Tuesday, 15 March 1988 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate of the Commonwealth Parliament assembled The petition of these residents of the Commonwealth of Australia Respectfully showeth: that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation provides the citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia with the only nation-wide independent radio and television service that the independence of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation must be preserved in the interests of the citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia that the introduction of commercial sponsorship or any form of advertising material from commercial sources, would destroy the independence of the Corporation. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Honourable Senators will oppose the introduction of any form of sponsorship or advertising material from commercial sources into the programmes of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Chaney (from 165 citizens), Gareth Evans (from 2,748 citizens) and McKiernan (from 394 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we the undersigned whilst opposing tax evasion strongly reject the I.D. [Australia] Card as a means of increasing Government revenue. The I.D. Card, by its intrusive nature, will be an invasion of our historic rights to privacy and freedom for all Australians. No democratic nation has an I.D. Card with such detailed computer surveillance, which will be provided by this system known as PIN [Personal Identification Number] or SUI [Standard Universal Identification] where every Australian citizen will have a personal dossier on computer. Your petitioners therefore, humbly pray that your Honourable House will protect our privacy and freedom, and totally reject the ID [Australia] Card, which will not stop welfare fraud, nor deter organised crime, nor prevent illegal immigration, nor expose tax evasion. And your petitioners as is duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Puplick (from 39 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled- The petition of the undersigned expresses concern that some scientists in Australia are intent on undertaking destructive experimentation on human embryos. This subject was examined exhaustively by the 1985-1986 Senate Select Committee on Senator Harradine's Human Embryo Experimentation Bill which received 270 submissions and more than 2,000 pages of evidence. The report of the Senate Committee recommended in October 1986 that the Commonwealth Government make unlawful any destructive experiment which frustrated the development of the human embryo. Your petitioners therefore request the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to: Implement without delay the major recommendation of the Senate Select Committee to outlaw destructive experiments on human embryos. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Chaney (from 353 citizens) and McKiernan (from 222 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth objection to the Metric system and request the Government to restore the Imperial system. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Stone (from 21 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the introduction of time-charging for local telephone calls by Telecom Australia would seriously disadvantage thousands of elderly and disabled people and families, and would add a further burden to the already prohibitive cost of living borne by every Australian. That accordingly the Senate and Parliament should reject any plans by Telecom to time-charge local telephone calls. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Knowles (from 121 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: (1) That we oppose timed local calls by Telecom. (2) Timed calls should not be introduced in the absence of widespread community support. (3) Timed calls will seriously affect pensioners, the elderly, low income earners and other disadvantaged groups. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Messner (from 104 citizens). To the President and members of the Senate: We the undersigned, express deep concern at the proposed governance arrangements for the Canberra Institute of the Arts. We object to the absence of representation of staff, students and community members on both the Board and Council of the Institute. We also object to the situation where the Board can make a decision affecting students, with only a quorum of two members, and without having to consult the proposed Council. We call on the Senate to review the Ordinance with the intention of including staff, student and community representation on both the Board and Council of the proposed Canberra Institute of the Arts. by Senator Vanstone (from 51 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: We, the undersigned, (i) are alarmed that many sporting, cultural and community groups have been made to feel that they can attract sponsorship only from promoters of unhealthy products; (ii) call for a National Health Promotion Foundation to be established through an increase in tobacco excise of 10 cents per packet; and (iii) urge that the National Health Promotion Foundation provide national sporting, cultural and community groups with alternative sponsorship funding so that these groups can flourish without the taint of accepting money from tobacco companies and assisting in the promotion of their unhealthy products. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator McMullan (from 100 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 protest against the lowering of overseas aid to 0.36% of G.N.P. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that overseas aid be increased to the internationally agreed minimum of 0.7% of G.N.P. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jones (from 28 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that they call upon the Government of the Commonwealth to: Establish a Post Office or Postal Sub-agency in the Ballajura region, noting that Ballajura is currently underserviced and distanced from major community facilities and we, the residents of the area feel it important to have enhanced communications. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator McKiernan (from 515 citizens). Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —by leave-I present to the Senate the following copy of a petition from 112 petitioners praying that the Constitution be amended to allow Australian electors to initiate referenda and to extend the term of office of the House of Representatives from three to four years: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That although elector-initiated referendums are conducted successfully in such countries as Switzerland and the U.S.A., no such facility exists for Australian citizens. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should: Initiate the necessary action for a referendum to be held to amend the Constitution to provide for such an initiative on the following conditions: If a specified percentage of voters (such as 2%) sign a petition asking that a referendum be held on a certain question the Federal Government would be obliged to hold that referendum and the result would become law. And your petitioners further humbly pray that the referendum be timed to coincide with the referendum to be held to extend the term of office of the House of Representatives from 3 to 4 years. And we humbly pray that you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our Nation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. Petitions received. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the Senate approves the following proposal contained in the report of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House presented to the Senate on 10 December 1987, namely: the construction of high capacity fire hydrants within the parliamentary zone. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —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 Postal Services Act 1975. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) condemns the Government for withholding the release of the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) options paper until after the New South Wales State election, despite the fact that the community was led to believe that the paper would be released at the same time as the Australian Broadcasting Corporation funding options paper; (b) notices the widespread concern in the ethnic community caused by the Government's deliberate delaying action; and (c) calls upon the Government to release details of its proposed funding options for the SBS as a matter of urgency. Senator McKIERNAN(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) expresses its abhorrence at the actions of the British security forces who summarily executed three suspected members of the Irish Republican Army in Gibraltar earlier this month, the victims of this act having been later found to be unarmed. (b) condemns the feeble attempts by the British Government and the British Parliament to cover up and fabricate the events that led to the murders; (c) calls upon the British Government to return to the system of British justice whereby persons who are suspected of committing offences are apprehended and tried by the courts; and (d) in calling for the cessation of the tactic of shooting first and asking questions later, reminds the British Government that acts of terrorism cannot be condoned merely because they are perpetrated by a government. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales) —On behalf of Senator Michael Baume and Senator Reid and on my own behalf, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes with the utmost displeasure the gratuitous insult offered to the nine parliaments of Australia, to the Senate and its President and to the House of Representatives and its Speaker, by Australia Post in its refusal to issue a commemorative postage stamp for the 1988 Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference; (b) further notes that this insult by a statutory authority, itself a mere creation of the Federal Parliament, is also an insult to all of the member nations and parliaments of the Commonwealth of Nations; (c) records that such a commemorative stamp has been issued each year since 1961 whenever the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference has been hosted by a national parliament, and that to date some 18 nations have issued such a stamp; (d) notes in addition that the 1988 CPA Conference will be the first official function held in the new Parliament House in Canberra, itself a matter worthy of commemoration; (e) observes that Australia Post has, over a period of several years, dealt with requests from Mr President and Madam Speaker in a fashion which is cavalier and in which the excuses offered about the allocations of new issues in the 1988 stamp program are derisory; (f) calls on Australia Post to at once accede to the request of the President, the Speaker and the Australian branch of the CPA to issue a commemorative stamp and desist in its persistent arrogant and insulting attitude towards the parliaments of the Commonwealth of Australia and the Commonwealth of Nations. The PRESIDENT —Pursuant to the procedures established by resolutions of the Senate on 25 February 1988, Senator Chaney has raised with me, by letter dated 11 March 1988, a matter of privilege. Under the resolutions I am required to determine whether a motion to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges should have precedence over other business, having regard to the following criteria: (a) the principle that the Senate's power to adjudge and deal with contempts should be used only where it is necessary to provide reasonable protection for the Senate and its committees and for senators against improper acts tending substantially to obstruct them in the performance of their functions, and should not be used in respect of matters which appear to be of a trivial nature or unworthy of the attention of the Senate; and (b) the existence of any remedy other than that power for any act which may be held to be a contempt. The determination which I am required to make does not involve an assessment of the truth or merits of the matter raised, nor does it finally determine the matter. My decision is simply whether, having regard to the stated criteria, a motion concerning the matter should be given precedence so that the Senate is given an early opportunity to consider the matter. In applying the criteria laid down by the Senate, I think I ought to give precedence to a motion if the matter raised is such that it appears to be cap- able of being held by the Senate to meet criterion (a), and if another remedy is not clearly and readily available. The essence of the matter raised by Senator Chaney is not such that it can be treated as trivial or unworthy of the attention of the Senate within the meaning of criterion (a). The matters in issue under criterion (b) are much more complex, involving difficult questions of principle about the interaction between judicial and parliamentary processes and legal and political avenues of redress. In all the circumstances, I think it appropriate that the Senate be given the opportunity to refer the issues to the Committee of Privileges. I have determined that the motion to refer the matter should have precedence accordingly. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —Mr President, following the determination that the motion should have precedence, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the following questions be referred to the Committee of Privileges: whether a petition to the Senate was suppressed in consequence of a threat of legal proceedings by the Hon. Brian Burke, and, if so, whether this constituted a contempt of Parliament. Mr President, in light of your explanatory comments, and without wishing to cover the ground that I will cover in debate tomorrow, I seek leave to make a brief statement. Leave granted. Senator CHANEY —This is the first opportunity that the Senate has had to look at this procedure and I do not intend-- Senator Gareth Evans —I rise on a point of order, Mr President. Is this a point of order to enable Senator Chaney to have two bites at the cherry, or is it to make a general contribution to an understanding of the procedures that are applicable and available in this place? Perhaps I could ask Senator Chaney's intentions in this regard, before we make a decision on whether to give leave. We know the nature of the matter from the subject matter of the notice of motion and I do not think we need any further explanation of that. If Senator Chaney wishes to make some statement about the applicability of the procedures, obviously that is a matter for you, Mr President. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. Senator Chaney sought leave and leave was granted, so my hands are tied. Senator CHANEY —The point I wish to make relates to the fact that this is novel in the sense that it is the first time that the Senate has had to follow the procedures which were established by the resolution of February. In accordance with that resolution, before I made this matter public I raised it with you, Mr President. Paragraph 3 of resolution 7 adopted in February provides that a senator: shall not take any action in relation to, or refer to, in the Senate, a matter which is under consideration by the President in accordance with the resolution. Clearly, in its terms, that is a requirement that no one should take action in this chamber or outside this chamber until you, Mr President, had a chance to make the determination that you have made and told us of this afternoon. When I wrote to you, Mr President, on 11 March, I indicated that in the light of the fact that public, as well as parliamentary, interest is involved, I proposed to make public my letter to you within a matter of a few days. The request which I received second hand was that I should hold action on that until you had had a chance to consider it and deal with the matter in the Senate. I indicate to the Senate that in deference to that request I have not, to this point, published the letter that I wrote to you seeking your consideration. In those circumstances, I wish to do no more now than to seek leave to incorporate that letter in Hansard. Leave not granted. Senator CHANEY —In that case I shall read the letter which I wrote to you. This is the letter of 11 March: Dear Mr President, Pursuant to the resolution of the Senate on 25 February, I write to advise you of my intention to raise a matter of privilege. The matter arises from the circulation of a petition in Western Australia requesting deferral of the appointment of the Hon. Brian Burke as Australian Ambassador to Ireland pending resolution of forthcoming legal proceedings involving the former chairman of the State Superannuation Board and a Perth businessman. This petition was circulated at the instigation of a citizen who sought advice from the Liberal Party who, in turn, contacted my office about the way in which the petition might be phrased to ensure it complied with Standing Orders. Mr Burke subsequently threatened legal proceedings against the person concerned, alleging that the words in the petition were defamatory. A legal settlement has since been concluded with the former Premier, on conditions which include collection and destruction of petition forms and an undertaking not to present the petition to Parliament. It is my very strong view that the action taken by the former Premier is in breach of the right of citizens to circulate petitions for presentation to the Parliament. Any lingering doubts about this matters would appear to have been resolved by the passage of the Parliamentary Privileges Act (No. 21 of 1987) and in particular Section 16, sub sections 2 (b) (c) and (d) of that Act. It is also my view that the Senate must be very ready to defend the availability of recourse to the Parliament by citizens of modest means against infringement by those who are comparatively rich and powerful. I would appreciate your consideration of this matter and your early advice as to when I might move in the Senate for a reference to the Committee of Privileges. As the public as well as parliamentary interest is involved, I propose to make this letter public in the next few days. That is the end of my letter. I note that both Senator Cook and Senator Walsh were attempting to interject during the course of my reading that letter. I am very glad that the Labor Party colleagues of Mr Burke have exposed their support for what I see as a bullying and pathetic attempt to prevent a citizen from exercising his rights in the community. Having read the contents of that letter, I point out that I bring this matter forward as a senator from Western Australia. Whilst I advised my party room this morning of my intention to do so, I add that this is not a matter which has had the consideration of my party room. I make that point because the Senate will be called upon to make a judgment on this matter if the motion is carried, as I believe it should be in light of the significance of any attempt to prevent a citizen from exercising his or her right to petition this Parliament. It may well be that Senator Cook and Senator Walsh wish to defend that sort of pressure being put upon a citizen, but I have no such wish to do so. If that is the stance they wish to take, no doubt they can indicate that in debate tomorrow. For my part, I bring this matter forward because it is a matter of considerable public interest that individuals should not be put upon in this way. I believe it is something which warrants very early consideration by the Committee of Privileges. I will deal with the matter in more detail tomorrow when the motion comes on for debate. I hope it will be speedily considered and dealt with by the Senate. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. The National Standards Commission-Annual Report1986-87-section 19c of the National Measurement Act 1960. 2. Parliament House Constrution Authority-Annual Report 1986-87-including the Auditor-General's Report-section 38 of the Parliament House Construction Authority Act 1979. 3. Official Establishments Trust-Annual Report 1986-87. 4. Folklife Our Living Heritage-Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Folklife in Australia. 5. Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation-Annual Report 1986-87-including the Auditor-General's Report-section 29 of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Act 1987 and section 63m of the Audit Act 1901 together with the Section 8 Statement as required by the Freedom of Information Act 1982. 6. Australian Capital Territory Apprenticeship Board-Annual Report 1986-87-section 47 of the Australian Capital Territory Apprenticeship Ordinance 1936. 7. Milk Authority of the Australian Capital Territory-Annual Report 1986-87-including the Auditor-General's Report-section 63h of the Audit Act 1901. 8. Department of Employment and Industrial Relations-Annual Report 1986-87-sub-section 25 (8) of the Public Service Act 1922. 9. National Occupational Health and Safety Commission-Annual Report 1986-87-including the Auditor-General's Report-section 60 of the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission Act 1985 and section 63m of the Audit Act 1901. 10. National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Council-Annual Report 1986-87-section 9 of the Coal Research Assistance Act 1977. 11. Dried Fruits Research Council-Annual Report 1986-87-section 30 of the Rural Industries Research Act 1985. 12. Squid Jigging by Fishing Vessels of the Republic of Korea-subsidiary agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Korea dated 10 December 1987-sub-section 9 (b) (4) of the Fisheries Act 1952. 13. Advance to the Minister for Finance-statements of expenditure for November and December 1987 and January 1988. 14. Torres Strait Protected Zone Joint Authority-Annual Report 1986-87-Sub-section 41 (2) of the Torres Strait Fisheries Act 1984. 15. OTC International Limited-Memorandum and Articles of Association-together with an explanatory statement. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —Mr President, I seek leave to make a statement relating to Commonwealth Day, to move to take note of the statement and to incorporate the statement in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- MESSAGE BY THE LEADER OF THE GOVERNMENT-COMMONWEALTH DAY 1988 Mr President, Yesterday, 14 March, was Commonwealth Day. It has a particular significance for Australia in 1988, when Commonwealth nations are making such a significant contribution to our Bicentennial celebrations. The quarter of the world's population comprising the Commonwealth is spread amongst small countries and large, developed and developing, from all continents and both hemispheres. Within the framework provided by the Commonwealth, people from the widest range of cultures, races and religions imaginable meet on an equal footing, share their views and their friendship, and cooperate on matters of mutual concern. This is what makes the Commonwealth a valuable and constructive international institution. The Vancouver meeting of Commonwealth Heads of Government, which took place in October last year, provided a good example of such productive co-operation. Commonwealth leaders agreed on a shared approach on issues ranging from world trade to disarmament. Constructive initiatives were taken in many of these areas. The outstanding political issue continuing to confront the Commonwealth remains, of course, the situation in southern Africa. The recent deterioration there, caused by the further repressive measures introduced by the South African Government, only underlines the continuing tragedy and the need for every effort to be made to bring about peaceful changes. Whether the Commonwealth's longstanding ambition to see a peaceful end to apartheid will be achieved will, of course, depend on many factors beyond our immediate control. I have no doubt, however, that when the histories come to be written, the Commonwealth's role in providing an international lead in the struggle against apartheid will be acknowledged and commended. Commonwealth Day provides a sobering reminder of the tragic denial of basic human rights to the majority in South Africa. I should like to assure the Senate that, under this Government, Australia will continue to be at the forefront of Commonwealth efforts to promote peaceful change in South Africa. Senator BUTTON —I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(2.17) —The statement which was incorporated in Hansard by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button)-I am not surprised that he chose to incorporate it-was provided to the Opposition in the normal way a couple of hours ago. It is, I must say, a fairly extraordinary statement which warrants some comment from the Opposition. It represents a somewhat enthusiastic endorsement of the Commonwealth in terms which sit very oddly with past comments of the Australian Labor Party. I must say that, to the extent that it represents some affirmation of the value of the Commonwealth, I welcome it on behalf of the Opposition. The Opposition is pleased to express again its support for the positive ideals of cooperation and mutual respect that underpin the objectives and activities of the Commonwealth of Nations. It is possible at times to forget the significance of the Commonwealth and that it embraces over a quarter of the world's population. It embraces a great mixture of countries that are at very different stages of economic development. The Liberal and National parties have always regarded the association as of critical importance because it brings us into contact with countries with which we have a strong historical affiliation and it also brings us into contact with a multi- racial world; we believe that to be very important for the future of this country and important as far as our strategic position is concerned. In our view the Commonwealth has proved itself to be an invaluable forum for the discussion of international political and economic issues. The extraordinary thing about the statement, or the message, which the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has put down in the other place, and which Senator Button has put down here, is that it concentrates entirely on the issue of southern Africa. We find in this statement no mention of matters much closer to Australia; in particular there is no mention of Fiji. There seems to be a fairly extraordinary lack of balance in the statement when we have the description of southern Africa as the outstanding political issue continuing to confront the Commonwealth in the context of a 12-month period in which Fiji has left the Commonwealth under extremely difficult circumstances. I think that tells us something about the attitudes of the Labor Party to it. I also want to remind the Senate that when the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting was held in Melbourne in late 1981 the then Leader of the Labor Party, Mr Hayden, described it as `an extravagant indulgence of little relevance to international affairs or Australia's role in the world'. That was the view of the Labor Party in 1981. We now find in the statement that Senator Button has just brought into the Senate that he is saying that the Vancouver meeting of the Commonwealth Heads of Government, which took place in October last year, provided a good example of such productive cooperation-what he had earlier described as making the Commonwealth a valuable and constructive international institution. We welcome this conversion of the Labor Party to giving some emphasis to the Commonwealth, and its conversion to a view which was profoundly advanced in Australia, and indeed in the Commonwealth, by the previous Prime Minister, the Rt Hon. Malcolm Fraser. We find the Prime Minister's assurance that his Government is at the forefront of Commonwealth efforts to promote peaceful change in South Africa, which is what is said in the statement, at stark variance with the Government's statements of November last year condoning violence to bring about political change in South Africa. We believe that, by adopting that stance, the Hawke Government certainly spoke at variance with the morality that most Australians would embrace and took a view which most Australians would have great difficulty supporting. We note that in this statement there is no mention of Fiji, and this is at a time when we believe Fiji needs Australia's very careful policy attention. In the Opposition's view we should be encouraging, in a quiet way, the decisive return to constitutional government in that country with a strong commitment to effective representation of all the major communities. We believe that we should let the Fiji Administration know that, when such arrangements are completed, Australia would be willing to renominate Fiji for membership of the Commonwealth. We reaffirm our commitment to the important international cooperative programs of the Commonwealth and we accept that it is a very positive way that Australia can contribute to world affairs. To the extent that the Government's statement represents some stepping back from its destructive anti-Commonwealth attitudes of the past, we welcome it; but we note that its emphasis is on southern Africa rather than on our own region and we believe that that is a continuing indication of this Government's failure to tackle those issues in foreign policy which are of most concern to the Commonwealth. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. The PRESIDENT —A report appeared in the Sun-Herald newspaper on Sunday last suggesting that the Clerk of the Senate had been involved in deliberations about the propriety of a radio broadcast being made from the new Parliament House and in an attempt to prevent the broadcast being made. In so far as the report relates to the Clerk of the Senate, it is completely false. Neither the Clerk nor I was consulted about the proposed broadcast, nor did we engage in any consideration of it or attempt to make any determination on whether it should proceed. Senator MESSNER —My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport and Communications. When did the Minister become aware of the appointment of Mr Mick Young as a consultant to Qantas Airways Ltd and who told him about it? What is Qantas paying Mr Young and what does it expect him to do? Who suggested Mr Young as a candidate for the consultancy? Was Mr Young interviewed by the Qantas Board and were others considered for the position? When the Minister said on Friday that Mr Young would be `using his well-known persuasive skills' and his `knowledge of the operation of government' in his new job, did he mean that Mr Young would be having contact with the Government of which he was so recently a senior member? Does the Minister believe that it is proper that Mr Young's contacts within government and the Labor movement generally should be used to help Qantas achieve a change in policy to accord the injection of private capital which, on the Minister's own figures, it will so clearly need in the years ahead to avoid a severe drain on the Government's resources? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am glad that the Opposition has demonstrated a willingness to get this entire issue over in one question. Senator Messner —Don't you believe it. Senator GARETH EVANS —I can assure the Opposition that it is going to get only one answer. I first became aware of the actual appointment of Mick Young only last Friday. The source of my knowledge was a journalist who had just come into receipt of a Press release-issued two days earlier but through the mail-by the Qantas management indicating that the Board had made the decision on Wednesday. I did have some earlier knowledge that such an-- Senator Puplick —Obviously they keep you well in touch as Minister. Senator GARETH EVANS —That is not a secret, Senator. I have been cheerfully willing to indicate that to anyone who has asked. Mick Young mentioned to me in passing about three weeks ago that he had been having exploratory discussions or consultations with Qantas, among others, about doing some consultancy work. I said that any arrangement he might enter into with Qantas was entirely one for him and Qantas to sort out. I had some further information as a result of a conversation with the Chairman of Qantas, Mr Jim Leslie, who told me last Friday week, 4 March, in the course of, in fact, a very long conversation on a number of different topics, that Qantas was contemplating employing Mr Young as a consultant to improve its lines of communication in a number of areas, including with the union movement and State governments-State governments with which there had often been misunderstandings about Qantas's role in resisting new airline services from other carriers. I again responded by saying that consultancy arrangements of this kind were entirely a matter for Qantas itself to sort out. I interpolate there that some further information about the nature of the work that it was, and still is, intended that Mr Young do is contained in the news release issued by Qantas yesterday which identifies a number of different subject areas in which, as I can testify from my own experience in this portfolio-experience which, mercifully for the nation, is not likely to be replicated by Senator Messner-there is ample scope and opportunity for consultants with Mr Young's sort of background and skills to do a very useful job of work indeed. Might I repeat that I had no knowledge of the detail of the proposal or of its having gone to the Qantas Board on Wednesday last week or of the appointment being made until, as I said, the Qantas Press release became the subject of publicity on Friday. In fact, I had been under the impression that any possible appointment was still some time away. I say further as to the terms and conditions of that appointment, I did not seek and have not sought detailed information about that. I regard it essentially as a matter for Qantas and Mr Young to sort out on commercial terms. Until the matter needs to be further pursued in some way that makes it necessary for me to do so, I shall not pursue that matter further. I simply note on the public record what Qantas has made the subject of public record, that is, that the suggestions that have been made-clearly, the reference there is to Mr Beale's suggestions concerning Mr Young's remuneration-are grossly exaggerated. I think that that point should be very clearly understood. My judgment of or approval for the appointment was not sought at any stage; nor would it have been appropriate for Qantas to do so. Let me say, on the record, that Qantas is an organisation with an annual revenue of $2.45 billion, employing nearly 14,000 people, employing a very large number of consultants in a variety of areas, operating for all practical purposes an independent company with a very independently-minded board of directors and operating in an environment in which this Government is seeking to further disengage itself from most remaining external controls and constraints and that this is exactly the kind of decision which Qantas does make and should go on making for itself. Let me deal further with the question contained in the latter part of Senator Messner's question about the alleged conflict of interest that was necessarily involved in Mr Young working for Qantas while President of the Australian Labor Party. There was no inherent conflict of interest in that particular relationship. I want to say three things in support of that. Senator Chaney —This is worthy of your time as Attorney-General-the same inability to understand conflict of interest. Senator GARETH EVANS —I appreciate that it is a bit too complex and subtle for a grandstanding vulgarian such as Senator Chaney to appreciate, nonetheless, let me say it for the record: there was no reason to assume that Mr Young's work for Qantas would have involved him in any activity directly related to the privatisation debate. As is clear from the Qantas statement made yesterday, a whole variety of tasks has been proposed for him only one of which, that is to say increasing public awareness of the constraints confronting Qantas in its current operations, could be said to be even indirectly relevant. Secondly, in the unlikely event that Mr Young did become involved in paid activity for Qantas which might have been perceived as committing him to one outcome or another in the privatisation debate, this situation could have been remedied in the usual way; that is to say, by publicly disclosing the interest in question and/or withdrawing from participation in that debate at the national conference. The third thing I want to say, and I want to say it with some vigour, is that it is not reasonable to expect a party president, or any other national conference delegate for that matter, to refrain from paid employment simply on the ground that that employment might be perceived by someone as giving rise to a possible conflict of interest. It must be a matter of determining whether there is a conflict of interest in all the circumstances of a particular case as it arises. It would have been quite premature to make such a judgment in Mr Young's case at this stage. Notwithstanding these considerations and the force of these considerations, and leaving aside for present purposes all the hypocrisy and cant that has come from the Opposition in this respect-we can come back to this later if it is necessary-Mick Young has now taken the view that this is just one more argument that he and the Party can do without and that he would prefer in all the circumstances to step down from the presidency. That has been his decision alone, and it ought to be respected as such. Senator MESSNER —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Leaving aside all of the hand-washing that the Minister for Transport and Communications has just engaged in, the point of the last part of the question was not so much about the position of Mr Young as President of the Australian Labor Party but rather the use of his contacts as a former senior Minister in this Government to put through the kinds of things that the Minister apparently wants with Qantas Airways Ltd. Will the Minister please answer that part of the question? Senator GARETH EVANS —The question is premised on a series of totally false assumptions. Senator MAGUIRE —Is the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories aware of the inbound tourism figures which were released today by the Government Statistician? What are the implications for the Australian tourism industry of these figures, which follow closely upon the recent Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development assessment that Australia is the fastest growing tourist destination in the world? Is tourism now making a major contribution to our improving balance of payments position? Senator RICHARDSON —Yes, I have seen the Australian Bureau of Statistics figures. I am pleased to say that they continue to show the phenomenal growth that has taken place in tourism in Australia since the Hawke Government came to office and since it got a Minister in John Brown who got on with the job. Inbound tourism in Australia is booming, with a record of approximately 1.8 million overseas visitors to Australia in 1987. Of course, that is a phenomenal figure, representing a 25 per cent increase in inbound tourism during 1987 on top of what was already a 25 per cent increase in 1986. Of course, those figures substantiate the claims made only a couple of weeks ago by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development that Australia now is the fastest growing tourist destination in the world. The number of Japanese tourists to Australia in one year increased by 48 per cent to 216,000, and that increase is closely followed by the markets of the United States of America and Asia, which have gone up by 26 per cent and 25 per cent respectively. No doubt the industry's ties with the Japanese and Asian markets will be even more important in the years to come. I should point out that the surge in tourist numbers highlights the need for an increase in the standard of service which we can provide. Now we have the customers, we need to make sure that they go home satisfied customers. Forecasts by the Bureau of Tourism Research indicate that during 1988 we will top two million visitors for the first time. To answer Senator Maguire's question about what contribution tourism can make to our balance of payments and, indeed, to our economy as a whole, it is worth noting that international tourists spent $2.7 billion in Australia in 1987. They created 15,000 new jobs and generated export earnings comparable to those of the wool industry. Senator CHANEY —Is the Minister for Justice aware of a comprehensive legal opinion delivered to the Prime Minister this afternoon which asserts that the Minister for Community Services and Health broke the law in providing Health Insurance Commission information to the member for Canning? If that is so, will the Minister for Justice ensure that this opinion is immediately referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions? Senator TATE —I am not aware of any such opinion. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Does the Minister for Justice agree that, if senior counsel with more facts at his disposal than the Commonwealth Solicitor-General had to give his opinion which was published by the Government as a vindication of Dr Blewett, has advised-and I understand that he has-that Dr Blewett has broken the law, that is a matter that should go to the Director of Public Prosecutions? If the Minister does not agree with that I ask: Who should it go to? Who should consider that matter? Senator TATE —I am not prepared to accept the premise in the supplementary question that the senior counsel referred to had access to further facts that were not available to Dr Gavan Griffith. Dr Griffith, the Commonwealth Solicitor-General, gave his opinion on the basis of those documents which had been placed before the House of Representatives chamber by Dr Blewett and on those documents alone. I cannot accept at the moment that the Queen's Counsel referred to by the honourable senator had access to any further information than was before the House of Representatives chamber. As I understand it, the matter is being investigated by the Australian Federal Police. They will come to some assessment of the factual situation and make their report available to the Director of Public Prosecutions. I will make inquiries about this legal opinion and seek advice as to what should be done with it. Senator COLSTON —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce would be aware of media reports during the past six months or so concerning studies into the feasibility of a commercial space port at Cape York in Queensland. What role is the Commonwealth Government taking in this project? Additionally, what prospects exist for Australian industry participation in the project if it proceeds? Senator BUTTON —The Commonwealth Government supports the Queensland Government's efforts to develop a commercial space port at Cape York. I have been asked by the Prime Minister to co-ordinate the Commonwealth's role in the current detailed feasibility studies for this major commercial project. The Commonwealth's role will be important in facilitating the project while safeguarding Australia's national and international obligations and objectives. There seems to be intense worldwide interest in the space port concept. This was evident during my recent trip to China, where the technical advantages of a launch site near the Equator were regarded as very important. It is also evidenced in the wide international acceptance of Australia by other nations and the growing trends towards fully commercial space launch activities. These factors all combine to make a strong case for a joint multinational launch facility at Cape York. Preliminary discussions about the space port have taken place with the Queensland Premier, Mr Ahern, and further detailed discussions will occur. I will also be approaching Commonwealth Ministers asking them to identify all issues raised by the space port proposal and will set in train appropriate and speedy processes for resolving such issues. The ultimate benefit to Australia of building an international space port will depend on the extent of industrial development which results-a matter to which Senator Colston specifically referred. The Commonwealth Government will be seeking to maximise opportunities for industrial development which this can assist Australian industry to become internationally competitive. The Australian Space Board, which advises the Government on space industry matters, will be asked to provide an evaluation of these opportunities and/or appropriate arrangements for achieving maximum benefits. The Australian Space Office within my Department will have day to day responsibility for co-ordinating Federal Government activities in relation to the space port. I might add that the matter is subject to current feasibility studies. Those feasibility studies are being conducted in an environment of growing interest in the possible development of this facility. Senator MACKLIN —My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, though the matter might be the responsibility of either the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade or the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs. I refer the Minister to the Government's decision to grant visas to approximately 100 South African experts to attend a gold conference in Melbourne between 16 and 20 May. Why has the Government decided to support the actions of the South African white elite in the gold and mining circles to promote the interests of the apartheid system