ``application or''. (25) Page 13, clause 5, line 5, leave out ``applicant'', substitute ``Minister''. (26) Page 16, clause 5, line 4, leave out ``or different land within the area of the Land Council'', substitute ``land or an area within that land''. (27) Page 16, clause 5, line 19, after ``land'' insert ``or an area within that land''. (28) Page 23, after clause 5 insert the following new clause: Consents of traditional Aboriginal owners ``5a. Section 77a of the Principal Act is amended by omitting `subsection 11a (3), 19 (5), 23 (3), 48 (1) or 68 (2)' and substituting `this Act'.''. I have an explanatory memorandum to the amendments. I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The explanatory memorandum read as follows- NOTES ON CLAUSES Clauses 1 and 2: Short title etc, and Commencement 1. The first two clauses provide for the short title and commencement of the legislation. The provisions of the Bill will come into operation on the day on which it receives Royal Assent. Clause 3: Interpretation 2. The terms ``exploration retention lease'', ``intending miner'' and ``Northern Territory Mining Minister'' are defined in this clause. These terms are used in the new Part IV (clause 7). A mining interest for the purposes of Part IV does not include an exploration licence or exploration retention lease. Clause 4: Application of money of Land Councils 3. Sub-section 35 (3) provides that moneys paid to a Land Council under a mining agreement shall be applied by the Land Council in specified ways. This clause will make a consequential amendments required because of the repeal of Part IV. Clause 5: Part IV-Mining 4. Part IV of the Act ``Mining Interests and Mining Operations'' will be repealed and a new ``Part IV-Mining'' will be substituted to create a new legislative scheme for exploration and mining on Aboriginal land. Section 40: Grants of exploration licences 5. This clause provides that an exploration licence shall not be granted by the Northern Territory Mining Minister without either the written consent of both the relevant Land Council and the Minister, or a Proclamation by the Governor-General that a grant of a licence is required in the national interest (in which case consent of the relevant Land Council will not be required). In either case the Land Council and the applicant for the grant of the licence must also enter into an agreement about the terms and conditions to which the grant of the licence will be subject before the licence can be granted. Section 41: Application for consent to exploration licences 6. A person who has the consent of the Northern Territory Mining Minister will be able to enter into negotiations with a Land Council for its consent to the grant of an exploration licence. The person must submit to the Land Council within certain specified periods an application giving details of the applicant and the proposed exploration activity and other specified matters. Such an application must be lodged after the date of commencement of this section and the person must send a copy of the application to the Minister. In effect an applicant who, prior to the commencement of this section, has been negotiating with a Land Council will have to submit a new application to the Land Council unless he elects to continue to negotiate under the present provisions in accordance with Clause 7. 7. Such application will have to be made in the case of a person who has already received the Northern Territory Mining Minister's consent within 6 months of the date of commencement of this Section, in the case of a person who has already received the consent of the Northern Territory Mining Minister and has already applied to the Land Council under the Principal Act within 3 months of the date of commencement, or in the case of a person who receives the consent of the Northern Territory Mining Minister after the date of commencement within 3 months of the receipt of that consent. 8. There will be provision for the person to be able to apply to the Minister for an extension of the period referred in paragraph 9. The Minister may grant such an extension if he is satisfied that the applicant wasn't reasonably able to put in the application in time and in all the circumstances it is reasonable to extend. 9. Within 30 days of receipt of such an application, the Land Council must give notice to any Aboriginal group or community which may be affected. Section 42: Response of Land Council to application 10. Where a Land Council receives such an application it shall either consent or refuse to consent to the grant of that exploration licence and agree to the terms and conditions subject to which the exploration licence will be granted. It shall inform the applicant, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and the Northern Territory Mining Minister of its decision, within the negotiating period (12 months, or such further time as the Land Council and the applicant shall in writing agree, or such other time as may be determined by the Minister if he is satisfied that the Land Council is unable to fulfil its functions within the time limit and in all the circumstances it is reasonable). There is specific provision that the consent is to a specified exploration program to make clear that the consent is to the exploration proposal described in the application. 11. Before making its decision the Land Council must consult, to the extent practicable within the negotiating period, the traditional Aboriginal owners of the land concerning consent and terms and conditions and that any Aboriginal community or group that may be affected by the grant of the exploration licence in relation to term and conditions only. 12. A Land Council which receives such an application will be obliged to convene such meetings with the traditional Aboriginal owners as are necessary to consider exploration proposals and shall give reasonable notice to notify the applicant and the Minister of meetings that the Minister and the applicant are entitled to attend. 13. The applicant's representative may present and explain the exploration proposals to the traditional Aboriginal owners at the first meeting called to discuss the substantive issues contained in the exploration proposals and will be able to present the applicant's initial views in relation to terms and conditions. The Applicant's representative will also be able to be present at so much of any other such meetings called by the Land Council in order to explain the exploration proposals and the terms and conditions, unless the traditional Aboriginal owners as a group decide, and through the Land Council, notify the applicant to the contrary. A representative of the Minister may also be present at the initial meeting and at any other such meetings, unless the traditional Aboriginal owners as a group decide, and through the Land Council, notify the Minister, in writing, to the contrary. 14. There will be a provision to allow the applicant and the Land Council to agree to go straight to arbitration before the expiration of the negotiating period. If the Land Council agrees to this, then it is deemed to have consented to exploration. Further if the Land Council has neither consented nor refused to consent by the end of the consultative period, consent shall be deemed to have been given by the Land Council. 15. Other than in the case of deemed consent, a Land Council shall not consent to the grant of the exploration licence unless it is satisfied that the traditional Aboriginal owners understand and consent, the terms and conditions are reasonable, and it has agreed those terms and conditions with the applicant. 16. Where the Land Council either consents to the grant or is deemed to have consented the Minister shall notify the applicant and the Land Council within 30 days of the notification of consent or the end of the negotiating period respectively whether he or she also consents. If he does not consent within 30 days (or such longer period as is prescribed) then his consent will be deemed. 17. The applicant and the Land Council may during the negotiating period either agree on a person or request the Minister to appoint a Mining Commissioner to try to determine terms and conditions by conciliation. 18. `Negotiating period' is defined as 12 months, such longer period as is agreed by the parties, or such longer period as the Minister determines. The Minister may extend the period where the Land Council applies and the Minister determines it is not reasonably practicable for the Land Council to perform its function and in all the circumstances it is appropriate to extend. He must notify the parties in writing specifying the period of extension. Section 43: National interest cases 19. Where a proclamation has been made by the Governor-General relating to the grant of an exploration licence to a person in the national interest the person and the Land Council shall try to agree within 90 days on such longer period as is agreed by the parties, on terms and conditions to which the exploration licence will be subject. 20. The Land Council must not agree on those terms and conditions unless it has consulted with the traditional Aboriginal owners of the land and they understand and as a group consent to them, it has given Aboriginal communities or groups affected an adequate opportunity to express its views and it considers the terms and conditions are reasonable. Section 44: Determination of conditions to which grant of exploration licence subject 21. Where the Minister has given his consent to the grant of an exploration licence under section 42 (8) and the Land Councils' consent has been deemed under subsection 42 (7) or a proclamation in the national interest has been made but the parties have failed to agree on terms and conditions, the parties may refer the terms and conditions to an arbitrator for determination. Such reference to an arbitrator must take place within 30 days. 22. If the parties agree on an arbitrator within the negotiating period but they do not refer the terms and conditions to an arbitrator or a proclamation has been made and there is failure to agree on terms and conditions either party may apply to the Minister to refer the terms and conditions to a Mining Commissioner to conciliate and if necessary and either party does not object arbitrate matters in dispute. 23. If either party objects the Minister shall appoint a Mining Commissioner in accordance with Section 48e. 24. Where the Mining Commissioner has to determine terms and conditions there are a number of specified matters he must take into account. These will include the best practicable industry practices for minimising the impact of the exploration activity upon the land and the Aboriginals living on it. ``Practicability'' for this purpose includes economic practicability. 25. Where the applicant is willing to enter into an agreement on the terms and conditions determined by the Mining Commissioner then the Land Council shall enter into an agreement on those terms and conditions. If it has refused or is unwilling to do so, the Minister shall do so on its behalf. The applicant will not be bound to enter an agreement on the terms and conditions determined by the Mining Commissioner. 26. If the applicant chooses not to enter into the agreement within 90 days of the determination or such longer period as the Minister, upon application by the applicant, determines then the consent of the Northern Territory Mining Minister is deemed withdrawn and a new applicant may come forward. Section 44A: Terms and conditions of explorations licences 27. The terms and conditions either agreed between the parties or determined by the Mining Commissioner shall include the payment of compensation for damage or disturbance caused to Aboriginal land but shall not include compensation for the value of minerals removed or proposed to be removed from the ground nor any other payment. Therefore, payments for such things as, simply, the giving of consent of the Land Council will not be able to be negotiated. 28. The terms and conditions set out in an agreement entered into by an applicant and a Land Council will apply for the duration of the exploration licence, an exploration retention lease granted in respect of that land, or any renewal of such an exploration retention lease which is held by that person (or his heirs, successors or assigns). 29. Compensation for damage or disturbance caused to land includes references to compensation for deprivation of the use of the land and improvements and severance from other land having the same traditional attachment. Section 45: Mining interest not to be granted in certain circumstances 30. A mining interest shall not be granted to an intending miner unless the relevant Land Council and the intending miner have entered into an agreement about the terms and conditions to which the grant of the mining interest will be subject. The Minister must give his consent before the mining interest can be granted. Section 46: Terms and conditions to which grant of mining interest subject 31. An intending miner shall submit to the Land Council a written statement setting out specified particulars of the proposed mining activity, including information of a kind that would be required for an Environmental Impact Statement under Northern Territory law. The intending miner must also send a copy of the statement to the Minister. 32. The intending miner and the Land Council shall endeavour to reach an agreement on the terms and conditions to which the grant of a mining interest will be subject within 12 months of receipt by the Land Council of the statement, or such longer time as the parties in writing agree. A Land Council shall not agree to terms and conditions unless it has, to the extent practicable, consulted the traditional Aboriginal owners and is satisfied that, as a group they consent, and it has consulted with Aboriginal communities or groups, and it is satisfied that the terms and conditions are reasonable. 33. A Land Council which receives a statement from an intending miner will be obliged to convene such meetings with the traditional Aboriginal owners as it considers necessary to consider the intending miner's proposals and to discuss the terms and conditions to which the grant of the mining interest should be subject. The Land Council shall give the intending miner and the Minister, reasonable notice before each meeting they are entitled to attend of the time and place of the meeting. 34. The intending miner's representative may be present and explain the mining proposals and to outline and discuss its initial views concerning terms and conditions at the first meeting. The intending miner will also be able to be present at so much of any other meetings called by the Land Council as is appropriate to discuss the proposal, unless the traditional owners decide and notify the intending miner through the Land Council to the contrary. A representative of the Minister may also be present at the initial meeting and at any other meetings unless the traditional owners decide and notify the Minister through the Land Council. 35. If the intending miner and the Land Council fail to agree within 12 months, either the intending miner or the Land Council or both may request the Minister to refer the matters in dispute between them to a person appointed as a Mining Commissioner. The Mining Commissioner shall attempt to conciliate between the parties on the matters in dispute. Where such conciliation is not successful, the Mining Commissioner shall proceed, by arbitration of the matters in dispute, to determine the terms and conditions which in the opinion of the Mining Commissioner should be acceptable to both parties. The Mining Commissioner will not be limited by the Act as to what matters to take into account, and will be able to take into account such factors as the value of minerals likely to be mined. 36. If the Mining Commissioner decides that there is no possibility of conciliation he may proceed, if neither party objects, by arbitration to determine the terms and conditions that should be acceptable to both parties. Those terms and conditions are to be determined so as to be fair and reasonable and that should have been negotiated by the parties in commercial arms' length negotiations conducted in good faith. 37. Where the intending miner is willing to enter into an agreement on the terms and conditions determined by the Mining Commissioner, the Land Council shall enter that agreement. If it has refused or is unwilling to do so, the Minister shall enter into the agreement in the name of and on behalf of the Land Council. Nothing in this Part will oblige an intending miner to enter into an agreement with a Land Council on the terms and conditions determined by a Mining Commissioner. 38. An agreement entered into under this section will be binding upon the parties and all their heirs, successors or assigns. 39. If the intending miner does not enter into the agreement within 90 days or such greater period as the Minister determines upon application of either party then the licence or lease held by the intending miner is cancelled. 40. Where a Mining Commissioner determines terms and conditions and the intending miner withdraws the application for a mining interest because he is unwilling to accept those terms and conditions, that intending miner will be entitled to reimbursement for his exploration expenditure from a subsequent intending miner. Before the Minister consents to the grant of a mining interest to a subsequent intending miner, that intending miner shall reach an agreement with the original intending miner to reimburse him (or his heirs, successors or assigns) for the amount of exploration expenditure reported by the original intending miner under Northern Territory mining law. 41. An agreement may include provision about the distribution of any money paid to the Land Council under this agreement. This accords with the present section 43 of the Principal Act. Section 47: Vitiation of consent 42. The Minister may, upon request by a Land Council and after consultation with the Northern Territory Mining Minister, determine that an existing or a proposed exploration program should not proceed where he is satisfied that the program is not in accordance with exploration proposals consented to by the relevant Land Council, that the works would cause significantly more disruption than those consented to so that consent would have been likely to have been withheld, and that it was not contrary to the national interest that they not proceed. 43. Also under this section the Minister may determine that a mining proposal should not proceed, unless for it not to proceed would be contrary to the national interest, where he is satisfied that the method of recovery of minerals was not foreshadowed in information submitted at the exploration stage and that the newly proposed method would cause such significantly greater social impact and disruption to the land as would have been likely to have resulted in the withholding of consent. Section 48: No further applications within certain periods 44. Where a Land Council refuses to consent to the grant of an exploration licence, no such further applications shall be made in relation to that land for 5 years, subject to the qualifications mentioned below, after notice of that decision is received by the Northern Territory Mining Minister. At the expiration of that 5 years the applicant (or his heirs, successors or assigns) shall have an option for a period of 30 days to present a further application for consent to the grant of an exploration licence in relation to that same land. If the applicant does not exercise that option (or has died or has been wound up) another applicant who has the consent of the Northern Territory Mining Minister may present an application containing the information specified in this Act. 45. Where a Land Council refuses to consent to an exploration licence and is able to satisfy the Minister after he has consulted the Minister for Resources and Energy and the Northern Territory Mining Minister that the refusal was not for maximising financial compensation, that the relevant circumstances have changed and that the public interest requires it, the Land Council may apply to the Minister for the re-opening of licence applications. 46. Where the Minister receives such an application and is so satisfied then he shall authorise another application to be made by the original applicant or, if he fails to do so in 90 days, by any other person. 47. Where there is a cancellation of a person's interest due to variation from either the exploration program or proposed mining activity there shall not be any application to the Land Council concerning that area of land within 5 years without the Minister's consent. 48. Where the Minister consents to someone other than the original applicant making an application within the 5 year period he may not give that consent until that other person has entered into an agreement with the original applicant to refund the original applicant's exploration expenditure. Section 48a: Land Council may enter agreement concerning exploration or mining of land subject to claim 49. A Land Council will be empowered to enter into an agreement with a person who has applied for an exploration licence on land that is subject to an application for a traditional land claim, setting out the terms and conditions subject to which the exploration licence will be granted if the land becomes Aboriginal land. 50. A Land Council will also be able to enter into an agreement with a person who has an exploration licence in relation to such land, setting out the terms and conditions subject to which the exploration activity will be carried out if the land becomes Aboriginal land. 51. A Land Council will be able to enter into an agreement with a person who holds an exploration licence in relation to such land and who seeks the grant of a mining interest, setting out the terms and conditions to which the grant of the mining interest will be subject if the land first becomes Aboriginal land. 52. A Land Council will not be able to enter into such an agreement unless it is satisfied that the traditional Aboriginal owners understand the nature and purpose of the agreement and as a group consent to it, and that any Aboriginal groups or communities which may be affected by the agreement have been consulted. 53. Where the land becomes Aboriginal land and such an agreement has been entered into with an applicant for an exploration licence, the consent of the Land Council to the grant of the exploration licence will not be required. The agreement will be taken to be an agreement as to the terms and conditions subject to which the exploration licence will be granted. 54. Where such an agreement has been entered into with an applicant for a mining interest and the land becomes Aboriginal land, the person will be treated as an intending miner and the agreement will be deemed to be an agreement as to the terms and conditions to which the grant of the mining interest will be subject. Section 48b: Variation of terms and conditions 55. Where- terms and conditions to which the grant of an exploration licence or a mining interest will be subject have been either agreed between the parties or determined by the Mining Commissioner; that exploration licence or mining interest has been granted; circumstances, other than financial circumstances, change for reasons outside the control of the explorer or miner so that it is not practicable for the explorer or miner to carry out the work in accordance with those terms and conditions; the explorer or miner and the Land Council cannot agree to a variation of the terms and conditions; and the agreement does not contain a provision for variation, either the Land Council or the miner or both may request the Minister to appoint a Mining Commissioner to determine whether, and in what respect, the terms and conditions should be varied. The Mining Commissioner may determine only matters relating to the carrying out of the mining work. The Minister will be obliged to appoint a Mining Commissioner whose determination will be binding on the Land Council where the miner is willing to enter into an agreement with the Land Council to vary the terms and conditions accordingly. Section 48c: Application of Acts authorising mining on Aboriginal land 56. Any Commonwealth Act (including the Atomic Energy Act 1953) which authorises mining for minerals will not apply to Aboriginal land so as to authorise the entry or remaining of persons on that land unless the Governor-General has, by Proclamation, declared that the Act so applies. 57. The Governor-General shall not make such a proclamation unless the Minister and the Land Council have consented to the application of that Act or the Governor-General declares the national interest requires that that Act apply in relation to entry on that land. 58. The legal position relating to the Ranger Project Area will remain unchanged by this provision. Section 48d: Payments in respect of mining under Acts 59. Where the Governor-General has made such a proclamation, the Commonwealth Act referred to in that proclamation shall not be taken to authorise entry or remaining on Aboriginal land by any person unless the Commonwealth and the Land Council have entered into an agreement about the terms and conditions to which the entry and remaining on Aboriginal land of any person will be subject. Such terms and conditions may include payment by the Commonwealth to the Land Council. The agreement may also make provision as to how any money paid by the Commonwealth is to be distributed. 60. If a Land Council, in entering into such an agreement, fails to comply with sub-section 23 (3) (including being satisfied that the traditional Aboriginal owners consent), that failure will not invalidate the agreement. Section 48e: Arbitration on required agreement 61. Where the Minister is satisfied that the Land Council has refused or is unwilling to negotiate with respect to an agreement for mining activity under a Commonwealth Act, or the terms and conditions of such an agreement cannot be agreed between the Commonwealth and the Land Council, the Minister after consulting with the Land Council, will be able to appoint a person as a Mining Commissioner to determine terms and conditions that, in the Mining Commissioner's opinion, should be acceptable to both parties. 62. Where a Mining Commissioner determines terms and conditions of an agreement, and the Commonwealth is prepared to enter into that agreement, the Land Council will be obliged to enter into that agreement. If the Land Council has refused or is unwilling to do so the Minister will be empowered to enter into such an agreement on behalf of the Land Council. Section 48f: Appointment as Mining Commissioner 63. Where the Minister is required to appoint a Mining Commissioner at the exploration stage he shall appoint either a Judge or former Judge of the Federal Court, a legal practitioner of 5 years standing or a Fellow of the Institute of Arbitrators. 64. Before he makes such an appointment he must submit the names of not less than 3 qualified persons to the Land Council and the applicant. If they cannot agree upon a Mining Commissioner then the Minister shall appoint a qualified person of his own choice. That Mining Commissioner will be assisted by two assessors, one nominated by the Land Council and one by the Northern Territory Chamber of Mines (Incorporated). 65. In relation to a Mining Commissioner required for determination of matters in dispute at the mining stage the Attorney-General will, after consultation with Commonwealth Ministers responsible for Resources and Energy and Aboriginal Affairs, appoint a Federal Court Judge to determine the matters in dispute. There will be no assessors at this stage. Section 48g: Proclamations to be laid before Houses of Parliament 66. As soon as practicable after the Governor-General has made a Proclamation that an exploration licence is required in the national interest or that a Commonwealth mining Act applied to Aboriginal land, the Minister will be obliged to cause a copy of that Proclamation to be laid before each House of Parliament. Either House may, within 15 sitting days of that House after the Proclamation is laid before it, pass a resolution disapproving of the declaration in the Proclamation. 67. Where a notice of disapproval is given and the notice is not withdrawn and the motion has not been called on, or the motion has been called on, moved and seconded and has not been withdrawn, the declaration in the Proclamation shall be deemed to have been disapproved of. If no notice of disapproval is given and neither House passes a resolution disapproving of the declaration, the Proclamation takes effect on the day after the last day upon which a resolution disapproving of the declaration in the Proclamation could have been passed. 68. If the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires or the Parliament is prorogued, and a resolution of disapproval has not been passed by the House before which a copy of the Proclamation has been laid, the copy of the Proclamation shall be deemed to have been laid before that House on the first sitting day of that House after the dissolution, expiry or prorogation. Section 48h: Agreements for entry on Aboriginal land 69. An agreement made or deemed to have been made in respect of exploration or mining on Aboriginal land may have provision regulating entry of persons on to Aboriginal land for purposes related to that agreement. That agreement may also provide for the issue of permits by the Land Council to persons to enter onto Aboriginal land for purposes related to the agreement. 70. The issuing and revocation of such permits will be in accordance with that agreement and not otherwise. 71. This provision will not restrict the kinds of estates or interests for a route of access that can be agreed to or determined under sub-section 70 (4). Section 48j: Offence in connection with mining interest 72. Except as expressly provided by law, it will be an offence to make or agree to make a payment, or offer or agree to offer a gift to another person in connection with the granting of an exploration licence or mining interest on Aboriginal land. 73. The penalty for breach of this provision will be- a fine of $5,000 or imprisonment for 2 years or both-in the case of a natural person; or a fine of $25,000-in the case of a body corporate. 74. Although it is an indictable offence, proceedings may be heard and determined by a court of summary jurisdiction, if the court is satisfied it is proper to do so and the defendant and prosecutor consent. Where such a court convicts a person the maximum penalty which it can impose will be- a fine of $2,000 or imprisonment for 12 months or both-in the case of a natural person; or a fine of $10,000-in the case of a body corporate. Clause 6: Transitional Provisions 75. Where, prior to the commencement of this provision, a Land Council has been negotiating with an applicant for a mining interest (including an exploration licence) on Aboriginal land concerning the Land Council's consent to the grant of that mining interest, the applicant may elect to continue to negotiate as if the relevant provisions of the Principal Act continued to apply. The applicant must notify the Minister in writing that he has elected to negotiate on that basis, and those provisions of the Act will be taken to have continued to apply as if they had not been repealed. If either the applicant or the Land Council notifies the Minister in writing that there is no reasonable prospect that the negotiations will be successful then those provisions will cease to operate. The new scheme for exploration and mining on Aboriginal land will then operate in respect of that application. Clause 7: Savings 76. This clause will ensure that, even though Part IV of the Act is repealed, the provisions of that Part will continue to apply in relation to the Ranger Project Area and the Conservation Zone of Stage III of Kakadu National Park as it it had not been repealed. Amendments agreed to. Amendment (by Senator Gareth Evans) proposed: (24) page 12, clause 5, lines 38 and 39, leave out ``, in writing,''. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(8.12) —The Opposition is opposed to the amendment. Clause 5 of the Bill as it now appears provides that the traditional owners, through the land council, must advise an applicant in writing if the applicant or his representative may not attend the meeting of the traditional owners and the land council for the purposes of examining an exploration proposal. The scheme that the Opposition proposes for the Bill would enable the greatest amount of consultation to occur between the applicant for a mining title and the traditional owners. One of the advantages of the present legislation is the fact that it provides for a closer relationship between the applicant-the miner or the proposed miner-and the traditional owners. Hitherto there has been far too much concentration on negotiation between the miner and the land councils but, as I said, one of the virtues of the Government's legislation is to create a more satisfactory relationship between the applicant and the traditional owners. The Opposition is not suggesting that the owners should not be able to discuss applications for mining titles among themselves and it acknowledges that the traditional landowners may wish to have meetings at which applicants are not present, but the Opposition believes the Bill-as drafted and as passed by the House of Representatives and as it now appears before the Committee-should retain the requirement that the advice should be in writing. We shall no doubt hear that this could be a problem for Aboriginal owners, and members of the Opposition understand that some of them may not be in a position to provide a notice of this kind in writing but they are usually well advised and there are some people among them who would be able to satisfy that requirement. We believe that formality is a sensible requirement and one that will ensure that the true view of the Aboriginal owners is expressed. Therefore, the Opposition does not support this amendment that the Government is proposing to its own Bill. We have heard an enormous amount of rhetoric from Senator Gareth Evans about the marvellous negotiations he conducted in the Northern Territory with the Aborigines. Presumably the Bill, as drafted, is the translation of those negotiations but Senator Evans now wants-I assume as a result of further views that have been expressed, probably by the land councils-to eliminate the requirement that the notice be given in writing. We believe that requirement should be retained and oppose the amendment. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(8.17) —I think the expression `in writing' is a hangover from the 1976 Act and in the course of consultations it was agreed that it could be removed without loss of protection for anyone else. It was removed from other places in the draft. It is simply an oversight that it was left in this clause and the Government amendment-which, of course, does not reflect the Bill as was passed in the House of Representatives, as Senator Durack said, because the Bill was initiated in the Senate and has not been to the House of Representatives-is simply designed to clean up an oversight and to remove the expression `in writing' here as it has been removed elsewhere. The reason for it was not in any way to limit the effectiveness of the notification procedure so far as intending miners are concerned. It is a formal legislative requirement that there be such notification and it must clearly be evidenced in some way for the land councils or their clients, the traditional owners, to be able to rely upon it. Whether such notification has been given is a testable, factual matter. The reason for removing the reference to writing, as I think Senator Durack acknowledged the argument would be, is essentially a practical one. It is not clear, the way the language is framed, whether the notification has to be from the land council in writing, which is not necessarily a very burdensome thing to achieve, but whether, rather, the notification has to be from the traditional owners. I think the view was taken that probably, the way the clause was couched, the writing had to be that of the traditional owners. Not only does one have the difficulty of getting sometimes very scattered traditional owners together to give the necessary endorsement in writing but one also has the additional difficulty of accommodating the concept of writing to the concept of the traditional Aboriginal owners as a group deciding to do things. That concept of `as a group'-and I am quoting the phrase from the clause, and it appeared in a number of places-is something that Mr Justice Woodward originally addressed in his report as being a necessary way, albeit a little vague to Western eyes and ears, of describing the kinds of consensual processes by which a group of Aboriginal people reach a particular position on something. `As a group' is defined somewhere in the parent Act but that might, in turn, lead to the further difficulties of deciding whether a particular piece of writing represents the writing of the group or just some individuals within it-perhaps not a majority-and so on. I am not seeking to dissimulate. There was a series of practical difficulties of this kind that were perceived and, given the fact that oral notification is testable, it was felt that the interests of miners and other relevant people would not be prejudiced in any way by the removal of this particular phrase. That is why the language is as it is and that is why the Government insists upon its amendment. Amendment agreed to. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(8.20) —The Opposition has circulated a list of amendments, the first of which is very long. I will move the first amendment, which covers pages 1 to 12 of the list circulated, and then, contingent upon the result of the debate on that amendment, I may move the other amendments, (2) to (8). I move: (1) Pages 2 to 24, clauses 3 to 7 (inclusive), line 1 (page 2) to line 26 (page 24), leave out the clauses, insert the following clauses: Application of money of Land Council ``3. Section 35 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from subsection (3) `43 or 44' and substituting `41'. ``4. Part IV of the Principal Act is repealed and the following part is substituted: `PART IV-MINING INTERESTS AND MINING OPERATIONS Interpretation `40. (1) A reference in this Part to the warden's court is a reference to the warden's court established by the Mining Act of the Northern Territory at a place closest to the land to which the reference relates and includes a reference to the warden constituting that court. `(2) A reference in this Part to a mining interest includes, where the context so requires, a reference to the land to which the mining interest relates. Grant of mining interests `41. (1) Subject to this Act and the Atomic Energy Act 1953, a mining interest in respect of Aboriginal land may be granted under a law of the Northern Territory relating to mining for minerals. `(2) A mining interest in respect of Aboriginal land shall not be granted unless the applicant for the mining interest has first entered into an agreement in writing with the Land Council in whose area the Aboriginal land is situated relating to: (a) the compensation to be paid on the granting of the mining interest; (b) the guidelines to be adopted after the granting of the mining interest in relation to the identification and protection of sacred sites; and (c) the employment opportunities to be offered to Aboriginals in the operations to be conducted under the mining interest. Agreement provisions `42. (1) An agreement referred to in section 41: (a) shall make provision for the distribution of monies paid to the Land Council under the agreement to or for the benefit of such traditional Aboriginal owners as are specified in the agreement; (b) may make provision for the applicant for the mining interest to lodge with the Land Council a security in such form, for such amount and from such person as the Land Council thinks fit, to secure the applicant's compliance with the conditions referred to in section 47; (c) may make provision for a process of arbitration, in accordance with a law of the Northern Territory relating to commercial arbitration, to determine disputes relating to compliance with the conditions referred to in section 47 and failing such provision in the agreement, the parties to the agreement shall be deemed to have appointed a warden constituting the warden's court as the arbitrator under that law of the Northern Territory in respect of such disputes; and (d) may provide that where a condition referred to in section 47 requires the holder of the mining interest to do anything in relation to the mining interest and the holder does not, within the time provided in the condition, do that thing, the Land Council or a person authorised by the Land Council may enter on the mining interest with such assistance as, and take whatever action, the Land Council or that person, as the case may be, considers necessary for doing that thing, and the costs reasonably incurred by the Land Council or that person in so doing shall be a debt due and payable by the holder of the mining interest to the Land Council or that person, as the case may be, whether or not at the time that the thing was done by the Land Council or that person the mining interest had been cancelled, forfeited or surrendered or had expired. `(2) A condition referred to in paragraph (1) (d) shall not entitle the Land Council, or a person authorised by it, to take any action in pursuance of the condition until the grounds on which the Land Council claims to be entitled to take or authorise the taking of such action have been referred to arbitration under a condition referred to in paragraph (1) (c), the arbitrator has determined that the holder of the mining interest is required under the agreement to do the thing to which the matter relates and the further time (if any) determined by the arbitrator for the holder of the mining interest to do that thing has expired. Aboriginal consultation `43. (1) In consulting with traditional Aboriginal owners in accordance with the requirements of subsection 23 (3) in relation to an application for a mining interest referred to in this Part, the Land Council shall ensure that the applicant is given an opportunity to present to the traditional Aboriginal owners for their consideration, in such form and manner as may be prescribed, an explanation of the purposes for which the mining interest is required and the operations to be conducted thereunder. `(2) Where a Land Council entering into an agreement referred to in section 41 fails to comply in all respects with subsection 23 (3) in relation to the Ab- original land to which the agreement relates, that failure does not of itself invalidate the agreement. `(3) Where a Land Council, by reason of not being able to identify all of the relevant traditional Aboriginal owners of land, is unable to comply with the requirements of subsection 23 (3) within 12 months after being notified in writing by the applicant for a mining interest of the applicant's wish to commence negotiations for an agreement referred to in section 41, the Land Council shall, in accordance with this Act and subject to section 45, negotiate for and enter into the agreement with the applicant and all monies subsequently paid under the agreement to the Land Council for the benefit of the traditional Aboriginal owners shall be held in trust for those traditional Aboriginal owners by the Land Council pending the identification of those traditional Aboriginal owners by it. Determination of compensation `44. (1) The compensation to be paid under an agreement referred to in section 41 shall be limited to compensation: (a) for the traditional Aboriginal owners being deprived of the use of the surface or part of the surface of the land; (b) for the effect that the carrying out of exploration and mining activities on the land may have on: (i) the preservation and protection of the lifestyle, culture and traditions of the traditional Aboriginal owners of the land; (ii) the social, cultural and economic structures of those owners; and (iii) the freedom of access of those owners and their freedom to carry out, in accordance with tradition, rites, ceremonies and other activities on the land; (c) for damage to the surface of the land through exploration or mining activities conducted on the land; (d) for the traditional Aboriginal owners being deprived of the use of improvements on the land; (e) for the severance of the land from other land held in trust for or occupied by the traditional Aboriginal owners; and (f) for all other damage to the land or improvements on the land arising out of operations to be conducted under the mining interest. `(2) In determining the amount of compensation to be paid under an agreement referred to in section 41, no account shall be taken of minerals known or supposed to be on or under the land or of the giving of consent to the agreement. Arbitration on agreement `45. (1) Where a Land Council and the applicant for a mining interest in respect of Aboriginal land cannot agree on the terms and conditions of an agreement referred to in section 41 within 12 months after the applicant having notified the Land Council in writing of the applicant's wish to commence negotiations for such an agreement or within that time the Land Council refuses or fails to enter into such negotiations, either the Land Council or the applicant may refer the matter to the warden's court for its determination of appropriate terms and conditions of the agreement. `(2) In determining the terms and conditions of the agreement referred to in subsection (1) the warden's court shall have regard only to the requirements of section 41, 42 and 43 in relation to the terms and conditions to be agreed upon and shall determine as appropriate only those terms and conditions that, in its opinion, should in the circumstances be acceptable to the Land Council and to the applicant and the determination of the warden's court is binding on the Land Council and the applicant. `(3) In determining a term or condition of an agreement referred to in section 41 requiring a security to be lodged by the applicant for the mining interest to secure the applicant's compliance with the conditions referred to in section 47, the warden's court shall take into account any security that the applicant may be required to lodge under a law of the Northern Territory relating to mining for minerals in respect of the mining interest and shall make its determination so that, as far as practicable, the applicant is not required to provide more than one security in respect of the same matter. Applicant for mining interest not bound to proceed with application `46. An agreement referred to in section 41 shall not be construed so as to compel the applicant for the mining interest to which the agreement relates to proceed with the application. Implied conditions etc. in grant `47. In addition to the terms and conditions subject to which a mining interest in respect of Aboriginal land is granted, that mining interest shall be subject to the conditions that: (a) the holder of the mining interest or the holder's employees, servants or agents shall not unlawfully interfere with any historical site or object, or any Aboriginal sacred site or object, declared as such by or under a law of the Northern Territory; (b) the holder of the mining interest shall keep to a minimum the number of people associated with the exploration or development on the land to which the mining interest relates; (c) except for the purposes of consumption by its employees, servants, agents, contractors or sub-contractors at its camps, the holder of the mining interest shall not bring or permit to be brought onto the mining interest any alcohol; (d) the holder of the mining interest shall not bring or permit to be brought onto the mining interest firearms of any kind or, except with the prior consent of the Land Council, any animal; (e) the holder of the mining interest shall at all times give full consideration to the aspirations and welfare of the local Aboriginals and co-operate with the traditional Aboriginal owners and not interfere with the growth and development of the Aboriginal social, cultural and economic structures on the mining interest; (f) the holder of the mining interest shall employ and engage, and shall ensure that its agents, contractors and sub-contractors employ and engage, as many Aborigines or Incorporated Aboriginal Associations or groups associated with the mining interest as is practicable who are capable of carrying out, or being trained (including by on-the-job training) to carry out, in a satisfactory manner, the particular work required to be carried out in relation to the mining interest at the usual award rates for the type of work performed and subject to the usual conditions of employment; (g) the holder of the mining interest shall progressively rehabilitate and restore, as far as practicable, all areas disturbed by its activities in accordance with good environmental practice; (h) the holder of the mining interest shall liaise with the Land Council on the exploration or development programs in relation to the mining interest and discuss the possible relocation of proposed works and details of the program as it develops; (j) the holder of the mining interest shall, before carrying out a program involving substantial disturbance of the surface of the mining interest, advise the relevant Northern Territory authority and the Land Council, in writing, of that program and comply with such directions as the relevant Northern Territory authority considers appropriate for the protection of the environment in the carrying out of the program; (k) the holder of the mining interest shall advise the relevant Northern Territory authority and the Land Council, in writing, of the proposed location of all infrastructure facilities on the mining interest and the proposed method to be used in disposing of waste, and comply with such directions as the relevant Northern Territory authority considers appropriate in relation to the disposal of that waste; (l) the holder of the mining interest shall not erect a permanent building or facility on the mining interest except with the approval in writing of the relevant Northern Territory authority; and (m) the holder of the mining interest shall comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement referred to in section 41 in relation to the mining interest. Access to Aboriginal land `48. Notwithstanding sections 68 and 70, where a person has the right under a law of the Northern Territory to occupy Aboriginal land by virtue of the grant of a mining interest, that person has for himself, his employees and his agents, a right of access from a public road to that land and across other parts of the Aboriginal land of which the mining interest is part and any contiguous Aboriginal land, by the shortest practicable route, being a route agreed upon by the person and the traditional Aboriginal owners of the land. `(2) Where the traditional Aboriginal owners and the holder of a mining interest cannot agree on the route by which a right of access under subsection (1) may be exercised, the matter may be referred by those owners or the holder of the mining interest to the warden's court for determination and the decision of the warden's court in relation to that matter is binding. Right of way in respect of services etc. `48a (1) The grant of a mining interest entitles the holder of the mining interest to a right of way over Aboriginal land for all reasonable ancillary purposes in connection with the operations to be conducted under the mining interest. `(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a right of way extends to access for or in connection with: (a) the erection and use of conveyor apparatus in connection with the transporting of minerals or substances containing minerals; (b) the erection of electricity lines; (c) the construction of roads; (d) the cutting and construction of water races or drains; and (e) the boring, sinking for, pumping, raising of or conveying of water. `(3) Where the holder of a mining interest is entitled under subsection (1) to a right of way, that right of way may be exercised by a route agreed to by the holder of the mining interest and the traditional Aboriginal owners of the land. `(4) Where the traditional Aboriginal owners and the holder of a mining interest cannot agree on the route by which a right of way under subsection (1) may be exercised, the matter may be referred by those owners or the holder of the mining interest to the warden's court for determination and the decision of the warden's court in relation to that matter is binding. `(5) Compensation shall be payable by the holder of the mining interest to the relevant traditional Aboriginal owners in respect of a right of way under subsection (1). `(6) The compensation to be paid under subsection (5) shall be determined on the same basis as under section 44 in respect of the grant of a mining interest. `(7) Where an amount of compensation payable under subsection (5) cannot be agreed upon between the traditional Aboriginal owners and the holder of the mining interest, the traditional Aboriginal owners or the holder of the mining interest may refer the matter to the warden's court for determination and the decision of the warden's court in relation to that matter is binding. `(8) A right of way under subsection (1) shall not be exercised until compensation has been paid in accordance with this section. Jurisdiction and supervision of warden's court `48b. Where, by or under this Part, a power is conferred or a function imposed on the warden's court, the warden's court has the jurisdiction to exercise that power or perform that function as if it had been conferred or imposed on it by or under the Mining Act of the Northern Territory and an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory from a decision or determination of the warden's court under this Part in the same manner as an appeal against a decision of the warden's court under that Act.'.''