when only a matter of months ago the South African Government denied an exit visa to the secretary of the mineworkers union of South Africa to attend an international miners conference held in Sydney in November 1987? Does not this suggest that the Government's policy with regard to South Africa is shot through with inconsistencies? Senator BUTTON —I am not familiar with the circumstances outlined in Senator Macklin's question-- Senator Chaney —The answer is yes. Senator BUTTON —Senator Chaney tells me that the answer is yes. Perhaps one day he will have an opportunity to sit on this side of the House, though he will be a very old man at that time. I shall seek advice and provide an answer as soon as possible. Senator VALLENTINE —My question is directed to the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. Can the Minister assure the Parliament that all remaining areas of rainforest on Christmas Island will be preserved, consistent with commitments given to that effect by the Minister for the Arts and Territories, Gary Punch, in his Press release dated 11 February 1988, and as required to honour our commitments under the agreement between Japan and Australia for the protection of migratory birds and birds in danger of extinction and their environment? Can the Minister also assure the Parliament that proper management of the rainforest environment of Christmas Island will form the basis of what Mr Punch referred to as `the Government's long term strategy of the island as a tourism based economy'? Senator RICHARDSON —This is the first time that we have heard of rainforests this week, though probably it will not be the last. Christmas Island, as Senator Vallentine said, is one of our nation's great environmental assets, and its rainforests make it even more so. There are an extraordinary number of endemic species of plants and animals, some of which are endangered. As an example, there are 16 species of land crabs, two of them endemic. The annual migration of the red crab, which all senators have probably seen in various news clips, is a phenomenon that is indeed spectacular. The island is also a nesting area for large populations of various Indian Ocean seabirds. It is the last breeding ground of the Abbott's booby bird. The Christmas Island bosun bird and the frigate bird are also endangered species. Senator Puplick —How are your boobooks going? Senator RICHARDSON —No, these are not boobooks. This is not Norfolk Island; this is Christmas Island. There are six species protected under agreements between the Japanese and Australian governments for the protection of migratory birds and birds in danger of extinction. The island, with these natural environmental attractions and, of course, its tropical climate, is potentially a very attractive tourist destination. As Senator Vallentine would be aware, a Perth-based group is planning a multimillion dollar casino tourist development for the island, which should form some of the basis for the island's future economic life. The Government's strategy for the island is to facilitate the development of such industries, to provide an employment base to compensate for the wind-down of the island's phosphate mining. Over the past few years the Government has reluctantly allowed the Phosphate Mining Corporation of Christmas Island to clear some rainforests to enable the mine to remain viable. Rainforest clearing programs were agreed to between the Corporation and the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service. To give examples of the last couple of clearances, no rainforest clearing has occurred since March 1987, when 2.3 hectares were cleared; and the previous clearance, in 1986, involved 10.5 hectares. By way of comparison, the Christmas Island National Park covers some 3,270 hectares, or 17 per cent of the island. In line with the unique environmental and tourist potential of the island, I am considering a further extension of the national park, which will almost double its size. Hopefully, I can announce that and a plan of management for the enlarged area very shortly. Now that the Government-owned mine has ceased operation, the Government is under no obligation to allow clearance of any environmentally significant areas for the benefit of private companies. The Minister for the Arts and Territories, Mr Gary Punch, has received several expressions of interest in future mining and has indicated to the companies concerned that rainforest clearing will not be permitted. Some companies are able to comply with this requirement in developing their feasibility studies, as there are significant stockpiles of mined phosphate which they can clear and remove in an environmentally sensitive manner that will probably help with some of the rehabilitation work which must go on. Mr Punch has also received representations from environmental groups expressing concern at the possibility of environmental damage through future mining. Just yesterday he received a 14-page petition from Christmas Island residents commending his statement of 11 February concerning no further rainforest clearing. They expressed their delight at the Government's recognition of the importance of Christmas Island rainforests, and we see no reason why any more rainforest need go. Senator VALLENTINE —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for his comprehensive answer. I just seek a further assurance from him that the heavy earth-moving equipment that would be required to carry out the necessary rehabilitation of mined-out areas will be available for this work before being handed over to the liquidators of the Christmas Island phosphate company for disposal. Senator RICHARDSON —I am sure that it will be available but I will make doubly certain of that and will inform the honourable senator, hopefully tomorrow. Senator STONE —My question is directed to the Minister for Transport and Communications. I refer him to the attack by his colleague the Minister for Finance on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation campaign against funding cuts, which Senator Walsh described as an improper use of taxpayers' funds-I think quite justly so, if I may say so-and in particular to Senator Walsh's statement, `That an organisation allegedly strapped for cash can find money for these activities is bizarre'. Does the Minister agree that it is equally bizarre for Qantas Airways Ltd, a company which is 100 per cent owned by the taxpayers of Australia, to be devoting resources, through the employment of the Hon. Mick Young, to changing Government policy-that is, Australian Labor Party policy-on its ownership structure? Senator GARETH EVANS —The question once again is based on a totally false premise-that Qantas was planning, contemplating or in any other way proposing to employ Mr Young for that purpose. Qantas has made it perfectly clear in its Press release of yesterday that Mr Young's role will include advice on the following matters: to improve communication with all governments within Australia, including State governments; to assist in human resources development within the company; and to increase public understanding and awareness of the constraints, both national and international, on Qantas, in a period of exceptional opportunity for the company and Australia. I have made a comment about the potential relevance of all of that for the privatisation debate. Might I say from my own experience that many instances constantly arise where it would be advantageous to Qantas to have someone with the combination of skills and experience-in particular, communication skills-and a reputation and so on within State government circles, the trade union movement and elsewhere of the kind that Mr Young has. Let me give the Senate three quick examples. One is the excitement that arose in the latter part of last year when, almost to a person, the tourist industry spokesmen and aviation and travel writers responded to a campaign of disinformation waged by a number of international carriers seeking preferred access rights to Australia, claiming that there was a massive shortfall in capacity and that Qantas was standing in the way of those additional service rights being granted by reason of a protective attitude by that company and by the Government towards it. That was an exercise that needed a response, as it got, at the political level and at managerial level within the company, but it was an exercise of public communication and industry communication that could have been much assisted by someone of Mr Young's skills. That is one example. A second example is the kind of larger scale industrial relations issue which does not involve the resolution of particular disputes, which obviously can be well handled by the existing industrial relations machinery within a company such as Qantas, but which does involve larger issues of policy and an acceptance of change and so on on the part of the union organisations involved. Some of the productivity-based negotiations that Qantas, like everybody else, has been involved in in this respect suggest themselves as one such example. So, too, do the current issues that have arisen, both within the company and, indeed, in the community at large, about superannuation policy. Let me give the honourable senator a third example, again drawn from my own experience in this portfolio; and it would be an experience familiar to a number of people who make representations of this kind on behalf of particular States or capital cities. Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth are constantly complaining that they have insufficient access to direct air services internationally because, they allege, of Qantas's passion for protecting its routes and services from any degree of competition. The reality is that it is much more complex than that-the national interest considerations that have to be weighed and balanced against the competing claims that are made by particular airlines and the difficulties and issues that arise when one is allocating and negotiating air service agreements and capacity entitlements of this kind. There are issues that do involve input, not only from the Government and from the company in the sense of permanent personnel, but also from consultants who do have the kind of skills which Mr Young manifestly possesses in abundance. It is completely nonsensical to make the claim that has been made by Senator Stone, by Senator Messner earlier on and by a variety of other people, that the only conceivable justification for Mr Young's appointment was in the context of an issue which is not yet the subject of any Government policy, let alone Party policy, and which is not the subject of any particular view at this stage of Qantas itself. Senator STONE —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. In the light of the Minister's reply and, indeed, in the light of his earlier reply in Question Time this afternoon in answer to a question asked by Senator Messner, does he mean to tell us that he saw-and he said that he was first informed about this some weeks ago-and sees nothing at all improper in the course of action which was originally contemplated some weeks ago and, in due course, consummated, whether by Qantas or by his ex-ministerial colleague and at that time President of the Australian Labor Party, the Hon. Mick Young, in accepting a fee for providing the only services which the Hon. Mick Young could provide, namely, political services to Qantas? Senator GARETH EVANS —Again, Mr President, that supplementary question is based on a series of false premises which I simply do not accept. As such I will treat the question with the contempt that it deserves. Senator GIETZELT —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. Is it true that the buoyant state of the New South Wales economy has been an important factor in pushing the Commonwealth Budget into surplus? Will the Minister provide the Senate with information regarding the sensitivity of the Commonwealth Budget outcome to variations in the condition of the labour markets of the various States of the Commonwealth? Senator WALSH —The first part of the question was whether the economic performance in New South Wales has helped push the Commonwealth Budget into surplus. The answer to that is very definitely yes. I will give Senator Messner some details because I am very sure he will be interested in what I have to say. In the year ended February, total employment in New South Wales grew by an astounding 5.4 per cent, which was, not surprisingly, the highest rate of increase for any State. The rate of increase was some 2.2 percentage points above the national average of 3.2 per cent. Of course, a national average of 3.2 per cent is, in itself, a very high figure-a figure rarely achieved in Australia but which has been eclipsed very substantially by the astounding 5.4 per cent growth in New South Wales. Had the growth of employment in New South Wales been on the national average, instead of 2.2 percentage points above it, 155,000 fewer people would have been in employment. If only half of those had been on unemployment benefit-and that is a very conservative assumption-unemployment benefit payments would have been more than half a billion dollars higher than they in fact will be. On that very conservative assumption of only half of these additional employed people being taken off or prevented from going on unemployment benefit, that saved the Commonwealth Budget more than half a billion dollars-that is, $500m-in Commonwealth expenditure. It is a very conservative assumption because the growth of employment in New South Wales has been spectacularly higher than the high national average. We can look at this in another way. If New South Wales had the misfortune to be governed by the sort of government that Queensland has and consequently had a Queensland-style employment growth rate-that is, of 1.9 per cent-there would have been 90,000 fewer persons employed in New South Wales than there are today. The cost, if the whole 90,000 were on unemployment benefit, would be more than $600m. That does not tell the whole story as far as the Commonwealth Budget outcome is concerned. If people are employed instead of being on unemployment benefit there is a double whammy effect: first, they are paying taxes and, secondly, they are not drawing social security benefits. I have not attempted to quantify the amount of tax that those additional employed people in New South Wales would have paid, but it is likely to be very high-higher than one would expect-because of the extraordinary amount of overtime that is being worked in New South Wales. For the December quarter of 1987, compared with the December quarter of 1986, average overtime worked in New South Wales increased by nearly 25 per cent as against 3.9 per cent for the rest of Australia. Again, 3.9 per cent is not an unhealthy figure, but it looks a poor outcome compared with the spectacular growth in the overtime worked in New South Wales. Between the September quarter of 1986 and the December quarter of 1987 private sector job vacancies in New South Wales increased by 26 per cent. In the rest of Australia-which is handicapped by having States such as Queensland and Tasmania-the number of private sector job vacancies declined by 6.2 per cent. Therefore, it is impossible to quantify with precision the degree to which the astonishing employment growth in New South Wales, relative to the rest of the country, has contributed to the Commonwealth Budget going into surplus. Even on the most conservative assumptions it would have to be of the order of $1 billion and probably it is as high as $1.5 billion. Senator SHORT —I refer the Minister for Justice to the media statement by the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Temby, on 8 March in which he said: As a result of certain additional information which we received yesterday, it has been necessary to request the Australian Federal Police to undertake further investigations into the electoral donation by Harris Daishowa (Aust) Pty Ltd. I ask the Minister: First, what additional information was Mr Temby referring to and why was it not available at the time of the original investigation by the Australian Federal Police? Secondly, was this information received from the Australian Federal Police? Thirdly, if not, was it received from Australian Labor Party sources? If the answers to the second and third questions are both in the negative, from whom was it received? Finally, does the information relate in any way to Mr Mick Young's role in this matter? Senator TATE —I have been informed that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) requested the Australian Federal Police to undertake further investigations into the matter of the Harris-Daishowa (Australia) Pty Ltd donation. All I have seen is the statement for the media issued by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions and released, I think, on 8 March 1988. All it says is: As a result of certain additional information which we received yesterday, it has been necessary to request the Australian Federal Police to undertake further investigations into the electoral donation by Harris Daishowa (Aust) Pty Ltd. The DPP is not in a position to say what course will ultimately be taken until the further inquiries have been completed. Nor can we say how long that will take. The Government has not sought advice from the Director of Public Prosecutions and has no knowledge of what prompted the request for further inquiries. I have already indicated that it would be highly improper for me or any other Minister to seek to know what the Australian Federal Police, in its operational role, is undertaking by way of inquiries into this matter. The Australian Federal Police will make its report available to the Director of Public Prosecutions, with the further refinement and clarifications apparently sought on the basis of additional information which came into the knowledge of the Director of Public Prosecutions. I do not know how long that process will take and I can go no further than the media release of the DPP. Senator BEAHAN —My question is to the Minister for Finance. Has the Minister made any assessment of the cost if the promises made by Mr Greiner in the New South Wales State election campaign were implemented? If a similar increase in spending were applied to the other States, what would be the total addition to spending by the States? Are there any precedents for promises of increases in expenditure in either the Commonwealth or any of the States? What would be the effect on the Commonwealth Budget if Mr Greiner's promises were implemented? Senator Chaney —I take a point of order, Mr President. In light of the longstanding hypocrisy of the Government on these issues, when it professes an expert knowledge of what is being done by Liberal or non-Labor administrations and total and absolute ignorance of what has been done by Labor administrations-such as the Burke Administration, which pledged $150m worth of taxpayers' money, and has thrown a lot more money down the drain on behalf of Western Australian taxpayers-and that extraordinary double standard, which is constantly evidenced by this Minister, can I draw your attention to the fact that the early part of the question-- Senator Gareth Evans —On a point of order, Mr President: Is it in order-- Senator Chaney —Biggles, I am on a point of order. Senator Gareth Evans —Well, my point of order-- Senator Chaney —Well, you cannot take a point of order on a point of order, you silly ass. Senator Gareth Evans —is that it is not a point of order to behave in an offensive and vulgar fashion. The PRESIDENT —Order! I believe it is in order to take a point of order on a point of order. Senator Gareth Evans —I am indebted to you, Mr President. That was the advice that I had sought and received from the Clerk. Senator Chaney —In that case I will take a point of order on the Minister. We can keep that going all day, if you like, Mr President. The PRESIDENT —Order! I will listen to Senator Evans's point of order. Senator Gareth Evans —My point of order is: Is it in order, Mr President, in the guise of making a point of order, to make a series of vulgar allegations about hypocrisy, cant, opportunism and all the rest of the things that Senator Chaney has said without coming to the point of his point of order? The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. I listened to Senator Chaney and I do not think he broke any of the Standing Orders. Senator Chaney —Thank you, Mr President, I was very careful not to break any of the Standing Orders and I thank you for that ruling. My point is that I submit that the early part of the question was clearly out of order. In a formal sense part of it was brought into order at the end of the question, but I ask you to restrict the Minister to those parts of the question which are in order, and to avoid this abuse of Question Time. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. The Minister is entitled to answer a question which the Minister accepts as in his area of responsibility, and I ask him to do that in answering this question. Senator WALSH —Of course, it is of considerable interest to the Commonwealth Government what the level of State government spending is and what the level of fiscal responsibility or irresponsibility is of State governments. I was asked three quite precise questions seeking answers of fact, and finally a more general question of what effect Mr Greiner's promised programs would have on the Commonwealth Budget if they were implemented. The first question was: has an assessment of the cost of Mr Greiner's promises been made? The answer is yes, an assessment has been made and it was spelt out in great detail-I table the relevant Press release and attached documents-by the Treasurer and me about 12 days ago at a Press conference in Sydney. Promises of $1.43 billion in additional expenditure proposals have been dribbled out by Mr Greiner to particular vested interests and pressure groups over the last six months or so. I understand that since then, in the last 10 days, an additional $270m worth of promises have dribbled out from the New South Wales machine. I am unable to give details of that $270m. However, leaving aside that additional $270m for which I cannot provide precise details, costing assumptions and parameters, if all the States were to go on a spending binge of the size proposed by Mr Greiner in New South Wales there would be an increase in total State government spendings of $4 billion-an extra $4 billion. I understand that Mr Greiner has asserted that the costings in the document produced by Mr Keating and me are not correct. However, he has not attempted to disprove any of the specific items which are costed in that document, for the very good reason that he cannot do so. Even if there were people in the Liberal Party who were numerate-I must say that the evidence over the last 12 months or so is not supportive of that-they could not challenge significantly those costings. That is why Mr Greiner has not tried to do so; he has just tried to dismiss the entire document. I regret to say that some sections of the media have so far allowed him to get away with it. So there is the $1.43 billion and an extra $270m, not specified by the Treasurer or me anyway, making a total of $1.7 billion. I was asked whether there are precedents for promises of increases in expenditure of this magnitude by the Commonwealth or other States. I am aware of two precedents. One is the $8 billion worth of tax cuts promised by the Federal Opposition in the last election campaign, which were not matched by expenditure cuts, and the other is the notorious 1982 Budget, the last Budget which the discredited former Treasurer brought down, which had no economic strategy; it was just a political strategy aimed at buying up every pressure group and vested interest that could be identified-just as Mr Greiner is doing now-leaving us with a prospective Budget deficit of $10 billion. Honourable senators need not take my word for that; they can take Senator Stone's word for it. I can quote him, if honourable senators would like me to do so. Senator Stone said that Mr Howard's last Budget was an explosion of spending without precedent in peacetime. Mr Greiner is going down the same way. It is coincidental, I believe, that the forward estimates of expenditure which the Fraser Government left behind had built into them, with no policy changes, an 8 per cent real increase in the first out-year and a 14 per cent increase in the second year. Mr Greiner has gone a bit beyond that. If he actually proceeded with all the promises that he has made for increased spending, his real increase in spending would be somewhat above 8 per cent, on the 1987-88 base, which is marginally down, in real terms, on the year preceding that. Finally, I was asked what effect the proposals, if implemented, would have on the Commonwealth Budget. They would have no direct effect on the outlay side of the Budget because I have already stated that if Mr Greiner is elected and proceeds with that wild spending spree, he will not be bailed out of the fiscal hole into which New South Wales will fall by the Commonwealth Government or by any enhanced payments from the Commonwealth Budget. So the proposals will have no direct effect on Commonwealth Budget outlays. If Mr Greiner proceeds with such a policy, the people of New South Wales will just have to put up with it-should they be misguided enough to elect him. A possibility, if the policy were to be implemented, is that New South Wales government taxes and charges would have to be increased to offset the $1.43 to $1.7 billion additional expenditure. The effect of that would be to push up substantially the inflation rate in New South Wales, which would have repercussions for both the revenue and the outlay sides of the Commonwealth Budget. It is a bit difficult to judge how they would finally balance out. Senator LEWIS —My question to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce concerns work bans by clerks in the Australian Customs Service on the processing of diesel fuel rebate claims which have stopped the payment of claims. Is the Minister aware that the bans have been in place now for over three weeks? Is the Minister aware that the bans have held up the reimbursement of over $40m to about 10,000 claimants around Australia and that the amount is growing daily? Is the Minister aware that this delay in reimbursing legitimate claims is causing great financial hardship to small primary producers, many of whom are already suffering considerable financial hardship? Will the Minister intervene to ensure speedy resolution of the dispute which has led to the bans? Will the Government pay interest on the outstanding amounts to recompense producers for the financial hardship caused by the bans? Senator BUTTON —I am aware of the existence of bans in the diesel fuel rebate section of the Customs Service. I am not aware of all the details which Senator Lewis alleges in his question. I will seek information about those matters. I think it unlikely that the Commonwealth would pay interest on any outstanding rebates. Senator Panizza —We have to pay interest if we don't pay our taxes on time, though. Senator BUTTON —If Senator Panizza is in favour of that he could certainly advance that view in the Senate. I think it unlikely that the Government would do that. As soon as I obtain some further information, I will provide Senator Lewis with a more detailed answer. Senator BURNS —I refer the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce to Press reports in recent months about the possible involvement of the Queensland Government in a deal to develop a coal-fired power plant in Turkey and the more recent statement by the Queensland Premier that his Government no longer wished to take a major role in the project. What action has the Commonwealth Government taken to assist the bid by the consortium led by SEAPAC, a Sydney-based consulting and infrastructure project promoting company, to build a power plant and a deep water port in Turkey? Senator Chaney —They have asked the Greiner government to help. Senator BUTTON —The first thing that can be said in answer to the question and in reply to the interjection as to whether we will ask a Greiner government to help, is that we will not. That is a figment of Senator Chaney's imagin- ation which will probably remain so. The proposed consortium is in a position to take advantage of a very substantial opportunity in Turkey. It is a large project which offers substantial opportunity for both Australian equipment and coal suppliers. The consortium is certainly to be complimented for its success to date in securing this project against strong international competition. I should say that the Queensland Government under the leadership of the former Premier had undertaken to take a significant equity position in the venture to secure a long term coal market for Queensland coal producers. The Queensland Government, as led by Mr Ahern, has re-assessed its position and has announced that it is no longer able to take the major role previously envisaged. Senator Parer —You know why? Senator BUTTON —Yes. It is not, I believe, appropriate for the Australian Government to provide direct equity assistance for projects of this kind. That is probably the role of the private sector and those who might benefit directly from the projects. At the same time there are various other forms of assistance which might be available to support SEAPAC in its efforts to maintain maximum Australian involvement in the project. The Government will continue to examine these as appropriate. I must say that recently some interest has been expressed in the project by a number of corporations in other States. The Queensland Government, although clearly not interested in a significant equity position, has a continuing interest in the project. It is possible that it will proceed, but based only on its commercial merits. Senator PANIZZA —My question is directed to the Minister for Transport and Communications. Will the Minister inform me whether Australian National is negotiating with Westrail regarding the takeover of the Kalgoorlie-Perth standard gauge railway line? If so, what stage are the negotiations at or, in fact, is the takeover a fait accompli? Senator GARETH EVANS —Some discussions, which were initiated by Mr Duncan when he was Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support, are going on about the rationalisation of the operations in Western Australia of Australian National and Westrail. Because that is a matter that has now been taken over by Mr Peter