. The Opposition's proposed amendment is very fundamental. It really goes to the substance of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1987. Although we have already expressed a qualified support for the Bill, and for the Government's initiative in proposing to qualify the existing veto powers of Aborigines in relation to mining on Aboriginal land-as this Bill does-we nevertheless believe that it does not go far enough, because the Bill still preserves the right of veto at the exploration stage. In other words, the Aboriginal community and the land council are enabled to veto the granting of a mineral exploration permit, whatever the particular legal form may be. The Opposition's amendment is designed to correct that remaining deficiency which it sees in the legislation. A year or two ago, my colleague Senator Kilgariff introduced a Bill in a private capacity, but with the support of the Opposition, to make major amendments to the Aboriginal (Northern Territory) Land Rights Act. Part IV of Senator Kilgariff's Bill deals with mining on Aboriginal land. The object of this amendment is to substi- tute the provisions of Part IV of the Government's Bill with, as it happens, Part IV of Senator Kilgariff's Bill. The primary distinction between these two sets of amendments is that, whereas the Government amendments retained the right of veto at the exploration stage, the amendment now proposed by the Opposition, in accordance with Senator Kilgariff's Bill, would entirely remove that veto power. However, it would not remove a number of very important rights that the Aboriginal traditional owners and the land councils have in relation to mining on Aboriginal land. We felt that this was the cleanest way of dealing with this Bill. We did not vote against the second reading of the Bill because we believe it has some good qualities and we did not want to register our entire opposition to it. I concede that the amendment I have just moved would, in effect, pretty well gut the legislation by replacing the provisions of the Government's Bill by and large with the provisions of Senator Kilgariff's Bill. In summary, the amendment would remove the veto over the granting of any mining interest at the exploration stage as well as at the production or mining stage. But it would require any applicant for a mining interest regardless of whether it is an application for an exploration permit or for a mining permit-to enter into an agreement with the Aboriginal community before the interest is granted. It provides that compensation is to be paid on the granting of that interest, again, regardless of whether it is granted at the exploration or the mining stage. It lays down guidelines for the identification of sacred sites and for employment opportunities to be offered to the Aboriginal community. The amendment also makes provision for the distribution of moneys to the land council for the benefit of traditional owners and for the lodgment of any security with the land council to secure the applicant's compliance with the terms and conditions. Despite the process of negotiation, when all is said and done, the Government's Bill gives absolute veto at the exploration stage. If that veto is not exercised and the Aboriginal community allows the miner to go on to the land, then, at the stage where he wants to proceed with mining or the production of minerals, certain procedures are brought into play to determine the conditions under which mining takes place-there is no veto. We have adopted the same approach except that we are doing so at the exploration stage as well as at the mining stage, thereby removing the actual absolute veto. This amendment provides for the applicant to be given an opportunity to present his case to the traditional owners, which is important. Any compensation which is the subject of such an agreement is limited to damage to land, payment for deprivation of use of land, severance of land from other land held by the same owners, damage to improvements of the land, impact of mining activity on the cultural and economic structures, lifestyle and access to carrying on traditions and ceremonies and so on, which are important particularly to the Aboriginal community. Where agreement cannot be reached, our amendment provides for arbitration to be conducted by the warden's court, with a right of appeal to the Supreme Court. The mining warden, of course, would then determine the terms and conditions which would then be binding on both parties, the Aboriginal owners and the land council and the miner. Of course, if the miner is not satisfied with those conditions, he is not required to proceed, just as he is not required to proceed under the Government's Bill. Certain conditions are implied in the grant of any such interest of land. These include that there should be no interference with sacred sites; the number of people employed should be kept to a minimum; limitations can be placed on alcohol being brought on to the mining site; there should be no interference in the development of the Aborigines' social, cultural and economic structures and conditions; there should be employment of Aborigines on the site. Of course, there are also the usual provisions for the rehabilitation and restoration of the site, which is now absolutely standard practice with the mining industry in any circumstances of mining on any land in Australia. Consultation is also required with the land council in relation to these programs. The scheme of Senator Kilgariff's Bill is very complete. It preserves the basic rights of the Aboriginal community, it provides Aborigines with adequate compensation for damage to their land and the deprivation of the use of it, and we believe it is very much in line with the Government's own proposal-except that with this amendment we would remove the absolute right of veto. The Opposition is substituting that with requirements for compensation of the kind I have indicated and for the arbitration of those rights if, indeed, agreement cannot be reached. So there is to be no imposition on the Aboriginal community by a miner without that process being fully completed. As has been pointed out in the second reading debate, a major problem exists with veto rights. After the eleven years' existence of this Act, only one grant has been made to explore Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory. This is an absurd position and one that the Government has already recognised in bringing forward this legislation. However, the Opposition believes the Government's solution to the problem is not adequate. So long as the rights of veto are preserved, a total inhibition will be placed on mining on Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(8.31) —I support Senator Durack and the amendment he has moved. I shall not restate the situation because Senator Durack has covered everything well. I point out that I covered much of this area in my speech last week at the second reading stage. I have spoken to the Minister, and I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a summary of the amendments to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 3). Leave granted. The document read as follows- ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS (NORTHERN TERRITORY) AMENDMENT BILL (No. 3) (1) Repeal the part IV (mining provisions) proposed by the Government and substitutes the Part IV which is drawn from Senator Kilgariff's private Senator's Bill. The primary distinction between the two sets of amendments is that whereas the Government amendments retained the right of veto at the exploration stage, the Kilgariff amendments entirely remove the veto power. It is felt by the Parliamentary draftsman that it would not be practicable to attempt to amend the Government amendments to remove the veto at the exploration stage, hence the decision to substitute the Kilgariff amendments, with a few modifications. Kilgariff Amendments (a) Remove power of veto over granting of a mining interest (b) Require applicant for mining interest and relevant Land Council to enter into an agreement before the interest is granted. The agreement relates to compensation to be paid on grant of the interest, guidelines for identification of sacred sites, employment opportunities to be offered to Aboriginals. The agreement to also make provision for (i) distribution of monies to Land Council for benefit of traditional owners, (ii) the applicant to lodge a security with the Land Council to secure the applicant's compliance with terms and conditions, (iii) arbitration-Warden's court (Magistrates) with right of appeal to Supreme Court (c) The applicant is to be given opportunity to present its case to the traditional owners. (d) Compensation limited to damage to the land, payment for deprivation of use of the land, severance of the land from other land held by the same owners, damage to improvements to the land, impact of mining activity on cultural and economic structures, lifestyle and access to carry out traditions, rites, ceremonies and other activities. (e) Arbitration to take place where no agreement reached within twelve months. Mining Warden to impose terms and conditions-determination binding on Land Council and the applicant. However, applicant is not compelled to proceed with the application. (f) Certain conditions, in addition to agreed terms and conditions are implied in grant of interest including- (i) no interference with sacred, historical sites (ii) keep to a minimum number of people associated with exploration/mining (iii) limits alcohol that can be brought onto mining interest (iv) firearms and animals not to be brought onto interest without consent of Land Council (v) no interference in development of Aboriginal social, cultural and economic structures (vi) requires employment of Aboriginals (vii) miner must rehabilitate and restore areas disturbed by mining activity (viii) consultation with Land Council in relation to program (g) Provides for right of way to be granted, where required to facilitate exploration/mining. Compensation to be paid in respect of right of way. Senator KILGARIFF —Senator Durack has covered the various aspects of the amendments relating to mining and Aboriginal interests. However, I wish to comment on one point relating to the advantages of the wardens court as opposed to the position of mining commissioner, as proposed in the Bill. I have given a lot of thought to this matter and have had discussions with many people. I believe the wardens court is the most appropriate forum for the resolution of mining disputes between traditional owners and miners. The mining wardens of the Northern Territory are all magistrates. In order to be appointed as magistrates, they must be legal practitioners of at least five years standing. As mining wardens, they have developed a great deal of expertise in dealing with disputes relating to exploration and mining agreements. Apart from the qualification of the wardens court to handle disputes, I support its handling of disagreements between Aborigines and miners for three main reasons-it is cheaper, quicker and provides a much more low key environment in which to sort out the parties' differences. Anyone can appear before a wardens court. Parties are not obliged to be represented by the army of Queen's Counsel which has become almost compulsory in hearings before the land commissioners. That is an extremely expensive manoeuvre for all people concerned. It would be interesting to find out what the land commissioner and other hearings have cost various parties over the years. I am sure it would run into millions of dollars. In a wardens court, parties are free to represent themselves, if they so wish, and that has the benefit of reducing the cost of proceedings. Of course, if anyone wishes to have a QC to represent them, he may do so as it is up to him. The delay in hearing and resolving matters brought before land commissioners under the land rights Act have highlighted the need for a more efficient means of resolving disputes. Proceedings before the wardens court would be far more expeditious than hearings before either land commissioners or, I suggest, the mining commissioners proposed in the Bill. The thought of mining commissioners brings to mind the land commissioners, who run very high profile courts. Directing disputes to the wardens court in the first instance would remove parties from the often rarified atmosphere of the land commissioner hearings. The wardens court would provide a far better environment in which parties could attempt to reach agreement. My amendments, which have been proposed by Senator Durack, were taken from my private member's Bill that was introduced in the Senate a year or so ago. They provide that a party who is dissatisfied with a decision of the wardens court has a right of appeal to the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. Setting up a system of mining commissioners, as the Government's Bill proposes, would only add to the expense, delays and other problems which have been caused by the introduction of land commissioners. That is not a reflection on the land commissioner but rather on the way the establishment has been built up; it is a high profile system and has a high cost. The wardens court, as introduced in my amendments, is a more efficient way of resolving disputes. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(8.36) —Some aspects of the Opposition's amendments, based as they are on the Kilgariff private member's Bill of a year or so ago, do advance concepts similar to those in the Government's model. I refer to such matters as the right of miners to be present at meetings to discuss their proposals, provisions for compensation to be paid in a defined way at the exploration stage, time limits for negotiation followed by some arbitral process, and things of that kind. However, basic differences exist, as has been acknowledged, between the two models, and it is important to appreciate the fact that the Government's proposals are, above all else, the product of a long process of consultation with all relevant affected parties, not only Aborigines but also the Northern Territory Government and the mining industry, which I understand is not the case with the Opposition's amendments. They are genuinely flawed to the extent that they omit some of the most fundamental aspects of the Government model. The key to understanding that model is to acknowledge and understand the fact that the veto right is preserved. I can only repeat what I said during my reply to the second reading debate, that without an opportunity for Aboriginal traditional owners to resist outright and absolutely intrusion on their land for any purpose, one simply does not have a meaningful concept of land rights of a kind that have traditionally been associated with Aboriginal ideals and aspirations. It is true that many, perhaps most, Aboriginal traditional owners do not want to exercise that veto in such a way as to keep all forms of exploration and mining activity off their land. Many, perhaps the majority, are happy to see such activity take place provided it is on fair and reasonable conditions and provided they receive a fair and reasonable return for the use of the land in question. However, for those traditional owners who genuinely want to be left free of harassment and who want to be able to say-as the people very movingly did in the Jawoyn video that so many people in this Parliament would have seen-`Don't keep asking; leave us alone', and for those who have commitments to and beliefs about their land and who value it, a right of veto must be retained. The trouble with the right of veto in the existing legislation is that it is all-embracing. Where it previously applied-that is to say, at the exploration and the mining stage-it was possible for it to be used not as a means by which traditional owners who genuinely wanted no intrusion could stop that intrusion but as a bargaining device designed to screw up the level of the compensation on offer. In the absence of other constraints on the way the negotiating process could proceed and in the absence of particular time limits, stalemate was almost the inevitable result of that legislative model. That had to be overcome, and the construction of the present legislation does that. A veto is retained at the exploration stage, but it is accompanied by the provision that it cannot be followed immediately by the acceptance of some other offer. A five-year moratorium has to be instituted for any, say, exceptional circumstances-which are spelt out-before any subsequent offer can be made or accepted. That is to say that one cannot dispose of one supplicant on the ground that the offer was insufficient and then immediately turn to another one and accept a higher offer. In other words, the veto cannot be used as a bargaining device. It can be practically used only in the way that is intended, namely, as a protection for traditional owners. Understood that way, we believe that the veto is totally defensible and that it need not inhibit the practical application of the Act. The models differ in other ways: As I understand it, the Kilgariff model, or the Opposition model, does not allow compensation for the value of the minerals at the mining stage. We think that that is an inappropriate touchstone in relation to the exploration stage, when there should be a relatively simple negotiating process for what is a relatively simple matter in determining the amounts of damage or disturbance associated with the exploration activity in question. However, in relation to allowing access to the land at the mining stage, when a genuine prospect has been identified and a genuine project is in view, then it is not at all unreasonable that the kind of North American model, and the model that is being developed with existing negotiations at Ranger and elsewhere, should be applied, and that there should be a capacity for the Aboriginal people to extract some measure of the value of the commercial interest that they are giving up. As to arbitral processes, it is not intended that the Mining Commissioner process that has been established for the arbitration of unresolved matters at the exploration stage, or the similar process that is established, employing primarily Federal Court of Australia judges, for matters concerning the mining stage, be elaborate judicial processes of a kind which, regrettably, have become all too familiar in administrative law generally and in Aboriginal land rights matters in particular. These are intended to be relatively small scale and simple matters at the exploration stage, and in relation to perhaps large scale and complex matters, as they might be at the mining stage, the arbitral process involved is not so much a judicial process but rather one that is familiar to those who understand the concept of commercial arbitration-two parties, essentially at arm's length, bargaining for their respective commercial advantage, and in this instance doing so with an experienced arbitrator, applying essentially commercial standards, sitting in the middle. Viewed that way, I do not believe that these processes and procedures are too cumbrous; I believe that they can work, that they will work and that they will break the log-jam which unfortunately, has afflicted so much of this whole business of adjusting mining and Aboriginal interests in the Northern Territory. Accordingly, I again commend the Government model to the Committee and I indicate, not just in a prejudiced way but I hope in a reasoned way, that the Opposition's amendments are in fact unacceptable. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Durack's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 33 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 9 —— Alston, R. K. R. Knowles, S. C. Archer, B. R. MacGibbon, D. J. Baume, Peter Messner, A. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Newman, J. M. Boswell, R. L. D. Parer, W. R. Carrick, Sir John Puplick, C. J. G. Collard, S. J. Sheil, G. Durack, P. D. Short, J. R. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Vanstone, A. E. Hill, R. Walters, M. S. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Withers, R. G. Aulich, T. Jones, G. N. Black, J. R. McKiernan, J. P. Bolkus, N. Macklin, M. J. Button, J. N. Maguire, G. R. Childs, B. K. Mason, C. V. J. Coleman, R. N. Morris, J. Colston, M. A. Powell, J. F. Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCooney, B. Reynolds, M. Crowley, R. A. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Devlin, R. Sanders, N. K. Elstob, R. C. Sibraa, K. W. Evans, Gareth Tate, M. C. Foreman, D. J. Vigor, D. B. Georges, G. West, S. M. Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. Haines, J. Coates, J. Baume, MichaelGietzelt, A. T. Brownhill, D. G. C. McIntosh, G. D. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Richardson, G. F. Lewis, A. W. R. Ryan, S. M. Reid, M. E. Walsh, P. A. Watson, J. O. W. (Senator Chaney did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Grimes). Question so resolved in the negative. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(8.51) —by leave-In view of the failure of the Committee to agree to the amendment that I previously moved, I wish to move amendments Nos (3) to (8) en bloc. I move: (3) Page 2, after paragraph (3) (b), insert the following new paragraph: ``(ba) by inserting `, or for which an application has been made,' after `granted' in the definition of `mining interest' in subsection (1);''. (4) Page 5, clause 5, proposed section 41, at end of section, add the following new subsection: `` `(5) The applicant may cause a copy of the appli- cation to be sent to any Aboriginal community or group that may be affected by the grant of the licence provided that the application has first been submitted to the Land Council.''. (5) Page 5, clause 5, proposed subsection 42 (2), at end of subsection, add the following new word and paragraph: ``and (c) agreed with the applicant that all the traditional Aboriginal owners (if any) of the land to which the application relates and all Aboriginal communities or groups that may be affected by the grant of the licence have been consulted.''. (6) Page 6, clause 5, proposed paragraph 42 (3) (d), line 12, after ``applicant'', (last occurring), insert ``in writing,''. (7) Page 7, clause 5, proposed subsection 42 (10), line 9, after ``applicant'', insert ``, the Northern Territory Mining Minister''. (8) Page 21, clause 5, proposed paragraph 48f (1) (a), at end of paragraph, add ``or the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory;''. Amendment No. (3) amends the definition of `a mining interest' to include an application for a lease or other interest in land. Amendment No. (4) allows the applicant for an exploration licence to send the proposal direct to the traditional owners, provided that a copy is sent to the land council. Amendment No. (5) provides that in addition to the land council consulting with the traditional owners or other Aboriginal groups, the council must also have agreed with the applicant that all traditional owners of the land have been consulted. The reason for this is to cover a weakness that has been revealed in the Act as it existed. Amendment No. (6) requires notification in writing by the traditional owners through the land council to the applicant that he may not attend a meeting. That has already been dealt with and the Committee has voted on it so I seek leave to withdraw it. Leave granted. Amendment withdrawn. Senator DURACK —Amendment No. (7) requires that where the Minister consents to the granting of a mining licence he must notify the Northern Territory mining Minister in addition to the land council. Amendment No. (8) extends the range of persons who may be appointed a mining commissioner to include a judge of the Northern Territory Supreme Court. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(8.54) —I thank Senator Durack for his expedition in moving these amendments. I will be equally expeditious in indicating why the Government rejects them. Senator Durack —As long as you give reasons. Senator GARETH EVANS —I will give reasons; I always give reasons. It is not just all huff and puff over this side of the House; we are a very responsible Government and we will go on being one for a long time yet, I can assure Senator Durack of that. To the extent that the same point is involved in the Opposition's amendments Nos (2) and (3), the Government's amendment No. (1) took up a point which extended the definition of an intending miner to one who has applied for an exploration retention lease and whose exploration licence has expired while the application was being dealt with under Northern Territory law. It was understood that there was a point at issue there and that was fixed up. As to amendment No. (4), there is nothing in the legislation preventing the applicant from sending a copy of the material in question to Aboriginal communities or groups. However much we tell it otherwise, it seems to be the case that the Department of Mines and Energy in Darwin has the mistaken belief that under the legislation there is some kind of blanket prohibition on miners contacting Aboriginal people. That is not so. There is nothing intended to inhibit or limit that, except in the quite specific context defined and spelt out in the legislation. Certainly, there is no reason why this amendment should be necessary as a result. We see amendment No. (5) as perhaps intended to encourage agreement between land councils and miners to exclude traditional Aboriginal owners who legitimately oppose exploration activity upon their land and, as such, we are not very keen about it. I think amendment No. (7) probably ought to have been withdrawn because it is similar to Government amendment No. (11), as I understand it. We have some sympathy with amendment No. (8), which would extend the power of appointment as mining commissioner to justices of the Northern Territory Supreme Court. Nothing in the Bill was intended to pass any slight or aspersion on the appropriateness of the Northern Territory Supreme Court judges to do this job. We have been moved by a plea from the Chief Justice of the Northern Territory, who wrote to my colleague the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) in July 1986 making it clear that he did not want further burdens of the kind contained in the then draft legislation to be placed upon his very small bench of judges. It was having regard to that very keen practical consideration, which has been very important in the Northern Territory Supreme Court in the context of appointment of land commissioners, that we took the course that we did. Under the circumstances, we do not believe, however well intentioned the amendments are, that there is a case for substituting any of these provisions or adding any provisions to those in the Government's legislation, and I recommend to the Committee accordingly. Amendments negatived. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(8.58) —I wish to raise three items with regard to this legislation. The first two are continuing concerns of the Central and Northern land councils about items in the legislation. The first is that there is no requirement on a miner to submit a proposal containing proposed terms of payment, pursuant to proposed new paragraph 46 (1) (a) and, secondly, there is no provision for ministerial extension of the negotiating time pursuant to proposed section 46 (3). As I understand it, the land councils have already made submissions to the Government with regard to both these items and I would be interested in the Government's response to the propositions that have been put. In brief, the argument that the land councils have raised with regard to proposed paragraph 46 (1) (a) is that there is no requirement for a proposal to be submitted by a miner in respect of proposed payments. However, a miner must submit a proposal at the exploration stage. The view of the land councils is that the payment proposals are even more important at the mining stage, although they remain obviously important at the exploration stage. In their request, the land councils have proposed that such payment proposals should be submitted at both the exploration and the mining stages. The argument here is that at the mining stage a commercial negotiation is taking place and, by definition, such a proposal should be submitted at some stage. To avoid a forced arbitration at the mining stage, it seems reasonable that the proposal be required of the miner at the very outset. The second concern of the land councils relates to proposed sub-section 46(3). The land councils have already requested a change to this provision to allow for ministerial extension of the negotiating period at the mining stage. There is currently no provision to extend the period referred to in the section. Mining negotiations will necessarily be complex and time consuming. There will need to be substantial consultations with traditional owners. There is a real possibility of land councils not being able to perform their functions within 12 months, despite their best endeavours. There has been some discussion in both the second reading stage and the Committee stage which I believe sought to show the land councils in a less than favourable light. I think it shows an abysmal ignorance of what the land councils have been doing in that period and merely makes some suggestions of bad faith. If one takes the time and trouble to look at what the land councils have done with regard to each and every negotiation on mining, it is fairly obvious that they have carried out the requirements of them under the Act and the requirements of them from the traditional owners to represent their best interests. It seems to me to be a very odd proposition that many people seem to be advancing that in some way the land councils ought to have been compelled to neglect the interest of the traditional owners whom they are legally and legislatively required to represent. With regard to the problem that the land councils might have in meeting that 12-month deadline, the mining companies may very well not agree to an extension of time in such circumstances and hence force an arbitration. There could be no abuse of the ministerial extension provision because it would be a matter for the exercise of a discretion. It could not therefore be used by land councils for commercial purposes. The land councils have suggested that in their opinion the combined effect of the absence of the two provisions under discussion is potentially serious. There could well be delays and difficulties in negotiating a mining agreement where there is no requirement for a payment proposal to be put and where there is no provision for a ministerial extension of the negotiating period. They therefore see that real prospects of negotiations are being frustrated for these reasons. A miner is not required to put a financial proposal pursuant to proposed paragraph 46(1) (a) and a land council cannot apply for an extension of the negotiating period, but then there is the risk of the mining negotiations breaking down. If a payment proposal is not put in time for the full consultations and negotiations and a mining company wants, for its own reasons, an arbitrated and not a negotiated mining agreement, it could easily force this result knowing that a land council could not get further time to negotiate. They seem to me to be serious problems that are currently in front of us, and I would be very interested in the Government's response to both of them, particularly to the latter one with regard to the possible exploitation by mining companies of provisions contained in this Bill. The third item that I wish to raise concerns proposed sub-sections 41(3), 42(14), 47(2) and 47(4) which were mentioned by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills with regard to the non-reviewable decisions in clause 5. In each of the cases that the Scrutiny of Bills Committee looked at it noted that the Minister had a broad discretion. While seeing that this was appropriate, it drew attention to the fact that no provision is to be made for the review of the decisions on their merits. The Government has adopted a range of proposals of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, and I commend it for that. I commend both items that came forward from the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, but I would be interested in the Government's response on that last point. Senator Gareth Evans —Have you moved a form of words for the first of those two? Senator Macklin —No. The CHAIRMAN —No, no amendment is being moved. Senator Macklin —No amendment; I was just raising the point. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.04) —I am not ill-disposed toward accepting the first of those amendments as to proposed paragraph 46 (1) (a). It was certainly discussed between me and the land councils. I took the view at that time that since under one of the relevant provisions, proposed sub-section 46 (18), the final agreement had to contain terms and conditions relating to payment, it was so obviously implicit in the whole structure of the proposed sub-section that a proposal had to be forthcoming on terms and conditions as to payment that it was hardly necessary to spell it out. There did not seem to be a need to require a proposal to be put if there had to be something in the final agreement. The amendment that came forward finally from the land council arrived after the final deadline that we had set for the conclusion of these discussions. Since it did not seem to be strictly necessary, I was not prepared to re-open consideration. The further point that has been made to me in a telex, as it has now been made to Senator Macklin, is that if the miner can delay the submission of a proposal until well into the negotiating period he might, for all practical purposes, be able to reduce the time. I do not believe it would be in the interests of any sensible miner to do that. Notwithstanding that, there may nonetheless be some point in inserting a provision, perhaps as 46 (1) (a) (xiii), in the following terms: `Terms and conditions relating to payment'. If Senator Macklin were to formally move something in those terms, I would be disposed to accept it for the reasons he has articulated. I do not believe it takes anything away from the legislation, for reasons I have explained, and it may just add something of utility to the bargaining process. I believe we can accommodate that. However, I am not disposed to accommodate the second matter in issue, which is the argument that there should be some capacity for extending the 12-month period at the mining stage. The Government thought about this a lot and certainly discussed it with the land councils. We have made the point that the 12-month period is extendable by agreement. We have also made the point that, where there is no agreement after a matter has been holding fire for 12 months in this context, it is really about time the thing went to arbitration and got itself resolved. One of the big problems about getting mining activity going in the Northern Territory is the way in which negotiations have stalemated for endless periods, with one or other of the parties taking advantage of all sorts of legislative opportunities to extend the period. While I am not suggesting that Ministers would exercise their discretion other than sensibly-certainly not Ministers from this side of the House-there is an element of difficulty that can arise in these situations if too many avenues are available for extension. The distinction is to be drawn between negotiations at the mining stage and those at the exploration stage. Many more matters will require resolution at the exploration stage than at the mining stage for the simple reason that the rule of thumb is that 100 exploration activities take place for every successful venture that is set running as a result of those explorations. Therefore, one can expect the ratio of exploration negotiations to mining negotiations to be roughly of the order of 100 to 1. It might be a bit better than that in the Northern Territory because that is such a highly prospective area for minerals, but we are talking about many fewer negotiations, negotiations that arise only after some years of exploration activity and some years of exposure of the people concerned to the issues involved in a mining presence. It will not come out of the blue. The further particular reason for giving ministerial discretion to extend at the exploration stage was the obvious necessity for a transitional period in the operation of this legislation rather than the land councils, the Northern Territory Department of Mines and Energy, and possibly the Minister, being flooded simultaneously with an absolute mass of outstanding exploration applications. It was necessary to prioritise those areas to identify those of high priority, those of lower priority and so on. Accordingly, it was felt necessary to give a generalised discretion to the Minister to set time limits to enable us to get through that transition period. That is probably the major reason why the ministerial discretion to extend is there at the exploration stage. It is not because it is felt likely that there will be any particular need to use it in particular cases very often; it is more because of that transitional factor. The other reason for the ministerial discretion possibly coming into play is that with the time for consent and the time for negotiation of exploration terms and conditions being coterminous at the exploration stage, difficulties may arise particularly when dealing with situations in which people are confronting exploration of mining issues for the first time. We may need an agency, such as a Minister, acting as a traffic policeman to set periods within which these issues can be resolved. We anticipate none of those things being the case at the mining stage. There will be many fewer such instances. The parties should be much better prepared. The 12 months should enable the hard-headed commercial negotiations about which we are talking to take place. If they do not produce a result within that time frame, we believe it is appropriate that they go to a judge of the Federal Court of Australia for arbitration. As to the matters raised by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills in the Alert Digest, I do not think a final report has yet been brought down dealing with this matter following the ministerial reply. I think the best way in which I can deal with those criticisms is simply to seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the terms of my letter in reply to the Committee, which took up, one by one, the points that have been raised about extended ministerial discretions, unreviewability and so on, and explain the particular policy context in which these-- Senator Macklin —It was the non-reviewability one that I was interested in. Senator GARETH EVANS —If I can find, in all the morass around me, the terms of my reply, which I very carefully penned, I will seek leave to incorporate that in Hansard. The debate can be picked up later. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(9.12) —I thank the Minister for his response, particularly on the first item regarding the proposed terms of payment. If I heard the Minister correctly, he would be willing to accept an amendment which would simply insert as sub-paragraph 46 (1) (a) (xiii) the words `terms and conditions', which I think was the phrase the Minister used. Senator Gareth Evans —`Terms and conditions relating to payment'. Senator MACKLIN —The words `terms and conditions relating to payment' would certainly satisfactorily address that issue. I move: Page 11, clause 5, after proposed sub-paragraph 46 (1) (a) (xii), insert the following word and paragraph `and (xiii) terms and conditions relating to payment.'. I must admit that I am still concerned about the whole legislation. Amendment agreed to. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(9.14) —Thank you, Mr Chairman, for working that out so expeditiously. My unease with regard to the Minister's statement probably applies to the whole legislation. I must admit that, after the Minister's meeting with the traditional owners, any opposition we may have had to the Bill obviously was no longer sensible since the propositions had been accepted by the traditional owners and agreed to by them. They have a perfect right to undertake that type of activity. Nevertheless, I must admit that I still have some unease about moving back in any way from the strong position of a veto being available to Aboriginal people over their land. I am reminded particularly of the various royal commissions and other commissions of inquiry, such as the Seaman Aboriginal Land Inquiry, which pointed very strongly and very forcibly to the fact that recovery of land is sensible only in the context of total control of that land. It is a proposition that I support very strongly and hence I have unease about any propositions to put more pressure on the traditional owners to come to an accommodation with a mining company when they may not necessarily wish to come to an accommodation with the mining company, at least not in a time frame. But the agreement has been made and in that context it must stand. I am still worried that a mining company in these circumstances may wish not to consult with land councils. I am not simply suggesting some ill will on the part of mining companies; I am pointing to the deplorable history of mining companies negotiating with the Aboriginal people. A comparison of the way that mining companies in Australia have carried on negotiations with Aboriginal owners with the way that mining companies have operated in the United States of America and Canada shows fairly clearly that there is an unwillingness on the part of many mining companies in this country even to accept that the Aboriginal people own and control their land and must be a party to negotiations. I still have some concern that a company may wish to extend the 12-month period to force an arbitration. I would have thought that ministerial discretion could not be used in any way by either the mining companies or the Aboriginal people-the traditional owners or the land councils-but that the discretion of the Minister could be applied in such a way as to make sure that meaningful negotiations, rather than a forced arbitration, took place. It is fairly obvious that the Government is not willing to proceed down that line; but I still admit that to me it would be sensible for the Government to have that element which would make sure that both parties entered into meaningful negotiations and did not simply wait around for arbitration from which they thought they may receive an advantage. The last point-I hope the Minister has managed to find among the morass of his documents the point that I am interested in-is the item dealing with the avenue of review which would be available, as I mentioned before, with regard to sub-sections 41 (3), 42 (14) and 47 (2) and 47 (4) relating to non-reviewable decisions. The only possibility of review would be with regard to the legality of the decisions pursuant to the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, which is strictly limited in its application. One way of getting around this, as the Scrutiny of Bills Committee suggested, is the addition of the words `on reasonable grounds'. The Committee stated that the addition of the words `on reasonable grounds': . . . restricts the discretion afforded the Minister and, in the view of the Committee, makes review pursuant to the Administrative Decision (Judicial Review) Act a sufficient avenue of review since it will be possible in an application pursuant to the Act to go behind the Minister's reasons for holding that, for example, the public interest required the making of a further application for an exploration licence in order to test whether the Minister had reasonable grounds for holding that view. The small addition of the words `on reasonable grounds', as suggested by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, would be one way out. It is a simple drafting change and would bring these sections into keeping with other parts of the Act. Paragraph 48 (3) (c) of the Bill states that the Minister, after consultation with the Commonwealth Minister for Resources and Energy, who is the Minister in the chamber at the moment, and the Northern Territory mining Minister shall authorise the making of a further application for the grant of an exploration licence if the Minister is satisfied `on reasonable grounds' of a certain matter. So the Scrutiny of Bills Committee's suggestion is incorporated, and including the words `on reasonable grounds' at other points in the Bill makes eminent sense and would address the issue sufficiently. That is the area of my concern. The other points certainly bear weight. The Minister has addressed a large number of them in some of the amendments which have already been moved to this Bill. This item is the only major item left over from the scrutiny that I think needs some clarification. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.22) —I have now found the response I made to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. I do not know whether Senator Macklin has seen it. Senator Macklin —I have not seen it. Senator GARETH EVANS —I will settle for incorporating it in Hansard and leaving it at that. I am not sure whether it is the best possible formulation now that I look at it. The point can perhaps be more strenuously made about the need for expedition, the inevitability of judgmental decisions having to be made at the margin and the desirability of the process not being side-tracked into the formidable jungle of legal technicalities which, regrettably, the administrative review processes tended to become in this area. That in short states the reasons we believed, and I honestly believe, that the provisions here, which have been reached after very intensive consultation-they do not represent nirvana or the millennium so far as the Northern Territory Government or the miners are concerned-will work in practice. It is possible-I say this as someone who has been a fairly passionate supporter, as Senator Macklin will know, of administrative review over the years-to overburden legislation of this kind with reviewability. The particular discretions that have been vested in the Minister have been carefully chosen. They are limited in scope and content and will, I believe, be applied only in those circumstances where there is, inevitably, a highly discretionary judgmental character involved of a kind that is best left to the Minister to make in all the circumstances of the case without exposing the whole thing to a further layer of review. Against that background I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the text of my reply, although I do not claim authorship of it with as much pride as I might usually do, as I look at it now. But I think it is good enough to satisfy Senator Macklin tonight and, as such, I am happy to leave the debate at that. Leave granted. The document read as follows- ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS (NORTHERN TERRITORY) AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 3) 1987 Bill Alert Digest No. 8 of 1987 draws attention to four sub-sections providing for non reviewable decisions, viz 41 (3), 42 (14) and 47 (2) and (4). In the cases of 41 (3) and 42 (14) the nature of the decision is a ministerial discretion to grant an extension of an otherwise fixed time for completion of an action; in the first instance, by the applicant for access to explore and, possibly, mine; in the second instance, by the Land Council undertaking negotiations on such an application. In each case the potential for difference of interests would most likely rest between the principal parties to the question. The Minister is required in each case to consult first with the Northern Territory Mining Minister. These provisions were drafted in close consultation with the Land Councils and with the mining industry through the Australian Mining Industry Council. It has been recognised by all parties that the granting of an extension of time in these circumstances is essentially a political decision, most appropriately taken by the Minister with provision for review as to the legality of the decision only and not the merits. The Ministerial discretions under sub-sections 47 (2) and 47 (4) relate respectively to the cancellation of the exploration licence and the refusal to grant, or the cancellation of, the mining interest. In these instances also, the Minister is required to make a decision concerning an essentially political matter, viz the likelihood that the exploration undertaken or proposed, or the mining works proposed, would be other than in accordance with the proposed program to the extent that the Land Council would not have consented to the grant of the licence. If the Minister so decides he must decide further that the national interest does not require that the works should proceed. The consequential cancellation of the exploration licence under s. 47 (6), or the non-granting or cancellation of the mining interest under s. 47 (7), therefore depends on two conditions, the merits of which are most appropriately assessed by the Minister and would not be appropriate to determination by a tribunal. Alert Digest No. 8 draws attention to the reviewability on grounds of merit and legality of decisions to be taken under 48 (3) (c). Such a decision is to be taken by the Minister after consultation with the Commonwealth Minister for mineral resources matters and the Northern Territory Mining Minister upon the application of the Land Council and without detriment to the original applicant for consent to the grant of an exploration licence. The granting of consent, as a subject of appeal, would be of interest principally to a third party. The greater degree of transparency and scope for review in this instance is appropriate where substantial interest may rest with persons not privy to the primary negotiations behind the issue (i.e. the Land Council and the original applicant). GARETH EVANS...May 1987 Minister for Resources and Energy Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a third time. Debate resumed from 4 December 1986, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.25) —I seek this opportunity to table a revised explanatory memorandum to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill and an explanatory memorandum to the amendments to be moved on behalf of the Government in the Committee of the Whole. Leave granted. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.26) —I seek leave to move together the Government amendments circulated in my name in respect of which I earlier tabled an explanatory memorandum. I do not believe that there is anything controversial about them. Leave granted. Senator GARETH EVANS —I move: (1) Page 1, clause 2, line 9, leave out ``subsection (2)'', substitute ``this section''. (2) Page 1, clause 2, after subsection (1) insert the following subsection: ``(1a) Paragraph 23 (1) (ea) and subsection 50 (2d) and (2e) of the Principal Act inserted by this Act, and section 34, shall come into operation on a day, or on respective days, to be fixed by Proclamation.''. (3) Page 5, clause 7, lines 23 and 24, leave out ``referred to in subsection 50 (2e)'', substitute ``to which subsection 50 (2e) applies''. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(9.27) —I will refer briefly to the Government amendments that have just been circulated. The first appears to be quite in order. However, I would like some explanation regarding the second amendment. As I see it, it allows the proclamation of sub-sections 50 (2d) and 50 (2e) to be delayed indefinitely. These sub-sections relate to the new stock routes provisions. I ask the Minister: Can he make clear the reasons for the amendment and why will there be a delay in the introduction of the sub-sections? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.28) —There is a bit of a history to this exercise with which I am not entirely familiar. But as I understand, it bears basically upon the felt need to wait upon the outcome of the legal challenge which has been made to the Maurice decision in the Ti Tree land claim which, as I recall, held that stock routes were to be regarded as roads for the purpose of the proper construction of this legislation. As such, this made unavailable for claim quite a large chunk, if not all, of the Northern Territory stock routes. Because of the uncertainty as to the precise legal status of the stock routes, the Government has felt it appropriate to enable specifically the deferral of the proclamation of these clauses. There will need to be a further amending Bill, at some stage later this year or early next year, picking up some of these matters which are still not fully resolved, such as essential services and pastoral conversions, which in the rush of events were omitted from this legislation. To the extent that there are any outstanding questions relating to stock routes, it is proposed that they be picked up at that time. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(9.29) —The Minister has forecast that a Bill will be introduced later, no doubt in the new Parliament as we have an election before us. As a lot of it will relate to the pastoral industry, I ask what consultations will the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) be having before the Bill is introduced-although, of course, one expects that those opposite by then would be in opposition so they would not be introducing it. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.30) —We will have heaps of consultations and we will continue the process that has been going on for some considerable time. I thank the honourable senator for his acknowledgment of the realities of the situation. Amendments agreed to. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(9.30) —The amendments that have been circulated on behalf of the Opposition would overcome a number of the deficiencies which the Opposition has identified in the Government's legislation. It is claimed by the Minister that the Bill that is before the Committee would provide an answer to the problems created by the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. However, in speaking to the Opposition's amendments I will outline briefly those aspects of the Government's Bill which warrant modification or outright opposition. The first Opposition amendment, which has been circulated on a single sheet of paper, relates to clause 11 of the Bill. This amendment would ensure that rents paid to the Northern Territory Government by the holders of a mining interest on Aboriginal land would not have to be in turn paid back to the land council by the Northern Territory Government. I believe that this is a reasonable amendment. I would like to draw the Minister's attention to it. The Government's clause 11 purports to have this effect. However, the Government's amendment only refers to fees for services paid by the holder of a mining interest, not to rentals. I refer the Minister to page 11, paragraph 18 of the explanatory notes which relate to this matter. The explanatory notes refer to rents, but later fees for services are referred to. I think that matter should be cleared up. The amendment I am proposing would make it quite clear that rentals paid to the Northern Territory would not be repayable to the land councils under the land rights Act. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.32) —Clause 11 as it presently stands seeks to ensure that the Northern Territory Government does not have to pay to land councils equivalents of payments it receives in respect of fees for services provided under Northern Territory mining legislation. The Opposition amendment would, as I understand it-I am not sure that I understand it at all-have a similar effect, but seeks to extend the non-payment provision to rents received. I am advised that this is not necessary as rents are paid directly to the land councils and not to the Northern Territory Government. The Government amendment reflects a specific recommendation by Mr Justice Toohey, and under those circumstances we insist on our amendment. The CHAIRMAN —Senator Kilgariff, do you wish to move your amendment to clause 11? You have not actually done so. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(9.33) —No. I note the Minister's advice relating to clause 11. I will heed his advice. I hope that it is correct. I turn to clause 12. The Opposition opposes this clause in relation to dealings with interests in land by land trusts. The amendments proposed by the Minister provide that land trusts, with the approval of the Minister and at the direction of the relevant land council, can grant an estate of interest in land vested in the land trust. The provisions governing the granting of interests or estates in Aboriginal land are a very sore point in the Northern Territory. It is disappointing to see again that the Territory's right to have access to and across Aboriginal land for the provision of essential services has been ignored. My proposed new clause 12a would enable the Northern Territory to gain access to Aboriginal land for the provision of these services. Where the Northern Territory Government has been refused access by a land council, it will be able to apply to the Minister to have the matter dealt with by arbitration. That is very reasonable. Essential services provided for in this new clause include the provision of power, water, sewerage, communications, railways, boat landings, airstrips, health and education facilities, roads and accommodation for government employees. I referred earlier in the second reading debate to the outrageous claims that have been made by a number of Aboriginal groups when the Northern Territory has attempted to provide services on Aboriginal land for the people. There have been claims for rent for the land on which Housing Commission houses have been built for Aboriginal people, claims for compensation for gravel used to build roads to Aboriginal settlements, et cetera. I have given many illustrations, but the illustration I now wish to give relates to the Beswick water supply which the Northern Territory wished to upgrade in response to a request from the Beswick community. The Northern Land Council, acting on behalf of the Beswick traditional owners, demanded over a protracted period that the Northern Territory enter into a licence agreement at its cost. The then Chief Minister of the Northern Territory responded that the Northern Territory would not be held to ransom in pursuit of its responsibilities to provide essential services to Aboriginal communities. Ultimately, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs encouraged the NLC to accept the Northern Territory's point of view and eventually it was agreed that the water service would be upgraded without a licence agreement. However, cases such as Beswick can be repeated because of the failure of the Minister to provide a legislative remedy. The amendment which the Opposition proposes would provide such a remedy. I indicated to the Minister earlier that I am taking all the Opposition's amendments as a package. The Opposition is not moving an amendment to clause 13 but I take this opportunity to register our opposition to the clause which deals with the functions of the land councils. I question the need for the new functions land councils are to perform in assisting Aboriginals to take measures to protect sacred sites in the areas of the land councils, whether or not it is Aboriginal land. How much more will this cost and what land council resources will be diverted to this function? My final question to the Minister is: Is it necessary? I believe that the answer is clearly no. Comprehensive and effective legislation is already in place on the statute books of both the Northern Territory and the Commonwealth to protect Aboriginal sacred sites. I can only assume that this provision has been thrown in for good measure by the Minister at the behest of the land councils in return for the supposed concession that is alleged to have been given in relation to mining on Aboriginal land. It is an unnecessary and potentially divisive provision and the Opposition objects to it on that basis. Similarly, while the Opposition proposes no amendment to clause 16, I register our protest at the effect of the clause. It removes the obligation of land councils to compile registers of traditional Aboriginal owners of land-one of the most important and fundamental functions which land councils were intended to carry out. I believe it is quite outrageous that when the Federal Government is giving the land councils additional unnecessary powers-and there are many Aboriginal people who believe this-such as those contained in clause 13 relating to sacred sites, it is making it possible for land councils to opt out of carrying out the very necessary tasks for which they were established. As I see the problem, it now means that the land councils can take short cuts. Surely the Minister must recognise the potential for legal and administrative problems if the register of traditional owners is allowed to deteriorate. How is it proposed that those who want to identify the traditional owners of land, such as mining companies or other commercial interests, let alone the Aboriginal people themselves will go about this, where there is an argument over land? I find it quite difficult to understand how the Land Commissioner will operate if he does not have before him a comprehensive register of traditional owners. Over the years we have seen the necessity for having such a register. Now it will be thrown out the window. It is my understanding that the reason for the abandonment of the register of traditional owners is that it has not been properly compiled and maintained and is in a shambles. If that is the case I would have thought that the proper course would have been to rectify the situation rather than the Minister allowing the land councils to wash their hands of the problem completely. I believe that the government has a responsibility to the traditional owners and the Aboriginal people. I believe that the register is essential and it should not be thrown out. This amendment is an admission of the failure of the land councils to carry out one of their primary and most critical functions. It is a most retrograde step and the Opposition is strongly opposed to its implementation. I move to the Opposition's fifth amendment on the consolidated list of amendments which we have circulated. I seek leave at this point to amend the amendment, which contains a drafting error. It should read: . . . `or the provisions of the Trustee Act 1979 of the Northern Territory as amended from time to time'. At present it reads: `and the provisions . . .'. The CHAIRMAN —Order! Are you seeking to change the word `and' to `or'? Senator KILGARIFF —Yes. Leave granted. Senator KILGARIFF —Briefly this amendment means that moneys would be able to be invested by land trusts in accordance with the Northern Territory Trustee Act 1979 instead of the more conservative and restrictive provisions of the Audit Act 1901, a Commonwealth statute. Both the Audit Act and the Trustee Act govern the way in which trustees may invest on behalf of their beneficiaries. Both have strict requirements to ensure the protection of beneficiaries under a trust. However, the Northern Territory Trust Act permits investment in a broader range of property, including real estate, and of course shares, banks, et cetera. This amendment will simply give land trusts a broader range of investments in which Aboriginal trust fund money could be invested, and it will mean that Aboriginal trustees would have the same option and protection afforded to other Northern Territories trustees by the Trustee Act of the Northern Territory. The next clause to which the Opposition proposes amendments is clause 25. We have moved three amendments listed as numbers (6), (7) and (8). The Opposition takes the view that the amendments proposed by the Government in this clause should be opposed. They will, among other things, allow land claims to continue under the Act for a period of ten years and allow land commissioners to continue to hear claims in relation to public purpose land, including stock routes and reserves. The first of these three Opposition amendments is to amend the time allowed for further claims from the 10 years proposed to 12 months, and the second and third are to prevent claims upon public purpose land, including stock routes and stock reserves. I do not think I need to go into this any more as I think I covered it quite amply during the debate on the second reading speech. On the first amendment, which is to reduce the period during which further claims may be made to 12 months, the point must be made that already there have been 11 years during which traditional owners of Aboriginal land have been able to lodge with the Land Commissioner claim to that land. During this time almost 50 per cent of the land mass of the Northern Territory has been claimed. To allow a further 10 years can be described only as an abrogation of the responsibility of the Minister to bring the claim process to a close. It lets the Minister off the hook. Surely one year is sufficient, instead of another 10 years, which I think makes it something like 21 years, when 50 per cent of the Territory has been claimed or is under claim now. The other aspect of the amendments which I am proposing to clause 25 is the inclusion of an alternative sub-section 2d to section 50 of the principal Act. The sub-section which I am proposing would establish that where a claim to land is made to the Commissioner, after the commencement of the sub-section, where the land claimed or part of the land claim was reserved, dedicated or otherwise set aside as either a stock route or a stock reserve or for a public purpose, the Commissioner would not be able to hear an application in relation to the land. I will deal first with the need for the protection of stock routes and reserves. I made mention in my speech during the second reading stage of the way in which the stock route system in the Territory has been fragmented by the land rights Act. That the Federal Government has allowed this to occur is a testament to its irresponsible attitude towards the pastoral industry in the outback. The Commonwealth Government is the only government in this country which has adopted a policy of breaking down an existing stock route network within its jurisdiction. This is in stark contrast to the positive efforts that State governments are putting into protecting the stock routes within their States. The Minister has made a lot of the amendment that he states will limit claims on stock routes to those where claims have already been lodged and future claims where the particular route or reserve claimed is entirely within the total area of land under claim. However, the Minister does reserve unto himself the right to intervene in the case of other stock routes or reserves where there is a dispute and no agreement can be reached between pastoralists and Aboriginal claimants. In such a case the Minister is able to designate the land in dispute as claimable under the Act. So the Minister has given the pastoral industry absolutely nothing. The amendment the Minister proposes purports to limit claims on stock routes and reserves but it is clear that it does not. The pastoral industry in the Territory is quite justified in being disappointed with this effort. It had been given to understand by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs that, in return for the impressive progress that has been made in granting excisions from pastoral leases to Aboriginal people for community living areas, there would be an end to claims under the land rights Act to stock reserves and stock routes. The progress of the Territory and the pastoral industry, although impressive in its own right, is phenomenal when it is contrasted with the progress of land claims under the land rights Act. The Territory Aboriginal excisions program has been under way only since May 1985 and in the two years to May 1987 the statistics show that, of 118 applications or expressions of interest, only two have been rejected; 13 titles have been registered; seven offers have been accepted and are awaiting final processing; and another five offers have been made with negotiations complete. In addition, negotiations are proceeding on another 27 applications. There have been 30 expressions of interest about which more information is being sought from the land councils or the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and at the bottom of the list, and given a lower priority, are 34 expressions of interest for which no details have been supplied. The 13 titles registered, the seven other offers accepted and the five offers made represent a very substantial achievement. I venture to suggest that if these pieces of land had been claimed under the land rights Act the debate would still be raging, in some cases, five to 10 years down the track. Yet, in spite of the proven commitment of the Northern Territory pastoral industry to recognising and accommodating Aboriginal people with a rightful claim to certain areas on pastoral leases, the Minister is still retaining the big stick. The pastoralists and the Territory Government have kept their end of the bargain-the Commonwealth has not. The amendments I am proposing would prevent further claims on stock routes and reserves that have been dedicated or set aside as such. For the purposes of this legislation land is said to be reserved, dedicated or set aside for a public purpose if the purpose is related to health, education, community development, fire prevention and control, quarantine, energy supply and conservation and a range of other matters specified in Regulation 4 of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Regulations. In no other part of Australia would a situation such as has arisen in relation to Tennant Creek-where the town's water supply forms part of the subject of a land claim-be tolerated. This is another of the elements of the present land rights regime which have created friction within the Territory community and which must be addressed. As the Minister has not made any attempt to do so, I shall move an amendment in this respect. Finally, although the Opposition has no further amendments, I take this opportunity to voice our opposition to the Government's clause 32. This clause represents yet another fetter on the Northern Territory in carrying out its responsibilities to the Territory community. It provides that, once land is the subject of a land claim, any alienation of that land by the Crown will be invalid, so the status of the land the subject of a claim is frozen. This will severely impede the Northern Territory Government in planning community, educational, health, housing and other facilities for the people of the Territory. The amendment discriminates against Territorians in effectively preventing Crown land from being set aside for public purposes for the duration of a land claim-which may, incidentally, run for 10 years or more, if experience is anything to go by. No State government in Australia would tolerate having its resource planning disrupted in such a way; the Territory should not be expected to tolerate it either. I seek leave to move amendments (1) to (9) together. Leave granted. Senator KILGARIFF —I move: (1) Pages 9 and 10, clause 121-delete the clause. (2) Page 10, after clause 12, insert the following new clause: ``12A. After section 19 of the Principal Act the following section is inserted: Grants to Northern Territory for an essential service `19A (1) Where: (a) the Northern Territory has requested a Land Council to direct a Land Trust holding land (in this section referred to as the ``relevant land'') in the area of that Land Council to grant an estate or interest in that relevant land to the Northern Territory for use for a particular essential service; and (b) the Land Council has refused or is unwilling to give such a direction; a Minister of the Northern Territory may apply, in writing, to the Minister for the matter to be dealt with in accordance with this section. `(2) Where the Minister has received an application under subsection (1) and the Minister is satisfied that the particular essential service necessitates the grant of an estate or interest in the relevant land, the Minister shall appoint an Arbitrator to deal with the matter in dispute and shall refer the matter to the Arbitrator. `(3) The Minister shall not appoint as an Arbitrator for the purposes of subsection (2) a person other than a judge of the Federal Court of Australia. `(4) On a reference being made to an Arbitrator under subsection (2), the Arbitrator shall determine: (a) what part of the relevant land is required for the particular essential service; (b) what form of estate or interest (other than an estate in fee simple) is necessary for that essential service; (c) the terms and conditions under which the estate or interest is to be granted; and (d) the compensation payable by the Northern Territory to the Land Trust in respect of any decrease in the value of the relevant land to the extent that the decrease is attributable to the grant of that estate or interest. `(5) Where an Arbitrator has made a determination under subsection (4), the Land Council concerned shall direct the Land Trust to grant the estate or interest in the relevant land to the Northern Territory on those terms and conditions. `(6) Where the Minister is satisfied that a Land Council has refused, or is unwilling, to give a direction to a Land Trust to grant an estate or interest in relevant land in accordance with a determination under this section, the Minister may, in the name of, and on behalf of, the Land Trust, grant the estate or interest to the Northern Territory. `(7) Upon the granting of the estate or interest to the Northern Territory, the Land Trust has a right to compensation from the Northern Territory in the amount determined by the Arbitrator. `(8) In this section: (a) a reference to an estate or interest in land includes a reference to a licence in respect of that land; and (b) a reference to an essential service includes a reference to the provision of power, water, sewerage, communications, railways, boat landings, airstrips, health and education facilities, the provision of roads, and accommodation for Government employees.'.''. (3) Pages 10 and 11, clause 13-delete the clause. (4) Page 11, clause 16-delete the clause. (5) Page 14, subclause 21 (1), proposed new subsection 35 (10), at end of proposed subsection, add: ``or the provisions of the Trustee Act 1979 of the Northern Territory as amended from time to time''. (6) Page 16, clause 25, proposed new subsection 50 (2a), line 11 leave out ``10 years'', insert ``12 months''. (7) Page 16, clause 25, proposed new subsection 50 (2b), leave out the subsection. (8) Page 17, clause 25, proposed new subsections 50 (2d) and 50 (2e), leave out the subsections, insert the following new subsections: `` `(2d) Where an application as referred to in paragraph (1) (a) has been made to the Commissioner before the day of commencement of this subsection or is made to a Commissioner on or after that day, and- (a) the land, or a part of the land, to which the application relates: (i) was reserved, dedicated or otherwise set aside, under a law of the Northern Territory, with effect from a time before the making of the application, as a stock route or stock reserve but is not that part of a stock route so reserved, dedicated or set aside that is, along each of its 2 longer boundaries, contiguous to other land to which the application relates; or (ii) was reserved, dedicated or otherwise set aside, under a law of the Northern Territory, with effect from a time before the making of the application, for a specified public purpose; and, in a case where the application was made before the day of commencement of this subsection, the Commissioner had not, before the day of commencement of this subsection, commenced an inquiry under pararaph (1) (a) in relation to the application as it related to that land or that part; or (b) the land, or a part of the land, to which the application relates has been reserved, dedicated or otherwise set aside under the law of the Northern Territory with effect from a time before the making of the application, for a public purpose (not being a specified public purpose) and the Minister, by notice published in the Gazette, declares that that land, or that part of that land, is not land to which paragraph (1) (a) relates; the Commissioner shall not perform, or continue to perform, a function under paragraph (1) (a) in relation to the application as it relates to that land or that part. `(2e) For the purposes of subsection (2d), land is reserved, dedicated or otherwise set aside for a public purpose if the purpose is related to health, education, community development, fire prevention or control, quarantine, energy supply and conservation and all other matters specified in Regulation 4 of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Regulations and, in particular, for a specified public purpose if it is reserved, dedicated or set aside: (a) for forestry or re-afforestation purposes; (b) for the recreation or amusement of the public; (c) for the protection or conservation of wildlife; (d) for the conservation of native flora; (e) for the preservation or protection of places or buildings of historic interest; (f) for memorial purposes; (g) for scenic purposes; (h) for long term geological or geophysical research; (j) for aerodrome purposes; (k) for Commonwealth War Graves purposes; (m) for police purposes; (n) as a water supply area, water control area or water catchment area; (p) as a cemetery; (q) as a monument; (r) as a garbage reserve; (s) as a commonage reserve; (t) as a place of scientific interest.'.''. (9) Pages 19 and 20, clause 32-delete the clause. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.48) —I respond briefly on behalf of the Government and indicate why, despite Senator Kilgariff's manful efforts to persuade us about these various amendments and opposition to particular clauses, we do not agree with him. The first matter was the opposition to clause 12. Essentially, this is concerned with administrative tidying up. Much of it is based on the Toohey report on the Review of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. Nobody else in the Northern Territory Government or in the land councils, or anyone else, seems to have bothered with the clause. We had some difficulty until Senator Kilgariff rose in understanding the Opposition's attitude. We are a little the wiser after having heard him address some perceived difficulties in clause 12. We are not sufficiently moved by what he said, however, to change any of it or to delete it at this stage, but it is the sort of thing that we indicate a willingness to keep under review. In the context of further legislation that will need to come forward later this year or early next year we will certainly have a close look at what Senator Kilgariff has said about those particular matters and make any necessary remedial amendments. As to his proposed insertion of new clause 19a about grants for essential services, this is one of the provisions postponed for further consideration, as I indicated before, as a result of the Government's wish to press ahead with other agreed amendments. That is not to say that we do not acknowledge some force in what Senator Kilgariff has said. We find it rather difficult to understand the opposition to clause 13. Firstly, the clause validates the land council's role of assisting in the taking of measures likely to assist in the protection of sacred sites. As we see it that does not provide the land council with any direct powers at all. Secondly, the clause validates the land council's role of assisting the traditional owners to undertake commercial activities. It does not provide the land council with any powers to undertake commercial activities in its own right. Otherwise, the clause merely makes minor administrative changes and as such would seem unexceptionable. Deletion of clause 16 would retain the requirement for a register of traditional owners against Toohey's expressed recommendation that this be made optional. We should now say His Honour Mr Justice Toohey of the High Court of Australia, but I am sure he will not mind the shorthand. He found that there are major practical difficulties in requiring a register to be kept under this particular clause. Abolishing that requirement acknowledges that difficulty. Senator Kilgariff —How are you going to get around the problem if we do not have a register in recognising the true traditional owner? There can be a contest between Aboriginal people. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am sure that there has been so much subtlety and ingenuity shown so far in making the system work in the Northern Territory that the need to put together a list of traditional owners for a particular claim, which still must be the case, will still be satisfied but without the practical difficulty of maintaining a register on an ongoing basis. I am not sure whether that is a completely satisfactory answer, but if there are any difficulties that manifest themselves in the period ahead, this is another issue which I am sure the Minister will be willing to take up in his or her further review of the legislation that will take place later on. As to amendment (5), the proposed change of words to clause 21, the requirement that moneys held in trust be invested in accordance with section 62b of the Audit Act is standard in Commonwealth legislation. We see no need to extend that provision by including the Northern Territory Trustee Act in its coverage. The amendment to clause 25 would have the effect of shortening the sunset clause for lodgment of claims from 10 years to 12 months. We take the view that the present provision is reasonable, not least when one compares it against the open-ended alternative that was sought by the land councils. There have been a number of changes in the regime under which applications are made and we see a reasonably extended further period as appropriate. I think the point has to be made that the days of land claims are very largely over in the Northern Territory. Most claims with any credibility that are going to be made have already been made, although not all those claims have been adjudicated upon. The real emphasis will now shift to mineral activity on the land thus awarded. I think that as a practical matter this is unlikely to be a significant factor. The proposed omission of new subsection 50 (2b) would remove the provision for repeat claims to be heard, subject to a land commissioner being satisfied that there are sufficient reasons for a re-hearing. We see this present provision as being reasonable. I can say no more about that. As to the proposal to replace proposed subsections 50 (2d) and 50 (2e) in clause 25, the effect of this would be to reinsert the non-claimability of public purpose land. As I have said a couple of times before, this is one of the deferred provisions in the Government's proposals and its absence from this Bill does not mean that we do not acknowledge the need for some such provision, and that matter will be addressed later. Finally, the Opposition opposes clause 32. We do not; we want to retain it. This clause provides for estates and interests in land not to be granted while the land is subject to traditional land claims. This is a Toohey proposal and, as such, and because of its intrinsic merits, we believe it ought to be accepted. That is a rather quick resume of the basic Government responses to those amendments. I know that not all those responses will satisfy Senator Kilgariff, but I hope he appreciates that there is a willingness on the part of the Government to make this legislation work. We will be keeping it under close review to ensure that that is in fact the case. Question put: That the amendments (Senator Kilgariff's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 31 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 4 —— Alston, R. K. R. MacGibbon, D. J. Archer, B. R. Messner, A. J. Baume, Peter Newman, J. M. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Parer, W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. Puplick, C. J. G. Brownhill, D. G. C. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Carrick, Sir John Sheil, G. Collard, S. J. Short, J. R. Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M. Hamer, D. J. Vanstone, A. E. Hill, R. Walters, M. S. Jessop, D. S. Withers, R. G. Kilgariff, B. F. Aulich, T. McKiernan, J. P. Black, J. R. Macklin, M. J. Bolkus, N. Maguire, G. R. Button, J. N. Mason, C. V. J. Childs, B. K. Morris, J. Coleman, R. N. Powell, J. F. Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S. Reynolds, M. Cooney, B. Robertson, E. A. Crowley, R. A. Ryan, S. M. Devlin, R. Tate, M. C. Elstob, R. C. Vigor, D. B. Evans, Gareth Walsh, P. A. Foreman, D. J. West, S. M. Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. Jones, G. N. (Teller) Crichton-Browne, N. A. Richardson, G. F. Chaney, F. M. McIntosh, G. D. Baume, Michael Gietzelt, A. T. Knowles, S. C. Coates, J. Lewis, A. W. R. Sibraa, K. W. (Senator Watson did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Grimes). Question so resolved in the negative. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported, with amendments; report adopted. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(10.05) —In the closing stages of the debate on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 1986. I will make a few brief comments about the desirability of persisting with the inalienable freehold concept. Already, Mr Justice Woodward has raised the question of whether the manner and extent of claims made under the land rights Act might not have exceeded what is advisable to serve Aboriginal interests. Mr Justice Woodward, the architect of the land rights Act, has even gone so far as to suggest that Aboriginal people should consider handing back some of the land which they have claimed. One wonders how, even if they wanted to, they could do this, given that Aboriginal land granted under the land rights Act is granted as inalienable freehold land. The idea behind granting land under inalienable freehold title is one which does not sit entirely comfortably with the notion of giving Aboriginal people control of and responsibility for their own future. Inalienable freehold title does not permit the holder of that title to deal with his or her land freely. The land cannot be sold or subdivided and then sold. The granting of other interests in the land is also prohibited. The idea behind inalienable freehold title was that it would protect Aboriginal landholdings from being sold off or dissipated to the detriment of future generations of Aboriginal people, which is a good concept. However, difficulties have emerged from the inalienable freehold concept. Because of its inalienability, the land is not as valuable as security as it might be if a potential mortgagee could rely on forfeiture of the land in the event of a default on a mortgage. This severely limits the ability of traditional owners to raise finance to improve their landholdings or to set up business enterprises. The limitations imposed by the inalienable landholding form pose a legitimate problem for Aboriginal people, and it should be given wide consideration in the future. I urge debate on the establishment or development of some other form of landholding which is more flexible but still allows considerable protection of Aboriginal land for future generations. It is a matter for consideration not just by the Parliament but also by those in the legal profession, and I invite them to put their minds to this problem. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Consideration resumed from 7 May, on motion by Senator Tate: That the Bills be now read a second time. Question put. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 5 —— Aulich, T. McKiernan, J. P.Black, J. R. Macklin, M. J.Bolkus, N. Maguire, G. R.Button, J. N. Mason, C. V. J.Childs, B. K. Morris, J.Coleman, R. N. Powell, J. F.Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S. Reynolds, M.Cooney, B. Robertson, E. A.Crowley, R. A. Ryan, S. M.Devlin, R. Sibraa, K. W.Elstob, R. C. Tate, M. C.Evans, Gareth Vigor, D. B.Foreman, D. J. Walsh, P. A.Georges, G. West, S. M.Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O.Jones, G. N. (Teller) Alston, R. K. R. Knowles, S. C.Archer, B. R. MacGibbon, D. J.Baume, Peter Messner, A. J.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Newman, J. M.Boswell, R. L. D. Parer, W. R.Brownhill, D. G. C. Puplick, C. J. G.Carrick, Sir John Reid, M. E. (Teller)Collard, S. J. Sheil, G.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Short, J. R.Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C.Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M.Hammer, D. J. Vanstone, A. E.Jessop, D. S. Walters, M. S.Kilgariff, B. F. Withers, R. G. Richardson, G. F. Lewis, A. W. R.McIntosh, G. D. Baume, MichaelGietzelt, A. T. Chaney, F. M.Coates, J. Hill, R. (Senator Watson did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Grimes). Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time. ABORIGINAL LAND (LAKE CONDAH AND FRAMLINGHAM FOREST) BILL 1987 The Bill. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.15) —I take this opportunity to table supplementary explanatory memoranda to the Bills, and in doing so draw attention to the presence in the gallery on the chamber floor level of a number of members of the Framlingham and Lake Condah communities. This legislation is of enormous importance to the members of these communities, and we are delighted to have them with us, physically present here tonight. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.15) —I move: Pages 17 to 22, Part V, line 19 (page 17) to line 11 (page 22), leave out the Part, insert the following Part: ``PART V-MINING Interpretation ``30. A reference in this Part to a mining tenement includes, where the context so requires, a reference to the land to which the mining tenement relates. Grant of mining tenements ``31. (1) Subject to this Act, a mining tenement may be granted in relation to the relevant land under a law of Victoria relating to mining for minerals. ``(2) A mining tenement shall not be granted in relation to the relevant land unless the applicant for the mining tenement has first entered into an agreement in writing with the Corporation relating to: (a) the compensation to be paid on the granting of the mining tenement; (b) the guidelines to be adopted after the granting of the mining tenement in relation to the identification and protection of sacred sites; and (c) the employment opportunities to be offered to Aboriginals in the operations to be conducted under the mining tenement. Agreement provisions ``32. (1) An agreement referred to in section 31: (a) shall make provision for the distribution of monies paid to the Corporation under the agreement to or for the benefit of such traditional owners as are specified in the agreement; (b) may make provision for the applicant for the mining tenement to lodge with the Corporation a security in such form, for such amount and from such person as the Corporation thinks fit, to secure the applicant's compliance with the conditions referred to in section 37; (c) may make provision for a process of arbitration, in accordance with a law of Victoria relating to commercial arbitration, to determine disputes relating to compliance with the conditions referred to in section 37 and failing such provision in the agreement, the parties to the agreement shall be deemed to have agreed to the appointment by the Minister of a Mining Commissioner as the arbitrator in respect of such disputes; and (d) may provide that where a condition referred to in section 37 requires the holder of the mining tenement to do anything in relation to the mining tenement and the holder does not, within the time provided in the condition, do that thing, the Corporation or a person authorised by the Corporation may enter on the mining tenement with such assistance as, and take whatever action, the Corporation or that person, as the case may be, considers necessary for doing that thing, and the costs reasonably incurred by the Corporation or that person in so doing shall be a debt due and payable by the holder of the mining tenement to the Corporation or that person, as the case may be, whether or not at the time that the thing was done by the Corporation or that person the mining tenement had been cancelled, forfeited or surrendered or had expired. ``(2) A condition referred to in paragraph (1) (d) shall not entitle the Corporation, or a person authorised by it, to take any action in pursuance of the condition until the grounds on which the Corporation claims to be entitled to take or authorise the taking of such action have been referred to arbitration under a condition referred to in paragraph (1) (c), the arbitrator has determined that the holder of the mining tenement is required under the agreement to do the thing to which the matter relates and the further time (if any) determined by the arbitrator for the holder of the mining tenement to do that thing has expired. Aboriginal consultation ``33. (1) In consulting with traditional owners in relation to an application for a mining tenement referred to in this Part, the Corporation shall ensure that the applicant is given an opportunity to present to the traditional owners for their consideration, in such reasonable form and manner as the applicant thinks fit, as explanation of the purposes for which the mining tenement is required and the mining operations to be conducted thereunder. Determination of compensation ``34. (1) The compensation to be paid under an agreement referred to in section 31 shall be limited to compensation: (a) for the traditional owners being deprived of the use of the surface or part of the surface of the land; (b) for the effect that the carrying out of mining operations on the land may have on: (i) the preservation and protection of the lifestyle, culture and traditions of the traditional owners of the land; (ii) the social, cultural and economic structures of those owners; and (iii) the freedom of access of those owners and their freedom to carry out, in accordance with tradition, rites, ceremonies, and other activities on the land; (c) for damage to the surface of the land through or mining operations conducted on the land; (d) for the traditional owners being deprived of the use of improvements on the land; (e) for the severance of the land from other land held in trust for or occupied by the traditional owners; and (f) for all other damage to the land or improvements on the land arising out of mining operations to be conducted under the mining tenement. ``(2) In determining the amount of compensation to be paid under an agreement referred to in section 31, no account shall be taken of minerals known or supposed to be on or under the land. Arbitration on agreement ``35.(1) Where a Corporation and the applicant for a mining tenement cannot agree on the terms and conditions of an agreement referred to in section 31 within 12 months after the applicant having notified the Corporation in writing of the applicant's wish to commence negotiations for such an agreement or within that time the Corporation refuses or fails to enter into such negotiations, either the Corporation or the applicant, or both, may request the Minister to refer the terms and conditions to a person appointed by the Minister as a Mining Commissioner for determination of the appropriate terms and conditions of the agreement and where the Minister receives such a request the Minister shall, as soon as practicable, appoint a person under section 37C as a Mining Commissioner and that person shall thereupon proceed to determine the appropriate terms and conditions of the agreement. ``(2) In determining the terms and conditions of the agreement referred to in subsection (1) the Mining Commissioner shall have regard only to the requirements of sections 31, 32, and 33 in relation to the terms and conditions to be agreed upon and shall determine as appropriate only those terms and conditions that, in his or her opinion, should in the circumstances be acceptable to the Corporation and to the applicant and the determination of the Mining Commissioner is binding on the Corporation and the applicant. ``(3) In determining a term or condition of an agreement referred to in section 31 requiring a security to be lodged by the applicant for the mining tenement to secure the applicant's compliance with the conditions referred to in section 37, the Mining Commissioner shall take into account any security that the applicant may be required to lodge under a law of Victoria relating to mining for minerals in respect of the mining tenement and shall make his or her determination so that, as far as practicable, the applicant is not required to provide more than one security in respect of the same matter. Applicant for mining tenement not bound to proceed with application ``36. An agreement referred to in section 31 shall not be construed so as to compel the applicant for the mining tenement to which the agreement relates to proceed with the application. Implied conditions etc. in grant ``37. In addition to the terms and conditions subject to which a mining tenement in respect of relevant land is granted, that mining tenement shall be subject to the conditions that: (a) the holder of the mining tenement or the holder's employees, servants or agents shall not unlawfully interfere with any historical site or object, or any Aboriginal sacred site or object, declared as such by or under a law of the Commonwealth or of Victoria; (b) the holder of the mining tenement shall keep to a minimum the number of people associated with the exploration or development on the land to which the mining tenement relates; (c) except for the purposes of consumption by its employees, servants, agents, contractors or sub-contractors at its camps, the holder of the mining tenement shall not bring or permit to be brought onto the mining tenement any alcohol; (d) the holder of the mining tenement shall not bring or permit to be brought onto the mining tenement firearms of any kind or, except with the prior consent of the Corporation, any animal; (e) the holder of the mining tenement shall at all times give full consideration to the aspirations and welfare of the local Aboriginals and co-operate with the traditional owners and not interfere with the growth and development of the Aboriginal social, cultural and economic structures on the mining tenement; (f) the holder of the mining tenement shall employ and engage, and shall ensure that its agents, contractors and sub-contractors employ and engage, as many Aboriginals or incorporated Aboriginal associations or groups associated with the mining tenement as is practicable who are capable of carrying out, or being trained (including by on-the-job training) to carry out, in a satisfactory manner, the particular work required to be carried out in relation to the mining tenement at the usual award rates for the type of work performed and subject to the usual conditions of employment; (g) the holder of the mining tenement shall take all reasonable steps to adjust working hours and conditions of Aboriginal employees to suit Aboriginal culture; (h) the holder of the mining tenement shall progressively rehabilitate and restore, as far as practicable, all areas disturbed by its activities in accordance with good environmental practice; (j) the holder of the mining tenement shall liaise with the Corporation on the exploration or development programs in relation to the mining tenement and discuss the possible relocation of proposed works and details of the program as it develops; (k) the holder of the mining tenement shall, before carrying out a program involving substantial disturbance of the surface of the mining tenement, advise the relevant authority of the State of Victoria and the Corporation, in writing, of that program and comply with such directions as the relevant authority considers appropriate for the protection of the environment in the carrying out of the program; (l) the holder of the mining tenement shall advise the relevant authority of the State of Victoria and the Corporation, in writing, of the proposed location of all infrastructure facilities on the mining tenement and the proposed method to be used in disposing of waste, and comply with such directions as the relevant authority considers appropriate in relation to the disposal of that waste; (m) the holder of the mining tenement shall not erect a permanent building or facility on the mining tenement except with the approval in writing of the relevant authority of the State of Victoria; and (n) the holder of the mining tenement shall comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement referred to in section 31 in relation to the mining tenement. Access to Aboriginal land ``37a. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, where a person has the right under a law of Victoria to occupy relevant land by virtue of the grant of a mining tenement, that person has for himself, his employees and his agents, a right of access from a public road to that land and across other parts of the relevant land of which the mining tenement is part and any contiguous relevant land, by the shortest practicable route, being a route agreed upon by the person and the traditional owners of the land. Right of way in respect of services etc. ``37b. (1) The grant of a mining tenement entitles the holder of the mining tenement to a right of way over relevant land for all reasonable ancillary purposes in connection with the operations to be conducted under the mining tenement. ``(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a right of way extends to access for or in connection with: (a) the erection and use of conveyor apparatus in connection with the transporting of minerals or substances containing minerals; (b) the erection of electricity lines; (c) the construction of roads; (d) the cutting and construction of water races or drains; and (e) the boring, sinking for, pumping, raising of or conveying of water. ``(3) Where the holder of a mining tenement is entitled under subsection (1) to a right of way, that right of way may be exercised by a route agreed to by the holder of the mining tenement and the traditional owners of the land. ``(4) Where the traditional owners and the holder of a mining tenement cannot agree on the route by which a right of way under subsection (1) may be exercised, those owners or the holder of the mining tenement, or both, may request the Minister to refer the matter to a person appointed by the Minister as a Mining Commissioner for determination and where the Minister receives such a request the Minister shall, as soon as practicable, appoint a person under section 37c as a Mining Commissioner and that person shall thereupon proceed to determine the matter. ``(5) Compensation shall be payable by the holder of the mining tenement to the relevant traditional owners in respect of a right of way under subsection (1). ``(6) The compensation to be paid under subsection (5) shall be determined on the same basis as under section 34 in respect of the grant of a mining tenement. ``(7) Where an amount of compensation payable under subsection (5) cannot be agreed upon between the traditional owners and the holder of the mining tenement, the traditional owners or the holder of the mining tenement, or both, may request the Minister to refer the matter to a person appointed by the Minister as a Mining Commissioner for determination and where the Minister receives such a request the Minister shall, as soon as practicable, appoint a person under section 37C as a Mining Commissioner and that person shall thereupon proceed to determine the matter. ``(8) A right of way under subsection (1) shall not be exercised until compensation has been paid in accordance with this section. ``(9) A determination made by the Mining Commissioner under subsection (4) or (7) is binding on the traditional owners and the holder of the mining tenement. Appointment of Mining Commissioner ``37C. (1) Where, for the purposes of this Part, the Minister is required to appoint a Mining Commissioner, the Minister shall appoint: (a) a person who holds, or has held, office as a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia; (b) a legal practitioner of at least 5 years standing; or (c) a Fellow of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia. ``(2) The Minister shall not appoint a Mining Commissioner unless the Minister has submitted to the applicant for, or the holder of, the mining tenement and the Corporation or the traditional owners of the land, as the case requires, the names of not less than 3 persons having the qualifications set out in subsection (1). ``(3) Where the Minister has submitted the names of persons to the parties under subsection (2), the Minister shall appoint as a Mining Commissioner: (a) if the Minister is satisfied that the parties agree to the appointment of one of the persons whose names have been so submitted-the person so agreed upon; or (b) if the Minister is satisfied that there is no reasonable prospect that the parties will so agree-a person having the qualifications set out in subsection (1) whom the Minister considers suitable to be so appointed. ``(4) A Mining Commissioner shall be assisted in the performance of his or her functions under this Part by 2 persons appointed for that purpose by the Minister of whom one shall be nominated, in writing, by the Corporation or the traditional owners of the land concerned and the other shall be nominated, in writing, by the Victorian Chamber of Mines (Incorporated).''. This is a substantial amendment to the Bill. It relates to Part V, which contains the mining provisions. The amendment substitutes a new Part V and involves a new mining code. The Opposition has registered its very strong opposition in principle to this Bill, and although it did not succeed in the vote just taken the Opposition has indicated that the Federal Parliament should not pass an Aboriginal land rights law applicable to Victoria or, indeed, to any State. I understood that the Government has already adopted that view, as it had abandoned its notions of introducing national Aboriginal land rights legislation. Even though it has promised that to the Aboriginal people in a very solemn way, it welshed completely on its promise to provide that type of legislation. This Bill is another confusing approach by the Government in that it is legislating specifically for Aboriginal land rights in Victoria even though it has abandoned its promises to legislate for Aboriginal land rights throughout Australia. The Government has now created a very confusing position for itself-although that is not our problem. The problem is that, in proceeding to legislate for land rights in Victoria, the Government has created great confusion in relation to Victorian laws that relate to this legislation. The mining provisions in the Bill contemplate that, under laws applicable to mining in Victoria, mining titles will be required before mining rights can be established. But of course those rights are governed and restricted by the provisions in Part V of the Bill. Those provisions introduce a completely new concept to Victorian mining law which will apply to all other mining rights and titles that are issued under this legislation. Yet somehow existing Victorian mining laws will have to be tailored to comply with the new mining scheme provided for in Part V of the Bill. The legal problems created by the Bill would be major. Undoubtedly, they would create many legal problems, and no doubt legal challenges will be mounted as a result of the way that the Government has gone about this matter, apart altogether from the concept of a Federal Government creating new rights of access to land by Victorians, or Australians generally in Victoria. In addition to the rights that presently exist under Victorian law, this special law will now apply, albeit to a small proportion of Victoria. However, we have no idea of the extent of the possible granting of land rights in Victoria. Although this legislation applies to only a small area of Victoria, it is setting a precedent and, in future, actions of this kind might occur in other parts of Victoria, with possibly unspecified areas of Victoria being dealt with in this way. With these amendments we are endeavouring to remove the great doubts about the application of the Victorian mining law under which it is necessary to apply to be granted rights, even under the Government legislation, and how that would tie in with the rights created under this part of the Bill. We believe that the appropriate course to adopt, as has been the case in relation to the Northern Territory land rights legislation, is an alternative mining code in place of Part V and that is what these amendments seek to achieve. I do not need to go through them in detail, because I have already spoken to them in relation to the amendments that I moved to the Northern Territory Bill and, although the Committee did not adopt those, I believe that it should think again in relation to this Victorian Bill because, unlike the Northern Territory law, Part V does not fit very satisfactorily into Victorian law. I have already explained-and I do not intend to repeat it tonight-the details of these amendments. Essentially, they are based on the proposals contained in Senator Kilgariff's private member's Bill which he introduced in the Senate some time ago. In short, they seek to remove the veto power at any stage of the granting of mining rights. This provision in the Bill provides for veto at both the exploration and the mining stages. The proposals contained in the amendments provide that there should be no veto power either at the exploration or at the mining stage and a code is set out whereby Aboriginal rights are protected. Compensation is required and that may be achieved by agreement with the Aboriginal owners, or by a method of arbitration. The only difference between these amendments and those contained in the Northern Territory Bill which I proposed earlier in this debate concerns the resolution of a dispute regarding compensation, if in fact an agreement is not reached. The amendments proposed to the Northern Territory Bill assign the resolution of those disputes to the Wardens Court of the Northern Territory. However, the Victorian mining legislation does not really fit very satisfactorily into that framework and, therefore, in these amendments we have adopted the Government's own proposals for resolving disputes which have not been solved by arbitration. We propose that that should be done, in the case of Victoria, because of differences between mining laws in the Northern Territory and in Victoria, as the Government has proposed, by a Mining Commissioner. That provision is contained in the Northern Territory legislation. The Mining Commissioner may be a Federal Court of Australia judge, a legal practitioner of at least five years standing or a Fellow of the Institute of Arbitrators. I do not propose to go into any further detail in relation to these amendments because, as I have said, they are otherwise very much on all fours with the amendments which I moved earlier. The Government's proposals for Victoria allow veto at both the exploration and the mining stage. In that respect, they are wider than the Government's proposals for the Northern Territory which have been passed by the Senate. They are based on the Pitjantjatjara and Maralinga model in South Australia and that model has been in place now for five years. No new exploration or mining tenements have been granted in South Australia on those Pitjantjatjara or Maralinga Aboriginal lands. It is clearly an inadequate model, it is not working in South Australia and it seems unlikely that it will work in Victoria. In any event, it creates separate rights over land for the Aboriginal communities which are superior to those enjoyed by other Victorians. It creates that division and the legal problems that I have already mentioned. For those reasons we believe that the Senate should support this amendment. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.26) —The Government does not support this amendment essentially for the reasons that I spelt out in the debate on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1987. This particular mining model is different from the Commonwealth's preferred model, as now contained in the Northern Territory legislation which we passed earlier tonight. Nonetheless, we regard it as a workable and acceptable model based as it is on the combination of Pitjantjatjara and Maralinga models in South Australia. The main point to make-and I make it very swiftly-is that this Bill has been the product of very extensive consultation with all relevant interests including, in particular, the people from the respective communities who are here tonight. That puts them in a very different class from that which the Opposition now proposes. It should be remembered that we are talking about two very small pieces of land amounting to some 12 square kilometres in all with no known prospectivity. Therefore, the debate about the appropriate mining regime has a somewhat abstract and artificial character. This should not be regarded as a precedent for legislation elsewhere, as I have already indicated, but it is appropriate and tailored for this purpose and I commend it accordingly to the Senate. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(10.27) —I wish to make a few comments on the proposed amendments, particularly on the question of whether this legislation provides a precedent. The Opposition has complained about the fact that this legislation is before the Parliament. We should remember that that is the case only because the Opposition parties in the Victorian Parliament were not prepared to pass such legislation. I, and all the Australian Democrats, would be perfectly happy if this Bill did provide a precedent. As we see it, the Labor Government has abandoned its policy for national land rights legislation and that is a matter of regret to us. If this reference to the Parliament does anything towards jockeying along land rights legislation in other jurisdictions, we welcome it. We also believe that the Australian people will welcome it on this, the twentieth anniversary of the referendum which overwhelmingly put Aboriginal affairs in the hands of the Federal Government-something which no Federal government since then has taken up. Therefore, we have supported this reference and we congratulate the Government in this for picking up the Victorian aspects. This is unique legislation due to its reference from the Victorian jurisdiction. Amendment negatived. Bill agreed to. ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER HERITAGE PROTECTION AMDENDMENT BILL 1987 The Bill. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.28) —I move: Page 2, clause 2, lines 17 and 18, leave out ``the day on which it receives the Royal Assent'', substitute ``a day to be fixed by Proclamation''. I do not believe that the amendment is controversial. Amendment agreed to. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.29) —In his speech on the second reading of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill, Senator Short raised the question of the artifacts in the Daylesford Museum in Victoria and whether their location in that museum would be affected by the general provisions of this Bill. He raised the question of the possible removal of the artefacts from the Daylesford Museum to some other area under the powers contained in this Bill. This would mean that the artefacts would be moved to an area away from where their Aboriginal originators came. I wonder whether Senator Evans is in a position to give some explanation of this matter. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.30) —I believe I am. The concern of the Daylesford Museum, which has been raised by Senator Short tonight, and the concern that it may lose possession of its collection of Aboriginal artifacts, has already been raised through a State member of parliament with my colleague the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Holding, and I am advised that the Minister will be responding shortly to those representations. As I understand it, the advice being given to the Minister, and which accordingly I am able to give to Senator Short, is to the effect that under proposed section 21k the Bill provides for agreements in respect of such collections. It is certainly expected that there should not be any problem for museums such as Daylesford. As a general comment, the Commonwealth's policy on legislation on heritage protection is designed to ensure that the interests of museums and the scientific community are acknowledged and protected in co- operation with the Aboriginal community. A fuller answer than that will be given to the Victorian member of parliament but I think that we can make arrangements for a copy of that to be given to Senator Short so that he is informed in more detail on the basis of that concern. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Aboriginal Land (Lake Condah and Framlingham Forest) Bill reported without amendment and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Amendment Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted. Bills (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a third time. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order! It being after 10.30 p.m., pursuant to sessional order, I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Question resolved in the negative. Assent to the following Bills reported: National Health Amendment Bill 1987 Jurisdiction of Courts (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1987 Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Bill 1987 Sugar Cane Levy Bill 1987 Sugar Cane Levy Collection Bill 1987 Olympic Insignia Protection Bill 1987 Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That the Bills may proceed without formalities, may be considered together and be now read a first time. Bills read a first time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.33) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- TAXATION LAWS AMENDMENT (COMPANY DISTRIBUTIONS) BILL 1987 This Bill will give effect to the most significant business taxation reform in this country in the post-war years-the elimination of the double taxation of company dividends. It will do this by amending the income tax law to introduce, with effect from 1 July 1987, the full imputation system of company tax announced on 10 December 1986. It will also give effect to a number of the related measures that were also announced on that day. Under the imputation system, dividends paid by Australian companies will be relieved from tax in the hands of resident individual shareholders by a rebate to the extent to which tax has been paid at the corporate level. Taxation Legislation Dividends relieved from tax in this way will be known as franked dividends. Such dividends when paid to non-residents will be exempt from withholding tax. The Australian imputation system is a world first. It will put Australia at the forefront of business tax reform, and give us one of the most advanced and efficient tax regimes in the world. It will restore the positions of the stockmarket as the mobiliser of investment funds and reduce the previous bias in favour of corporate debt finance over equity. It will meant that entrepreneurs trying to get new businesses off the ground should find it easier to raise equity finance. It will make investment in these enterprises relatively more attractive for investors. It will improve the climate for productive investment and enhance economic growth for Australia. It will provide increased incentives for all Australians to participate in the ownership of Australian companies by significantly reducing taxes on dividend income. In conjunction with the substantial personal income tax cuts being delivered by this Government, imputation will result in a reduction of up to 40 per cent in the overall tax burden for shareholders and small businesses. To put this another way, imputation will substantially increase the after-tax return to shareholders. Under the existing system and before the personal tax cuts already in place, a dividend paid to a shareholder in the top tax bracket was effectively taxed at a rate of 78.4c in the dollar. The return to the shareholder was 21.6c in the dollar. Under imputation and with the imputation and with the maximum personal tax rate and company tax rate to operate from 1 July aligned, the maximum tax that will be paid on any dividends will be 49c in the dollar. The return to the shareholder will be 51c in the dollar-a return more than twice as much as under the old system. For taxpayers in the middle to lower income ranges the outcome will be just as favourable, as any excess rebate on franked dividends will be available to reduce tax on other income, including capital gains. The direct cost of these changes, and of the associated abolition of Division 7 additional tax on the undistributed profits of private companies, will be almost $500m in a full year. In the Treasurer's announcement of 10 December 1986, he indicated that the Government would also eliminate the double taxation of company income derived by non-residents from Australian sources. This Bill will implement that proposal by abolishing dividend withholding tax on franked dividends paid after 30 June 1987 to non-residents, and the branch profits tax on incomes of the 1986-87 and later income years. This will be at a further full year cost of $280m. The total cost of all these changes amounting to $775m will be offset in part by the increase of 3 percentage points in the company tax rate from 1 July that will be given effect by the accompanying Income Tax Rates Amendment Bill 1987. The net benefit of all of these changes for taxpayers will therefore be $300m in a full year. This will be on top of the benefit of $4.5 billion in personal income tax cuts delivered by this Government from 1 December last year and 1 July this year-in part paid for by action that only this Government was prepared to take in properly closing long-standing gaps in the income tax base relating to capital gains, fringe benefits and the substantiation of claims for income tax deductions. As part of the package announced on 10 December 1986 the Bill will modify the scope of liquidation distributions which are brought within the income tax base. Liquidator's distributions out of realised capital gains on taxable assets acquired after 19 September 1985 will be taxed as dividends, and be dealt with under the new imputation arrangements. The same treatment will apply to distributions out of other profits that are assessable income, but which are not presently taxed on liquidation. Finally, the Bill will deny the intercorporate dividend rebate on dividends paid before 1 July 1987, and on unfranked dividends paid on and after that date, being dividends that are in effect paid in substitution for payments of interest under certain finance arrangements. The revenue savings from these two measures are unquantifiable, but are expected to be significant. I turn now to the main features of the Bill. Full Imputation By the measures contained in this Bill, tax paid at the company level will be imputed, or allocated, to shareholders by means of imputation credits attached to dividends they receive. Such dividends will be known as franked dividends. An amount equal to the imputation credits attached to franked dividends will be included in the assessable income of resident individual shareholders, who will then be entitled to a rebate of tax equal to the amount included in their income. The extent to which a company may frank a dividend will depend on the credit or surplus balance in its franking account at the time of payment of the dividend. Credits to this account will most commonly arise when a company pays a company tax instalment or when a company tax assessment is issued. Credits will also arise whenever a company receives a franked dividend from another company. In this way, credit for company tax borne by one company will be effectively transferred to the company receiving the franked dividend to allow that company in turn to frank dividends it pays to its shareholders. Predominantly, debits to the franking account will be for the payment of franked dividends. Special statutory rules will apply to determine, in any given situation, the minimum amount to which a dividend is to be franked. Subject to an exception for small balances, the basic rule is that a company must frank dividends to the extent permitted by the franking account surplus at the date of payment of the dividends. Other rules will operate to ensure that, when determining the extent to which particular dividends are to be franked- future dividends which the company has an obligation to pay, for example, dividends on preference shares, are taken into account; and all dividends paid as part of the one distribution, for example, interim dividends paid to ordinary shareholders, or as part of another distribution made on the same day, are franked to the same extent. Those rules will operate to prevent blatant channelling of imputation credits to particular shareholders in preference to others. Subject to those rules, there will be no requirement for a company to equally frank interim and final dividends and dividends on different classes of shares. It will be the franking account balance at relevant times that will determine the extent of franking in each case. Apart from these rules, a company will be able, at its option, to frank dividends to an extent greater than otherwise would be the case by making a reasonable estimate of any additional franking credits it expects to receive later in the year. The Treasurer originally announced that if a company wished to overfrank a dividend in this way it would have to make a formal estimate of its anticipated franking credits for the year, at the time of payment of the first dividend in that year. The legislation before the Senate, however, dispenses with the need for a formal estimate. This will substantially reduce the administrative burden on companies and introduce increased flexibility into the system. Penalties will apply to prevent clear abuses of this over-franking concession. Where, however, a company has over-franked a dividend at any time, or otherwise has a franking account deficit at the end of a year, the company will be required to make a non-refundable payment shortly after the end of the year to make good this deficit. While this requirement will be formally imposed as a tax-to be known as a franking deficit tax-in practice, this payment will be treated as a prepayment on account of future company tax. It will be offset against any company tax liability in respect of the 1986-87 or any later income year that is raised after the end of the year in which the deficit arose. In order to frank a dividend, a company will have to declare the extent to which it is franked, and will be required to provide shareholders with this and other pertinent advice in relation to the dividend. Where a dividend is fully or partially franked, the attached imputation credit will fully offset any personal income tax liability of resident individual shareholders-even those on the top marginal rate of 49c in the dollar-on the franked part of the dividend. Any part of a dividend that is unfranked will have no imputation credits attached, and will remain subject to tax in the hands of resident individual shareholders in the same way as dividends received by such shareholders are taxed under the present law. For resident individual shareholders on lower rates, imputation credits attached to franked dividends will exceed the tax payable on the franked amount of the dividends. The excess rebate will be available to offset tax on other income, including unfranked dividends and capital gains, but will not be refundable where it exceeds such tax, and will not be offset against medicare levy. Imputation credits attached to franked dividends will not form part of separate net income for dependant rebate purposes, but will be included in the Medicare levy tax base. Special rules will apply to franked dividends paid to a partnership or to a trustee of a trust estate. These will ensure that the attached imputation credits flow through to each partner or beneficiary-or trustee if appropriate-in proportion to their share of the net income of the trust or partnership that is attributable to franked dividends. The amount flowing through will be dealt with on the bases outlined earlier depending on whether the partner or beneficiary is a resident individual or company, or is a non-resident. Related Measures Dividend Withholding Tax Imputation credits will not be allowed to non-resident shareholders. However, where a franked dividend is paid to a non-resident after 30 June 1987-whether an individual or company-the franked amount of the dividend will be exempt from dividend withholding tax. Dividend withholding tax will continue to apply to the unfranked amount of any dividends paid to a non-resident after that date. Branch Profits Tax In association with the introduction of imputation, the additional tax imposed on the reduced taxable income of non-resident companies-the branch profits tax-is being abolished. This tax will last apply to income derived during the 1985-86 income year. Dividends derived after 30 June 1987 by non-resident companies with a branch in Australia will be subject to the revised withholding tax rules outlined, and will no longer be subject to tax by assessment in Australia. Distributions by Liquidators By this Bill the provisions of the income tax law that deem liquidation distributions to be dividends will be extended to include distributions made out of amounts, other than indexed capital gains, assessable under any provision of the income tax law, and out of realised capital gains on assets acquired after 19 September 1985. The changes will apply to distributions made in the course of a winding up of a company that commenced after 1 Australian eastern summer time on 10 December 1986. This will mean that the new measures will not apply where an application for the winding up of a company was lodged with the court, or a special resolution for voluntary winding up was passed by the company in general meeting, before that time. Dividends Paid instead of Interest Amendments to the income tax law announced on 7 April 1986 and contained in the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1986 effectively treat certain finance arrangements for periods of two years or less as loan arrangements for income tax purposes although formally they are structured as issues of shares. The amendments will do this by denying the intercorporate dividend rebate in relation to the dividends paid on the relevant shares, but allowing a deduction to the issuer of the shares as if the dividends were interest payments. The amendments proposed by this Bill will extend this treatment so as to also deny the intercorporate dividend rebate to dividends paid on shares used in finance arrangements of any term where the dividends are equivalent to the repayment of interest on a loan. In the case of such a dividend paid on or after 1 July 1987, only so much of the dividend as has not been franked under the new imputation system will be denied the dividend rebate under this new measure. Unlike the measures in the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5), the payment of dividends subject to the provisions of this Bill will not entitle the issuer to a deduction. Dividends subject to this new measure will be those paid on relevant shares either issued, or used in finance arrangements entered into or extended, after 1 p.m. Australian eastern summer time on 10 December 1986. Other Matters Relating to Imputation This legislation contains the essential elements of the imputation system. The Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 which I will introduce shortly contains legislation to abolish the Division 7 tax on private companies that the Treasurer also announced on 10 December 1986. Some other measures the Treasurer announced on that day as part of the imputation package are also included in that Bill. I commend the Bill to the Senate. In doing so, I present the explanatory memorandum on this Bill. INCOME TAX (FRANKING DEFICIT) BILL 1987 The Bill which I have just introduced will amend the income tax law for the introduction of the full imputation system of company taxation. As I explained in the context of that Bill, where a company has a franking deficit at the end of a year it will be required to pay franking deficit tax in order to make good the shortfall in company tax imputed to its shareholders. The purpose of this Bill is to formally impose on such a company liability to pay franking deficit tax. Franking deficit tax imposed by this Bill will be offset against company tax on income of the 1986-87 income year or any later year which becomes due under an assessment or amended assessment raised after the end of the year in which the deficit arises. The franking deficit tax is not a penalty. It is simply a payment which will be required to make up an amount of company tax that has been imputed to shareholders by the payment of franked dividends beyond what has actually become available by the end of that year. I commend the Bill to the Senate. INCOME TAX RATES AMENDMENT BILL 1987 This Bill will amend the Income Tax Rates Act 1986 to declare the rates of income tax payable for the 1987-88 and subsequent financial years by companies, registered organisations and unit trusts treated as companies for tax purposes. The tax and the declared rates will be payable on incomes of the 1986-87 and subsequent years. As announced in the September 1985 tax reform statement, the 49 per cent company tax rate to be declared by this Bill will bring the company tax rate into alignment with the maximum personal marginal tax rate, and will help defray the cost of the new imputation system that I outlined earlier for honourable senators. The 49 per cent rate will also apply for unit trusts treated as companies. The rate of tax for registered organisations is to remain at 20 per cent. The Bill will also declare a 49 per cent rate of tax payable by trustees on trust income of non-resident company beneficiaries in the 1986-87 and subsequent income years. A non-profit company that is not a registered organisation pays tax at full company rates only where its taxable income exceeds $2,542. Reflecting the increase in the company tax rate to 49 per cent, the threshold for non-profit companies is to be increased to $3,813. Finally, as a consequence of the further lowering of the personal income tax rates from 1 July 1987, this Bill will declare lower rates of tax payable on incomes of some superannuation funds and ineligible approved deposit funds in respect of the 1987-88 and subsequent income years. The additional revenue raised by increasing the company tax rate to 49 per cent will be $460m in 1987-88 and $475m in a full year. However, as I mentioned earlier, these revenue gains will be more than offset by the costs of the imputation arrangements. I commend the Bill to the Senate. TAXATION LAWS AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1987 The Bill will amend the taxation laws in several ways. It will implement a number of the major changes announced by the Treasurer on 10 December 1986 as part of the Government's overhaul of the company tax system as reflected in the Bills I have just introduced. In particular, it will abolish, subject to transitional rules, the additional tax payable by private companies under Division 7 and will ensure that the intercorporate dividend rebate is allowed on a gross rather than a net basis. It will also remove the present exemption from tax for certain dividends satisfied by the issue of shares. Other provisions in the Bill will modify the imputation arrangements in relation to certain companies, extend those arrangements to unit trusts that are taxed as companies and ensure that imputation rebates are able to be taken into account for provisional tax purposes. The Bill will also amend the income tax substantiation rules as they apply to deductions for car expenses. Other amendments of the Income Tax Assessment Act proposed by the Bill will overcome a perceived deficiency in certification procedures for the special concessions for investments in the production of Australian films. The Bill will also make a number of amendments of Australian Capital Territory tax laws to facilitate the transfer of responsibility for their administration to a new statutory officer who will be generally responsible for the administration of Australian Capital Territory revenue laws; to provide an exemption from tax for premiums for certain international trade insurance; and to exempt from payroll tax wages paid to apprentices and trainees employed under the Australian traineeship system. Another amendment will extend the bank accounts debits tax law to new payment order accounts with non-bank financial institutions. Yet another will simplify the procedures for approving acting appointments for the offices of Commissioner, and Second Commissioners, of Taxation. Finally, the access and information gathering powers of the tax laws are being extended in two respects. The information gathering power will now cover the pay-as-you-earn provisions of the income tax law, and the access power in that and other taxation laws will now require persons to provide reasonable assistance to the Commissioner of Taxation when exercising statutory powers of access under those laws. I turn now to discuss in more detail the measures contained in this Bill. Measures Associated with the Imputation System Private Companies In accordance with the Treasurer's announcement on 10 December 1986, this Bill will abolish the undistributed profits tax payable by private companies, subject to phasing-out provisions that are designed to prevent a loss to the revenue while allowing private companies and their shareholders a tax neutral transition from the classical to the full imputation system. The combined effect of the full imputation system and the alignment of the company tax rate with the maximum marginal rate of personal income tax will remove the long-standing disincentive for private companies to distribute their after-tax profits. This change will encourage the efficient allocation of the investable funds of private company shareholders and thereby assist in stimulating economic growth. The existing Division 7 arrangements will last apply to income derived in the 1985-86 income year of private companies. For the 1986-87 and subsequent income years private companies will be liable to pay undistributed profits tax under Division 7 only if they fail to distribute, within the usual time limits, an amount at least equal to the phasing-out dividends included in their after-tax income. The concept of phasing-out dividends is a transitional one. Such dividends will be those paid to one private company by another private company to the extent that they have been taken into account in determining whether that other company has made a sufficient distribution for the purpose of calculating any Division 7 tax liability it may have. Reflecting the intention of these measures, dividends will be taken into account for Division 7 phasing-out purposes only to the extent that they are not franked in accordance with the new imputation arrangements. The Bill will therefore modify the imputation legislation as introduced to enable private companies to satisfy their sufficient distribution requirements under the Division 7 phasing-out provisions without being subject to any disadvantage under the dividend franking rules. As a related measure, the restriction on the allowance of the intercorporate dividend rebate currently applicable to private company dividends received by another private company will, by this Bill, be limited in 1986-87 and subsequent income years to phasing-out dividends. Intercorporate Dividend Rebate The purpose of the rebate allowable under section 46 of the Income Tax Assessment Act is to prevent the imposition of successive layers of tax at the corporate level as dividends pass from company to company before leaving the corporate sector. Under the present law, this rebate is calculated on the basis of dividends received by a resident company reduced by deductions allowable to it in respect of the dividends. This Bill will amend section 46 to change the calculation of the rebate to one based on the gross amount of dividends received by one resident company from another. Section 116aa of the Income Tax Assessment Act further reduces the amount on which the intercorporate dividend rebate is calculated for life assurance companies to take account of special deductions allowed to such companies in relation to their expenses of general management and their calculated liabilities. To ensure that the treatment of life assurance companies in this area remains consistent with that of other companies, the Bill will also repeal section 116aa. These measures will apply to the 1987-88 and subsequent income years. Bonus Shares The Bill will give effect to the proposal also announced on 10 December 1986 to remove the present exemption from income tax of certain dividends that are satisfied by the issue of bonus shares. These measures will subject dividends that are satisfied by the issue of shares after 30 June 1987 to income tax, to withholding tax, and to the provisions of the imputation system in the same way as any other dividends. As a related matter, the exclusion from paid-up capital on liquidation of a company of the paid-up value of such bonus shares is to be removed. Bonus shares of that kind issued after 30 June 1987 will be included in the paid-up capital of the issuing company and will thus be treated as a return of capital in the event of liquidation. As I foreshadowed in introducing the Taxation Laws Amendment (Company Distributions) Bill 1987, this Bill also contains a series of technical amendments to extend to corporate unit trusts and public trading trusts that are taxed as companies the imputation measures contained in that Bill. The Bill also contains provisions to enable taxpayers to estimate the new franking rebates to which they may be entitled and to have those estimates reflected in provisional tax variations for the 1987-88 and later income years. The imputation provisions contained in the Bill to which I previously referred are to be modified by this Bill so that a franking credit will not arise if a franked dividend is wholly or partly exempt income of the receiving company. Other measures will deny franking credits in relation to dividends received by registered organisation that are subject to tax on income from their life assurance business, and by life assurance companies where the dividends are derived on assets included in their insurance funds. The measures will ensure that entities which would otherwise accumulate large quantities of unusable franking credits will not be placed in a position where they could become targets of persons seeking to gain the benefit of those credits. I wish to sound a note of warning to those who might seek to abuse the imputation system in any way. While further measures, including those dealing with dividend stripping arrangements and forestalling of dividends by private company groups, will be included in a later Bill, the Government will if necessary respond promptly to combat tax avoidance arrangements which may emerge as the imputation system gets under way. The revenue effects of these imputation related amendments is reflected in the estimated net cost of the imputation system of $50m in 1987-88 and $300m per annum thereafter. Substantiation Honourable senators will recall that the Treasurer announced on 29 October 1986 new arrangements that would greatly reduce the record keeping obligations of taxpayers who use motor cars in their employment or business. Under the present law, there are a number of alternative methods of claiming deductions for car expenses, depending upon whether or not the car travels more than 5,000 business kilometres in a year. If it does, the taxpayer can claim the business percentage, as established by log book records kept continuously throughout the year, of actual receipted expenses. Alternatively, the taxpayer may elect not to keep a log book and claim either one-third of receipted expenses or 12 per cent of the cost price of the car. If the car travels less than 5,000 business kilometres in a year, the taxpayer may claim a percentage of expenses based on continuous log book milage records, or at a set rate of cents per business kilometre. The amendments contained in the Bill will enable car fuel and oil expenses to be verified by a record of total kilometres travelled during the year rather than by actual receipts. For that purpose, taxpayers will need to keep records of opening and closing odometer readings for the period of the year when the car is held for business purposes. The present prohibition on switching from one method of deduction to another is also being removed, so that a taxpayer may move from one basis to another year by year provided he or she qualifies for deduction under the particular method chosen. The principal change relating to car expense deductions is the relaxation of the present log book requirements under the actual business expenses method of deduction. The new rules will mean that it will no longer be necessary to record details of business trips throughout the whole year of income. Instead, taxpayers will be entitled to establish the percentage of business use of a car by making log book entries in a continuous 12-week log book period. Provided the actual percentage of business use does not fall by more than 10 percentage points from the percentage established by the log book records, the established percentage may continue to be the basis for deduction for the particular car or a car that replaces it. If a taxpayer wishes to increase the established percentage of business travel in any year, he or she will need to establish a new percentage by maintaining log books for a minimum 12-week period. Log books will also be required in a year in which there is an increase in the number of cars for which deductions are being sought on the log book basis. In these cases log books for each car must be maintained during the same 12-week period. To prevent exploitation of rules that are designed primarily for high business use cars, the 10 percentage points margin will apply differently for cars which travel 5,000 or fewer business kilometres per annum. For those cars, if there is a reduction in the percentage of business use from the business percentage established by previous log book records, deductions are to be based on a reasonable estimate of the actual percentage of business use in the year rather that the previously established log book percentage. In such a case, it would not be necessary for log books to be kept in the subsequent year unless the difference between the established log book percentage and the actual business use is more than 10 percentage points. Further amendments will give effect to the Treasurer's 29 October 1986 announcement to exclude from the substantiation requirements unregistered cars used wholly or principally for income producing purposes. Tax Concessions for Australian Films Division 10BA of the Income Tax Assessment Act authorises concessions for investments in qualifying Australian films. Division 10BA requires the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment-in deciding whether to certify that a film is a qualifying Australian film-to determine whether the film has a significant Australian content. However, the division does not expressly authorise the Minister to refuse the certification of a film which has a significant Australian content, if it also has a significant non-Australian content. The Government does not believe that the tax concessions for investments in Australian films should be available where creative control is in non-Australian hands, even though the shooting of the film and other activities may take place in Australia. The amendments proposed by the Bill will ensure that the Minister may take into account any significant non-Australian content in deciding whether to certify a film. The amendments will apply in respect of all applications for certificates received after today. These amendments will not have any significant direct effect on revenue. Information Gathering and Access Powers The Bill will also extend the application of the information gathering power of the Commissioner of Taxation to matters relevant to the administration of the pay-as-you-earn provisions of the income tax law. Amendments are also to be made to the access provisions of those taxation laws that do not already impose a requirement that persons provide reasonable facilities and assistance to the commissioner when exercising powers of access under those laws. The amendments will impose such a requirement. In doing that, the amendments will remove any conflict that might presently exist for organisations providing access to information about clients with whom they may have a contractual duty of confidentiality. For these cases, the operation of the existing law can lead to often disruptive and costly procedures to obtain the information. In addition, the amendments will remove the scope inherent in the existing provision for taxpayers for frustrating necessary investigations into their taxation affairs. Tactics employed for this purpose include, for example, placing documents in locked facilities and refusing to answer questions concerning the location of keys. These measures will have no direct effect on revenue and will achieve consistency with the access provisions of the sales tax and fringe benefits tax laws which already incorporate the requirement to provide reasonable facilities and assistance. Bank Account Debits Tax The bank accounts debits tax is a tax on debits on cheque accounts with banks. Part VIII of the Cheques and Payment Orders Act 1986, which is proposed to come into operation on 1 July 1987, will create a new payment instrument known as a payment order. A payment order is similar to a cheque but is drawn on accounts with non-bank financial institutions. This Bill will extend the bank account debits tax law to debits made to payment order accounts with non-bank financial institutions in the same way as the law presently applies to debits made to cheque accounts with banks. Reflecting that extension, the bank account debits tax law will in future be referred to simply as debits tax. These amendments are proposed to some into operation on 1 July 1987. The Bill will also remove possible avenues for avoidance of debits tax. For banks that carry on only limited banking activities, the Bill will restrict the present exemption for inter-bank transactions to transactions in connection with those activities. That principle will extend to non-bank financial institutions. Another measure will ensure that debits tax is not avoided by the aggregation of a number of transactions to form one debit. Finally, the Bill will give legislative support to the present administrative practice of calculating debits tax on the Australian currency equivalent of debits expressed in a foreign currency. The extension of the debits tax to payment order accounts will prevent the unquantifiable, but possible substantial, cost to the revenue that would result if those debits were not included in the tax base. The revenue gain from the other amendments mentioned is likely to be minimal, as they will operate to protect the debits tax base. ACT Tax on Insurance Business Other amendments being made by this Bill will give effect to the decision, announced on 24 December 1986, to exempt from Australian Capital Territory tax premiums received for the insurance of goods carried in international trade and of ships and aircraft engaged in international trade. The amendments reflect the Government's concern that the imposition of this tax has caused much of this insurance to be written overseas to the detriment of the Australian insurance industry. The exemption will apply to insurance effected on or after 1 January 1987. The revenue cost of this measure is expected to be negligible. ACT Payroll Tax Under the Australian Capital Territory payroll tax law, tax is payable by employers whose annual taxable wages exceed the prescribed exemption level which is currently $200,000. However, the law exempts certain types of wages from any liability to payroll tax. The Bill will extend these exemptions to include wages paid or payable to first year apprentices and to trainees employed under a training agreement as part of the Australian traineeship system. This measure is another of the Government's initiatives to give effect to its policy of encouraging youth employment. The amendment will apply in relation to relevant wages paid or payable on or after 1 July 1986. It is estimated that this measure will result in a cost to revenue of $220,000 in 1987-88. Transfer of ACT Stamp Duty and Payroll Tax The administration of stamp duty and similar taxes and payroll tax in the Australian Capital Territory is presently the responsibility of the Commonwealth Commissioner of Taxation. In contrast, the States and the Northern Territory have their own statutory officers responsible for administration of comparable State taxes. The Government has a commitment to consolidating the administration of the Australian Capital Territory within the Department of Territories. The Bill will facilitate the transfer of responsibility for administration of Australian Capital Territory stamp duties and taxes, including payroll tax, to a new statutory officer, the Commissioner for Australian Capital Territory Revenue Collections, who will also be responsible for various other Australian Capital Territory Revenue laws. Complementary Australian Capital Territory ordinances to establish the Office of the Commissioner for Australian Capital Territory Revenue Collections and to complete the transfer of the various Australian Capital Territory laws will be made shortly. It is the Government's intention that these amendments will have come into operation, and the transfer of administrative responsibility for Australian Capital Territory revenue laws will have been completed, by 1 July 1987. These new arrangements will have no effect on Commonwealth revenue. Acting Arrangements Finally, the Bill will amend the Taxation Administration Act to simplify the procedures for approving acting appointments for the offices of Commissioner, and Second Commissioners, of Taxation. The amendments will have no effect on revenue. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. In so doing, I present the explanatory memorandum on this Bill. BANK ACCOUNT DEBITS TAX AMENDMENT BILL 1987 This Bill will amend the Bank Account Debits Tax Act in two respects. It will give effect to the 1986-87 Budget proposal to abolish the higher rates of bank account debits tax that presently apply in the Australian Capital Territory in lieu of the State-type financial institutions duty. The abolition of the higher Australian Capital Territory rates is a consequence of the proposed introduction, from 1 July 1987, of a financial institutions duty in the Australian Capital Territory-also announced in the 1986-87 Budget. The abolition of those rates will mean that bank account debits tax rates are uniform throughout Australia. The revenue loss from this measure, and from the proposed abolition of certain Australian Capital Territory stamp duties on financial transactions, will be broadly offset by the introduction of the financial institutions duty. The Bill will also ensure that anti-avoidance provisions in the bank account debits tax act apply to payment order accounts kept with non-bank financial institutions. Debits to such accounts are being brought within the debits tax base by the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 about which I have just spoken. The explanatory memorandum on that earlier Bill also contains an explanation of the provisions of this Bill. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Senator GARETH EVANS —I also table Part B of the explanatory memorandum for the Taxation Laws Amendment (Company Distributions) Bill 1987, the Income Tax (Franking Deficit) Bill 1987 and the Income Tax Rates Amendment Bill 1987. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.35) —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 will amend the Sales Tax Assessment Acts and the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act to give effect to two decisions announced by the Treasurer as part of the Government's May economic statement. The Bill will withdraw an entitlement to exemption from sales tax of certain Commonwealth authorities specified in the Bill that carry on commercial functions, and deny exemption for Commonwealth authorities that may be established from today unless they belong to certain categories that continue to be exempt. Commonwealth public transport authorities and Commonwealth authorities carrying out local government functions will continue to enjoy sales tax exemption, as do their State counterparts. Not all of the authorities specified in the Bill are entitled to sales tax exemption under the existing law. Some have been listed in the Bill to make their liability to sales tax a matter of record. The previously exempt authorities that now cease to be exempt from sales tax are: Australia Post; Telecom Australia; the Army and Air Force Canteen Service; the Australian Capital Territory Gaming and Liquor Authority; the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust; and the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation. Any Commonwealth authorities that are established from now on will not be entitled to a general sales tax exemption for government authorities. Exemption will only apply where expressly conferred by legislation or where an authority qualifies for exemption under another provision. The Bill will also implement the Government's decision to vary the special sales tax concessions available to passengers arriving from overseas. Changes have been made to the customs tariff by-laws, to make corresponding changes to the customs duty passenger concessions. The broad effect of the amendments to be made by this Bill, and the amendments to the customs tariff by-laws I have just mentioned, will be to allow passengers arriving in Australia a sales tax exemption and duty free entry for goods having a value of $400, in the case of passengers aged 18 years or over, and $200 for those under 18. Where the value of the goods exceeds those limits, the proportion of the value within the limits will be free from duty and tax. Duty and tax will not be payable on clothing, other than furs, that is for the personal use of passengers. The existing free limits on tobacco and alcohol will remain but the special concession for migrants' motor vehicles-which are currently free of both sales tax and customs duty-will be removed. The revised passenger concession arrangements are to be effective from 1 July 1987. Removal of the exemption for migrants' motor vehicles applies from 14 May 1987 except where vehicles were purchased or firm contracts to purchase were entered into before that date. It is estimated that the amendments to place the specified Commonwealth authorities on the same sales tax footing as private sector commercial authorities will result in a gain to revenue of $310m in 1987-88 and $395m in 1988-89. Special arrangements will apply in 1987-88 to the removal of the sales tax exemption from Telecom. Where Telecom's total payment of sales tax and customs duty in 1987-88 exceeds $360m, the amount of the excess will be refunded to telecom subject to a refund ceiling of $100m. The new passenger concessions arrangements, including the sales tax measures facilitated by this Bill, will result in a net saving of $20m in 1987-88 and $21m in 1988-89. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That the Bills may proceed without formalities, may be considered together and be now read a first time. Bills read a first time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.35) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- CUSTOMS AND EXCISE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 1987 This Bill proposes amendments to the Customs Act and Excise Act to implement three of the measures announced by the Treasurer in the Government's May statement. They are- (i) the payment of customs duty by Commonwealth authorities; (ii) the imposition of a $200 fee on applications for a refund of customs duty; and (iii) new arrangements to strengthen the diesel fuel duty rebate system. I propose now to only briefly outline the salient features of the Bill. Full details are contained in the explanatory memorandum which has been circulated and the Australian Customs Service will be issuing administrative detail in the next few days. The proposal to require Commonwealth authorities to pay customs duty in clause 6 stems from the Government's acceptance of the recommendation of the Committee of Review on Government High Technology Purchasing Arrangements. The Committee concluded that the concession of duty free entry of imports granted to most Commonwealth agencies leads to economic distortions and promotes a loss of allocative efficiency for the whole economy. Commonwealth authorities currently exempt from payment of customs duty will be required to pay duty on all imports from 1 July 1987. The $200 fee for refund applications in clause 7 is proposed to recover the costs involved in processing refund applications after 13 May 1987. The Australian Customs Service receives thousands of such applications yearly many of which are time consuming as they involve complicated assessment and examination of goods. The government expects however that persons will be able to avoid the charge by making sure that the correct duty is paid when entering their goods for home consumption. The question of a refund application will then not arise. Provision is made for the regulations to specify the circumstances in which the fee will not be charged. Such circumstances will only relate to those beyond the control of the importer. In relation to the changes to the diesel fuel rebate arrangements as set out in Parts II and III of the Bill I should mention that most of these were recommended in an efficiency scrutiny review. The scrutiny is the first major review of the administration of the scheme since it was introduced in 1982. The Government has accepted the scrutiny conclusion that a greater onus should be placed on rebate claimants to substantiate their claims. The rebate scheme relies heavily upon the self assessment of eligible usage of diesel fuel by claimants. The measures proposed in the Bill are designed to effect a greater degree of certainty to the estimation process. Additionally as outlays under the scheme in 1987-88 will be in the vicinity of $500m we believe it not unreasonable to require persons who are receiving this benefit from the public purse to provide sufficient information to substantiate their claims. Consistent with the requirement for persons to substantiate their claims we will now require more information to be provided about claimants operations and the methodology used to calculate eligible usage of diesel fuel. The regulations proposed under clause 8 of the Bill will include such requirements. Other important changes to the diesel fuel rebate arrangements involve- (a) a provision to permit a reduction in the amount of rebate claimed if satisfactory details are not produced; (b) the averaging of the rate of rebate because of continual fluctuations in the duty rates as a result of import parity price changes; and (c) the introduction of an `on the spot' penalty system providing, as an alternative to prosecution, a penalty of 3 times the amount of rebate wrongfully obtained. The new rebate arrangements will come into force by proclamation. This is to allow time for the necessary administrative arrangements and regulations to be put in place. Financial Impact The changes relating to the rebate on diesel fuel will enable savings to be achieved in two ways-in direct costs associated with administration and in rebate outlays. It is estimated that savings in the order of $6m will accrue in a full year. The imposition of duties of customs on Commonwealth authorities is expected to result in an increase in revenue of $75m per annum or about $225m in the next 3 years. The processing fee of $200 for refund applications is estimated to raise about $6m in a full year. This figure is based on an estimate of the number of refund applications that will be lodged per annum even though a fee is to be charged. Additionally it is estimated that applications for refunds of duty that will now not be made because of the imposition of the $200 fee will involve about $1.1m in refunds of duty forgone by applicants. I commend the Bill to the Senate. CUSTOMS TARIFF (COMMONWEALTH AUTHORITIES) AMENDMENT BILL 1987 This Bill is the companion to the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 insofar as it relates to the decision announced in the economic statement of 13 May 1987 that all Commonwealth agencies other than departments are to be required to pay customs duty from 1 July 1987. The Bill provides for both changes to the Customs Tariff Act 1982 and the Customs Tariff Act 1987 to: (a) omit the existing provision for duty free entry of imported goods owned by a Commonwealth body or authority prescribed; and (b) provide for continued duty free entry of imported goods owned by the Commonwealth and for use by specified departments or any specified unincorporated Commonwealth body. The specification of departments and any unincorporated Commonwealth body will be under the customs by-laws. Their specification is a matter directly related to the internal administration of government and therefore prescription by by-law is considered to be appropriate. It is to be noted that the requirement that the respective goods be owned by the Commonwealth excludes statutory bodies able to own goods in their own right from the ambit of specification under the customs by-law. The Government's decision that all Commonwealth agencies other than departments be required to pay customs duty is in accord with the February 1987 report of the Committee of review on Government High Technology Purchasing Arrangements. The Committee found that the concession of duty free entry of imports granted to most Commonwealth agencies leads to economic distortions and promotes a loss of allocative efficiency for the whole economy. Financial Impact The imposition of customs duty on Commonwealth agencies other than departments is expected to result in an increase in revenue of $75m per annum or about $225m in the next three years. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.36) —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- The Health Legislation Amendment Bill is an essential part of the Government's economic strategy. It gives effect to certain measures announced by the Treasurer in another place on Wednesday, 13 May 1987 that relate to the health portfolio. There are two changes covered by the Bill which are to come into effect from 1 August 1987. The first amends section 10 of the Health Insurance Act 1973 and the second amends section 4 of the National Health Act 1953. The first amendment-clause 4-is the more significant. It changes the level of Medicare benefits for professional services received by persons while private inpatients of a hospital or a day hospital facility and therefore increases the gap benefits payable, that is, the difference between Medicare benefit and schedule fee. Private health funds will be required to extend the coverage for gap benefits on the basic table so that all privately insured patients will continue to receive the full schedule fee for all in hospital services. To keep the administrative arrangements as simple as possible doctors will be required to identify in hospital services on their accounts and health funds will only pay gap benefits on written advice from the Health Insurance Commission. The Government gave careful consideration to the Medicare arrangements and was most concerned to ensure that the main principles of medicare were not changed. These are that all Australians should receive protection against the high cost of medical treatment on a fair and equitable basis. Accordingly it was decided that there would be no changes to the level of Medicare rebate for professional services received outside a hospital or for such services provided as outpatient services by a hospital or day facility. The changes in respect of professional services rendered to an inpatient of a hospital or day hospital facility will reduce the medicare benefits from the present 85 per cent of the schedule fee, with a maximum gap of $20, to a flat 75 per cent of the schedule fee. This will mean that the significant savings to the Commonwealth Budget of about $105m in a full year-$80m in 1987-88-can be achieved with a minimum effect on individual patients. People with private insurance may have to meet a small increase in contributions depending on the capacity of individual health funds to absorb the increase. Significant increases in out-of-pocket expenses to individuals will be avoided. Clause 4 also contains provision for regulations that may allow for certain professional services to attract the 85 per cent rate of the benefit. This will allow for flexibility in the arrangement, for example, in the event of changes in technology or treatment practices. The second amendment, which is contained in clause 6, has the effect that any professional service that is rendered to the patient either before the actual time of admission or after discharge, will attract a Medicare benefit of 85 per cent with a maximum gap of $20 instead of the new private inpatient rate of benefit of 75 per cent of the schedule fee. This is a change from the existing arrangement where any professional service rendered to a patient on the day of admission or day of discharge, regardless of whether the patient was actually in hospital, attracted gap benefit. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to. That the Senate do now adjourn. Senate adjourned at 10.37 p.m.