Morris and one with which I am not dealing personally, I am not sure what stage those discussions have reached. I shall seek information from my colleague and let the honourable senator know as soon as possible. Senator PANIZZA —I ask a supplementary question. When the Minister has obtained that information, will he inform the Senate why a rail administration, at a main centre along the line, has already been issued with Australian National stationery in the form of work sheets? Will the Minister obtain that information as well? Senator GARETH EVANS —Yes, I shall be delighted to do so. Senator FOREMAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources. I draw the Minister's attention to an article in the Australian Financial Review of Wednesday, 24 February entitled `Mining production goes up 14 per cent in December quarter'. That article states that the increased production should earn a further $1.5 billion for Australia in 1987. The article states also that the industry has greatly benefited from an end to unnecessary work practices, a reduction in industrial disputation and a capacity to adapt to demand production. My question is: Can the Minister confirm the substance of this report? Is the Minister of the view that, despite record low prices for some ores, the mining industry is adopting a strategy which is helping Australian exports? Senator COOK —I have not seen the article to which Senator Foreman refers, but since he has drawn my attention to it I will, of course, acquaint myself with it in detail. Given the background to his question, there are some aspects of his question to which I can reply. It is true that in the last period for which figures have been published Australia exported record volumes of commodities from mining. It is true also that most of those commodities have been exported into an oversupplied world market and that in order for Australia to be more competitive in that world market we need to improve our efficiencies in all the inputs into the mining process. Senator Foreman asked about work practices. I think there is a case for introducing improved work and managerial practices in the mining industry. I hope that that is one of the things that we will see evolve and develop out of the second tier wage discussions and whatever form of wage fixation arrangements are decided upon in the future. Senator PARER —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education and Training. The Minister will be aware of the fact that Queensland has the highest student retention rate to year 12 of any State of Australia at 58 per cent, when the national average is lower than 50 per cent. However, at the same time it has the lowest participation rate in tertiary education in the country. For example, in 1987, 37.2 per cent of those in the age bracket below 20 missed out on participation in tertiary education in Queensland, with the State coming closest to that figure being New South Wales at 28.2 per cent and with Tasmania at only 8.3 per cent. In view of the fact that the Federal Government has total responsibility for the funding of universities and colleges of advanced education and that this Government has had this responsibility for the last five years, why has it continued to dump Queensland school leavers to such an extent that, through lack of Federal Government funding, considerably fewer of them than their equivalents in other States are able to attain a tertiary education? When and to what extent will the Government act to correct this blatant discrimination against young Queenslanders? Senator WALSH —I reject the rhetorical flourish at the end of the question. I think Senator Parer said in his question that participation in tertiary education in Queensland is the lowest of all the States in Australia. I am not sure whether that is correct, but I am well aware of the fact that it is low and it has long been so. That is the result of many things. I think in particular, going back over an extremely long period, so long that it is even before a National Party or Country Party government, back to Labor administrations in the 1930s and 1940s and continued by National and Country Party administrations since 1957, it is the result of a neglect-I do not think that is too strong a word-of primary and secondary education, and an ethos has developed in Queensland out of that. In regard to the final part of the question, I accept that this Government has been in office for five years and it is not defensible to go on blaming predecessors over a very long period for everything that is wrong. But the implication of Senator Parer's question is that this Government has taken no steps, or has not put in place any policies, to correct that imbalance. That is not true. I do not have the figures with me now but I think three weeks ago I answered a question in the Senate in which I gave details and specific numbers of the more rapid rate of increase, in percentage terms, in students taking part in tertiary education in Queensland than in any other State-certainly well above the national average. If Senator Parer wants those figures I can get them I think within a day or two and supply them to him. We are not saying that parity with the rest of Australia has been restored but, because of the deliberate policies of this Government, it is moving in that direction. Senator ZAKHAROV —Has the Minister for Consumer Affairs seen Press reports indicating that show bags containing so-called victim toys may be sold at the forthcoming Sydney show? What action is the Government taking to protect children from these toys? Senator BOLKUS —I have seen one Press report in the Sydney Sun-Herald indicating that it may be that victim toys will be appearing in show bags at the Sydney show this weekend. For the information of the Senate I should just read one paragraph of that report: The Dr Disgusting bag, for $6, with its stickers of `garbage pail kids'-One Eyed Jack and Brutal Brad-and the rubber vomit, passed the test. Senator Robert Ray —Sounds like a Queensland National Party team. Senator BOLKUS —I take Senator Ray's point that it might have some reference to honourable senators on the other side of the chamber. Being serious about this problem, victim toys are-- Senator Chaney —Mr President, I take a point of order. Since the interjection has been incorporated in Hansard I ask for a withdrawal. I would not have taken a point of order had it not been incorporated. The PRESIDENT —I ask that it be withdrawn. Senator Robert Ray —It is certainly withdrawn. Senator BOLKUS —I did not think there was any reference to ferocious Fred in the bag. Victim toys are those that depict physical injury, mutilation or deformity. The Government has for some time been concerned that these toys may be available on the market. In early August 1987, the then Minister for Consumer Affairs approached importers and the major distributors requesting them seriously to consider stopping the distribution and sale of those toys. Following that period from August 1987 an inquiry was set up by the Government headed by the Hon. R. G. Reynolds, QC, a retired judge of the New South Wales Supreme Court, and chairman of the legislative committee of the Child Accident Prevention Foundation of Australia. He has also been involved in child accident prevention and law reform. The members of the committee were drawn from consumer organisation, toy manufacturers, industry associations and other interested groups. The committee proceeded on the basis of calling for public submissions and reported to the then Minister on 23 December 1987. The committee formed the view that victim toys would affect some children in one or more of a number of specifically undesirable or anti-social ways. However, the committee's major concern was to see whether the damage to children could be taken within the provisions of the Trade Practices Act, which is limited to action against consumer goods presenting physical injury hazards and did not cover psychological injury. Faced with this problem the committee then had two alternatives from which to proceed. It chose the one of self-regulation and, as a first step towards this self-regulatory process, drafted guidelines which were approved by the Australian Retailers Association and the Australian Toy Association Pty Ltd, which together cover some 98 per cent of all toy retailers in Australia. Those regulations were also accepted by the Government. The Government made it clear at the time that we would monitor this self-regulation process over the next 12 months to ascertain its effectiveness. The concern the Government now has, particularly as a consequence of this article and evidence that is coming to the Department, as I am informed, is that the situation may be that victim toys are being promoted, and may be promoted, contrary to the self-regulatory process. As a consequence of this the Government has written to the retailers involved in the show alerting them to the self-regulatory agreement in the first instance and also alerting them to the fact that the Government is concerned that if the self-regulation process is not successful, at the end of the trial period the Government may have to consider introducing legislation under the Trade Practices Act to ban such products. I should say in closing that the Government is not here making an assessment of what is good or bad taste. However, the Government has a major concern about psychological damage to children in the community. Senator BUTTON —Earlier today Senator Lewis asked me a question about disputes in the diesel fuel rebate processing section of the Australian Customs Service. Senator Lewis is probably aware that the dispute involves a decision to centralise the processing of diesel fuel claims in one location. That decision follows an Efficiency Scrutiny Unit report obtained last year. There has been considerable industrial unrest about the matter. The Australian Customs Service has again referred the matter to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, and a hearing is listed for tomorrow. I hope that that hearing will lead to a resolution of the dispute. If so, of course, many of the more colourful aspects of Senator Lewis's question will be taken care of. Senator Watson —Mr President, could I move that the Senate take note of the statement? The PRESIDENT —I do not think the Minister has finished the statement at this stage. Senator BUTTON —Perhaps we could take note of half of it. Senator Lewis raised a number of issues about the effects of the industrial action. I do not dissent from the view implicit in what the honourable senator said about some of the unfortunate consequences of that action. However, I hope there will be an early resolution of the matter. Senator BUTTON —Senator Macklin asked me a question today about participation by South Africans at a bicentennial gold conference in Melbourne on 18 to 20 May. As I recall Senator Macklin's question it was suggested that a large number of South Africans will participate, and that most of the participants are executives of gold mining companies. I am advised-and at this stage I am giving limited information only-that the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs is aware of about 50 applications from South African mining experts, mostly academics and technical experts, to participate in the conference. All of these applications are being considered on a case by case basis in accordance with the Australian Government's policy of limiting official and other contact with South Africa. However, given South Africa's position as the world's major gold producer, the Government accepts that representation from that country is desirable and appropriate. Senator GARETH EVANS —On 18 February I replied to a question from Senator Maguire about a global display at the Jimmy Carter Presidential Library in Atlanta, Georgia, which indicated that nuclear weapons are stationed in Australia. I said at the time that the location of a couple of light bulbs on a map in the Jimmy Carter museum does not seem, on the face of it, to count for very much by way of evidence. Nonetheless, I asked that the matter be followed up by the Australian Embassy in Washington, and the embassy has been in contact with the Director of the library to see whether he knows anything that we do not know. I now advise the honourable senator that the Director has advised that the global display had been constructed for the library by a `museum company' but that the library now recognised that errors had been made. The Director undertook to remove from the display indications that nuclear weapons were stationed in Australia. Senator GARETH EVANS —On 22 February Senator Hamer asked me a question about the differences in the cost of container handling between union-approved depots and non-union depots. I undertook at that time to provide the honourable senator with further information, which I now seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Industrial agreements dating from the early days of containerisation in Australia in the late 1960s have led to the development of two types of container depots handling less-than-full container load (LCL) shipments of cargo so called ``international'' depots which employ Waterside Workers Federation (WWF) clerks and either Federated Storemen and Packers Union or WWF operational employees. This type of depot packs and unpacks any international LCL shipments. trans-Tasman depots which employ members of the Transport Workers Union and handle LCL shipments associated with the trans-Tasman trade In addition a small number of containers are unpacked at conventional common user wharves (such as Darling Harbour in Sydney) by WWF labour. While both types of depots also handle some full-container-load (FCL) shipments, these are generally packed or unpacked at the consignee or consignor's premises. Over 85% of containers passing through Australian wharves are FCL's. A survey of depot charges undertaken by the then Bureau of Transport Economics in 1985 on behalf of the Industry Task Force on Shore Based Shipping Costs found charges for packing and unpacking LCL containers at international depots ranged from $500 to $600 per container whereas charges made at trans-Tasman depots ranged from $300 to $400 per container. A further survey undertaken by the Waterfront Industry Committee's Melbourne Working Party in 1987 found a similar relativity in charges. about $600 per container for packing and unpacking at international depots about $250 and $300 per container respectively for packing and unpacking at trans-Tasman depots The cost differentials reflect differences in the cargo handling operations and nature of cargo handled at each type of depot and the higher labour cost structure in international depots. Some initiatives have already been undertaken by industry to address the inefficiencies in the international depot sector. With the agreement of the Waterside Workers' Federation innovative employment arrangements involving more flexible working arrangements and providing incentives for increased efficiency have been in operation in two Melbourne depots for some time. These arrangements are reported to have led to substantial improvements in labour productivity at those facilities. Similar arrangements have recently been introduced at a further Melbourne container depot and at a Sydney depot. Like many areas of the waterfront however it is unrealistic to expect quick or easy fixes to arrangements which have so long received the tacit endorsement of Governments, employers and other interested parties, in the context of a particular short term problem. The Government's Waterfront Strategy is aimed at addressing the underlying causes of these problems through the development of a broad package of measures to achieve substantial improvements in waterfront performance. The Structural Adjustment Committee of Cabinet met with major participants in the Waterfront Strategy on 17 February 1988 to review progress in the Strategy. The Committee noted that, while there were substantial problems continuing on the waterfront, very real progress had been achieved already in a number of areas including both productivity based container depot operations and joint venture initiatives undertaken by the Waterside Workers' Federation at smaller ports in Queensland, Victoria and Tasmania. In some cases, these had halved the cost of stevedoring grain and other cargoes. As a result of its discussions with industry participants the Committee felt there was now a firm basis to anticipate that the Strategy would result in agreement by the end of the year to a broad package of measures to achieve significant improvements in waterfront and port efficiency productivity and reliability. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —On 25 February 1988 the Senate passed a number of resolutions relating to privilege matters which I moved. Unfortunately, due to ministerial commitments, I had to leave the chamber before the end of the debate and I was therefore not able to respond to a number of questions, essentially on technical matters, asked by honourable senators during that debate. I now seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard the responses to those questions that were put to me. Leave granted. The document read as follows- (1) Senator Puplick asked (Hansard, p. 634) whether there would be any difference between publication of a response by a person named in the Senate and incorporation of the response in Hansard. The only difference between the two methods is that when a document is ordered to be published by resolution of the Senate copies are distributed by the Table Office to the normal list of recipients or other inquirers, but the text does not appear in Hansard. It is envisaged that in particular circumstances, e.g., if a response were of considerable length or, possibly, a considerable time had elapsed since the debate in the Senate, the Senate may think it appropriate that the response be published rather than incorporated in Hansard. (2) Senator Puplick asked (Hansard p. 634) whether a response published or incorporated in Hansard would attract absolute privilege. A response published or incorporated would attract absolute privilege; that is why the rules provide that a response be succinct and strictly relevant and not contain anything offensive in character. (3) Senator Cooney asked (Hansard p.636) about the appropriateness of considering whether a person had a reasonable excuse for committing an act which might be a contempt in relation to such offences as obstructing the Senate in the performance of its functions. Resolution 3 merely indicates that the Senate will consider whether any defence of reasonable excuse is available. Of course, there may be contempts which, by their nature, exclude any defence of reasonable excuse (e.g., threatening a witness), but that does not prevent the Senate from considering whether such a defence is available. (4) Senator Cooney asked (Hansard p. 637) whether questions as to a witness's credit would be regarded as relevant to a matter under inquiry by a committee. As Senator Durack pointed out, the question of whether a question is relevant would be determined in the first instance by the committee. A committee may well regard questions as to the credit of a witness as relevant, depending on the circumstances, but it would be for the committee to decide, subject to any direction by the Senate. The same answer applies to a question asked by Senator Harradine (Hansard p. 368) concerning relevance of questions. (5) Senator Harradine questioned (Hansard pp. 638 and 639) the inclusion of the expression ``improperly influence'' in the list of matters which may be treated as contempts. Resolution 6, as its terms indicate, is intended to give some guidance as to matters which may be treated as contempts. It is in the nature of the offence concerned that it is not possible to specify in advance all methods of influencing Senators which may be regarded as improper. It is analogous to such statutory offences as attempting to pervert the course of justice. (6) Senator Harradine asked (Hansard p. 638) whether the existence of another remedy for an act which may be held to be a contempt, in the criteria to be taken into account when determining matters relating to contempts, refers to the ability to sue a person for an act which may be held to be a contempt. The criterion does refer to the availability of any civil or criminal remedy, but it does not follow that, as Senator Harradine suggested, no account will be taken of a matter because a civil or criminal remedy is available; it is merely a matter to be considered. (7) Senator Haines referred (Hansard pp. 639 and 640) to the inclusion in the list of matters which may be treated as contempts of the references to influencing Senators and Senators seeking benefits in return for the discharge of their parliamentary duties. That these statements may be too broadly worded was suggested in the explanatory notes accompanying the draft resolutions. Again it must be stressed, however, that Resolution 6 is simply an indication, for the guidance of the public, of matters which may be treated as contempts. The resolution does not commit the Senate Committee to treat any particular matters as contempts, nor does it affect the ability of the Senate to judge particular cases on their merits and according to circumstances. The resolution therefore does not create any difficulties or give rise to any questions which did not exist before the resolution was passed. Senator Lewis-Mr President, I wish to clarify a matter. In the course of a supplementary answer which Senator Button was giving to me, Senator Watson sought leave to move that the Senate take note of the Minister's statement. Senator Button, as I understood it, granted leave at that stage. Is it the ruling that leave was granted and that Senator Watson so moved at that stage, so that, in effect, Senator Button made two statements, or should I now seek leave to move the motion? The PRESIDENT —It might be tidier if you seek leave, because I do not think Senator Watson sought leave at all at that stage. Senator Button-Mr President, if I might give you my version of what happened, I think Senator Watson, in an unseemly fit of enthusiasm, leapt to his feet and interrupted what I was saying. Discovering at the time that he had projected himself into something which he had to withdraw from, he then withdrew. I am quite happy for Senator Watson's motion to be accepted now and for it to relate to the whole of the answer. The PRESIDENT —I thought that my recollection of the matter was correct. Senator Watson did not formally seek leave at all. Senator WATSON(Tasmania) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) to a question without notice asked by Senator Lewis this day. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(3.33) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The 1986-87 annual report of the Parliament House Construction Authority has now been tabled in this place. Whilst welcoming that, I draw attention to the fact that it is overdue by many months. That is a very unfortunate situation, given the importance of this report as the Parliament House Construction Authority moves towards the completion of its number one objective, namely, the construction of the new Parliament House, which is to be officially opened on 9 May. Unfortunately, the report has not been available to the Senate during our recent debates on the progress of the Parliament House construction, the last such debate having been held as recently as a couple of weeks ago. Whilst pointing out the lateness of the report, I link my remarks to those that were made by me and by other senators on this side of the House in the Senate on 18 February. I do not propose to go over all those points again, but I wish to make one or two points. Last week radio station 2GB presented a broadcast, with Mike Carlton as the host, from the new Parliament House, in which interviews were conducted with various persons associated with the building. I was one of those who spoke and I have since received criticism from the Chief Executive of the Construction Authority, Mr Peatey, about my remarks during that broadcast. I wish to take this opportunity of commenting in the Senate on my remarks, because they go to many of the matters that are dealt with in the annual report before us at the moment. The first point that I was making last week in my comments on the House during the Mike Carlton interview was that I believe that we are going to finish up with a quite magnificent building which will be a matter of great pride for the Australian people for generations to come. I have no criticism at all of the building in that sense. But what I find surprising is that the Government and the Construction Authority appear to be so sensitive to any suggestion that we could have got the quality building that we are undoubtedly going to get at a lesser cost. That point of criticism has been made on this side of the Parliament and by others over a considerable period. I have been taken to task on that matter by the Chief Executive, Mr Peatey, as have other members of the Senate from the Liberal and National parties. It is a fact that the Opposition's Waste Watch Committee, which was chaired so very well and diligently by my colleague Senator Michael Baume and of which I had the pleasure and privilege to be a member, has been very highly critical of many aspects of the financing of the project in terms of waste and inefficiencies. They have been documented time and time again. So also have the very considerable costs in the area of industrial disputation and related matters been brought to the Parliament's attention by the Opposition committee on rorts, which is so well chaired by my colleague Senator Parer. The criticisms are not just from this side of the Parliament. What is ignored all too often are the very trenchant criticisms that have been aimed by the Auditor-General at management practices, inefficiencies and wastes in the project period and by other committees such as the Parliamentary Joint Committee of Public Accounts. I regret that the Authority and the Government have refused to accept-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(3.38) —This belated annual report for a year that ended last June, which we are now debating in March, is, regrettably, another document of which the Parliament House Construction Authority should be ashamed. Among the many matters of concern in this report is a paragraph on page 11 which alleges that criticisms by the Opposition's Waste Watch Committee: . . . were largely ill-informed and unfounded and were a matter of deep concern to the Authority in that they posed a serious threat to the bi-partisan nature of the project which had been a feature at its inception. That is utter bunkum. It is dishonest. I challenge the members of the Parliament House Construction Authority and the person who signed this document to indicate any error of substance made by the Waste Watch Committee in its hordes of allegations, all of which were substantiated, all of which were documented and none of which have been effectively countered by the mountains of paper that have been put out by the Parliament House Construction Authority. As Senator Short said, none of us on this side of the chamber cavil at the concept of or complain about the quality of the building, but we do complain about the quality of the management and, I might say, the Government intervention, which has resulted in enormous increases to the cost of that building which are unjustifiable and disgraceful. As I said, I challenge the Parliament House Construction Authority to establish one substantial item of error to substantiate this dishonest and nonsensical comment in its annual report. The major thrust of the Waste Watch Committee's complaints was the total and disgraceful lack of cost control over the four years of the construction phase of that project. The Authority has belatedly introduced a system only as a result of an inquiry by an independent adviser from the United Kingdom who pointed out in a biting report the disgraceful lack of cost control and the enormous volume of unsatisfied claims that was emerging out of what clearly was an unsatisfactory management system. I pointed out in the first major Opposition Waste Watch Committee report the enormous volumes of items such as cement that were going into much smaller holes. I outlined the enormous cost overruns on individual contracts such as plumbing contracts. I documented every allegation that I made. I still await a coherent and effective response which would support the nonsensical and dishonest statement in the report that in fact the criticisms were largely ill-informed and unfounded. The Auditor-General agreed with me and my committee. I must say that if this is the quality and nature of this annual report some doubt must be cast on some of the other claims made in the report. In particular, I am concerned about the industrial relations situation on the New Parliament House site. The report states: The strikes between February and April and the slow return of the work force following resolution of the dispute caused major delays. The Authority claims that the great bulk of the industrial problems suffered last year resulted from national strikes. Let me remind the Senate of the enormous list of strikes that we received during Senate Estimates committee hearings. That list included strikes which were specifically and solely related to this site. This is despite the fact that something like $350,000 a year of Government money is being spent to pay for industrial organisers-union organisers-on that site. In 1984 this extraordinary gesture was made to try to bring about industrial peace at a cost of $350,000 a year-a cost per union organiser of $44,000. Union organisers' pay is being met by the Commonwealth Government further to facilitate, apparently, the organising of strikes on the site. No doubt it has been claimed that the strike situation would have been even worse had it not been for that arrangement. All I want to say is this: it is astounding to me-and it was astounding to Senator Robert Ray when I raised this matter briefly last year-that this situation should apply. Senator Robert Ray said that it is not an ideal way of doing business. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator PARER(Queensland)(3.43) —I also would like to refer to the annual report of the Parliament House Construction Authority, late as it is. From what I hear, I understand that the report was ready some time before Christmas but because of some fact known by other people-I do not know the reason-it has only now come forward. Like Senator Michael Baume, I would also like to refer to the Authority's comments on page 11 of its report. The Authority makes reference to the continued barrage of criticism of the project during the year by the Opposition's Waste Watch Committee which it claims was largely ill-informed and unfounded. One wonders about the credibility of this report when the Authority has its facts wrong on that point. Certainly my colleague Senator Michael Baume highlighted many items in the waste watch area. The Parliament House Construction Authority wants to attack only Senator Michael Baume. It does not even have the wit to recognise that there are two areas of criticism-one from Senator Michael Baume's Waste Watch Committee and the other from my restrictive work practices report on the construction industry. Honourable senators on both sides of the House with any sort of sensibility are very much aware of and concerned about the matters raised in this report. Some seven of the 32 pages of the report referred to the Parliament House Construction Authority. We drew attention to the new Parliament House because it is a major issue which involves a large amount of taxpayers' money. We have responsibilities in this place to draw attention to areas of concern and waste. If we did not do that, we would not be exercising our responsibilities as senators in the Parliament of Australia. I concentrated on the restrictive work practices area. I took the view that this problem was endemic in Australia and that we had to be more conscious of it because over $1 billion of taxpayers' money was involved. The report of the Authority states: The industrial climate on site this year was on the whole calm and productive, with the most disruptive and costly industrial action being taken as a result of industry rather than site issues. Senator Baume has questioned that; I would also question it. When one flips across to page 22, one finds the following remarks: The level of industrial disputation continued at approximately the same overall rate as in 1985/86. From about August 1985 to about August 1987-which are the two years to which the Authority refers-that site was idle because of industrial disputation, on average, for one week in every month. If the Parliament House Construction Authority and the Construction Manager believe that the industrial climate on site was on the whole calm and productive, God knows what would have been the case if it had not been calm and productive. There was an industrial dispute for one week of every month for 24 months-for two years. Yet, the Authority has the audacity and the cheek to put out a report to try to hoodwink people into believing that the industrial position was calm and productive. Of all things, the word `productive' was used. Yet we drew attention to the sort of rorts that went on across the board. For instance, it was claimed that the climbing time on cranes was two hours a day when the time taken was 45 seconds. When I raised this matter with the Construction Manager, he said, `You are wrong. It is not two hours a day-it is only one hour a day overtime'. Not only that; when the men were not working on cranes they were paid, with taxpayers' money, for one hour's climbing time to climb into a forklift. The other comment I want to make-and Senator Michael Baume alluded to this-is that taxpayers have been footing the bill for eight full time union delegates on site costing over $350,000 a year. When I raised that with the Construction Manager he said, `Yes, this is because there are eight unions on site'. That is not true. I have since discovered that a granite contractor who had 30 employees on site was compelled to pay a union delegate $44,000 a year. This delegate worked for the union and was not employed by the granite operator. I wonder what I can believe. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(3.48) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The Official Establishments Trust is charged with the duty of looking after the Governor-General's residences and the Lodge and Kirribilli House. I wish simply to concentrate my brief remarks on the Lodge and Kirribilli House. The Waste Watch Committee pointed out, in the first instance, the year before last, the extraordinary amounts of money which were being used on capital works and other works in both the Lodge and Kirribilli House, which the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) had declared to be of such an urgent nature that they should proceed despite the belt tightening that the rest of Australia was obliged to undergo. I refer particularly to Kirribilli House because there is no doubt that substantial restoration work has been required at Kirribilli House since the Fraser Government noted it in 1977-78. Why this restoration work, which was outlined at that time, should suddenly become urgent in 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987 and now 1988 apparently relates to the increased usage of that place by the Prime Minister himself. We note that the report says that stage 2 of the restoration program was completed during 1986-87 at a cost of just under half a million dollars. This work included repairs and reslating of the roof, the installation of damp-proof courses, repairs to walls, floors and ceilings and repairs to electrical and hydraulic services. The report goes on: As a consequence of this work a number of rooms have been seriously affected and will need attention. The Trust will be recommending to the Government that plans be developed for their redecoration with work to commence towards the end of 1987 in order to have the residence in sufficient order in 1988, including for visiting guests of Government. We have already seen in the Senate Estimates committees that something like a quarter of a million dollars was to be spent this year and no doubt when we look at the Supplementary Estimates next month we will find out just how much money has been allocated for this year. No doubt it will be more than a quarter of a million dollars. What intrigues me is that it is suggested here that the reason this work became urgent was for visiting guests of government at Kirribilli House. In these circumstances, it would be appropriate if the Government advised the Senate how many visiting guests of government used Kirribilli House and on how many occasions it was used by the Prime Minister as his Sydney residence? There is no doubt that since Mr Hawke became Prime Minister, the primary function of Kirribilli House has not been use by visiting guests of government. In fact, Kirribilli House is regarded by this Prime Minister as his perk of office in Sydney. After all, it does have quite nice views which would be enhanced if the Prime Minister got his way and had the Royal Australian Navy removed to Jervis Bay. Senator Stone —And he does not pay fringe benefits tax on it, either. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —As Senator Stone says, he does not pay fringe benefits tax on it. To my mind, it is a matter of some concern that this building which, under the previous Government had been used basically for the purpose of entertaining visiting heads of government, is now regarded as a perk of this Prime Minister. The Government has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in making it acceptable and bringing it up to his level of accommodation. After all, he has a high standard of accommodation requirement. He spent $250,000 redecorating five rooms in The Lodge last year. He does set high standards, no matter what the cost and no matter what the impact on the taxpayer of that cost. I would be grateful if the Government would provide us with figures as to the usage of Kirribilli House by visiting guests of the Government during this bicentennial year compared with the usage by the Prime Minister of what he regards as his private Sydney residence. I shall certainly seek those answers in Estimates committees. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory)(3.53) —I do not seek to turn this into a debate but we have just heard a mewling, puking, contribution from Senator Michael Baume. The reality is that Kirribilli House is the private Sydney residence of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). Senator Michael Baume —That is a good admission. Senator COLLINS —Well, it is. Senator Michael Baume —That is not what it says here. Senator COLLINS —What nonsense! The question of whether Kirribilli House is used by visiting guests of government or by the Prime Minister-as he is absolutely entitled to do-as his official residence, which indeed is what it is, is not relevant. I do not know how many visits Senator Baume has paid to Kirribilli House, but Kirribilli House suffers from the same problems as all houses of that vintage. Kirribilli House is not only an extensive house on extensive grounds-it is an old house and the trouble with old houses is that they are extremely expensive to maintain. Senator Baume should advise the Senate whether he wants Kirribilli House maintained for the nation of Australia, as I certainly do. It belongs to Australia and to whichever government is in power at the time. Whichever Prime Minister is in office at the time uses it as his official residence because it belongs, as do the official residences of State Governors and the Federal Governor-General, to the people of Australia. If Senator Baume wants to see Kirribilli House and its grounds and, indeed, Admiralty House which is next door, fall into disrepair and disuse it is irrelevant whether anyone actually lives in them. The fact is that Kirribilli House is a national possession. We have an obligation to keep it in good repair. Because I am interested in old houses I have, on a number of occasions, gone through it and had a look at it. Like all old houses it is extremely expensive to maintain. In Darwin, the city in which I live, is a tiny little house on Myilly Terrace which was the ex-residence of the Government Auditor. It is not nearly as extensive or as expensive as Kirribilli House. It is a three-bedroom, normal residential house which, I must say to the credit of the people concerned, was rehabilitated and is maintained at public expense. It is now called Audit House and is the residence of Mr and Mrs Harry Giese, who have lived in it for many years now. Despite the fact that it is a normal, small, suburban, three-bedroom house that probably cost a couple of hundred pounds to construct originally, it cost more than $70,000 to rehabilitate. It costs the Gieses about $2,000 a year just for water to maintain the tiny piece of garden that is attached to it. It is an expensive exercise to keep these houses in the public domain. If Senator Baume is honest about it, he should simply declare whether he thinks Kirribilli House should be maintained in public ownership as part of the treasures that we have or whether it should be sold or otherwise disposed of. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator JENKINS(Western Australia)(3.58) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I rise to speak to the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Folklife in Australia entitled Folklife-Our Living Heritage. This report was sponsored by the then Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment, the National Museum of Australia, the Australia Council and the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs. Folklore in Australia is yet another manifestation of multiculturalism. This is demonstrated at the beginning of the report where one of the first pages shows a delightful picture of a traditional Welsh love spoon. As someone who was brought up and had her early education in Wales, I was really intrigued to see this picture so early in the report. The spoon was carved from a single piece of huon pine-that is, native Tasmanian pine which, of course, is now endangered. This very hardy pine was used for shipbuilding in the last century; and more rarely this century because it is not now so available. Huon pine was used to carve this traditional Welsh love spoon in Australia. Bert Davey, who carved the spoon, was born in Cardiff, South Wales. The spoon is in the full tradition which means that the bowl of it is carved in the shape of a love heart and the other carvings are, as usual, the originals of the person who carved the spoon. In this case, the spoon depicts the Prince of Wales feathers and a kangaroo to depict the birthplaces of Bert Davey and his wife, for whom he carved the spoon. This particular Committee was set up on 26 March 1986 by the then Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, the Hon. Barry Cohen, MP. The report was delayed and there was some concern about that delay but now that it is here, the report and its recommendations are to be commended. There are a great number of recommendations. The most significant are that there should be established an Australian folklife centre which would provide a national focus for action to record, safeguard and promote awareness of Australia's heritage of folklife; that there should be established an Australian folklife grants scheme; that there should be a national collection of Australian folklife which would give identity and stimulus to the development and conservation of folklife materials within the national collections; that there should be a folk arts committee within the Australia Council which would provide the needed expertise and advice in relation to folk arts support; and that there should be a folk arts grant program which would provide more adequately for the particular needs and circumstances of the folk arts. In brief, the report deals with the nature, diversity and significance of folklife in Australia, which is quite diverse and wide. It describes how we should safeguard our heritage of folklife. It also deals with folklife and education and how within our schools system there should be the education of children about our folklife heritage, which education should be expanded to the tertiary level so that teachers in schools also have a greater understanding of what folklife heritage is in Australia. Finally, the report deals with the living folk arts and describes how folk arts in Australia are living, are to be fostered and are part and parcel of the Australian identity. Honourable senators here may recall a poster recently issued by the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs entitled, `I'm half Italian, half Dutch and 100 per cent Australian'. So folklife is tied up with the Australian identity. The report reminds us that it is only in comparatively recent times that England has ceased to be referred to as the mother country for Australians and that on Australian passports we are now described as Australian citizens, instead of British subjects as we were described until quite recently. I want to finish with a quote from the Curtin University of Technology in Western Australia: To many younger people it must seem incredible that until the late 60s, an interest in Australian history, songs, yarns, idiom, etc., was far from generally accepted by the community as a whole. Indeed, those who showed an active interest were considered aliens, ratbags or even traitors in some quarters. To some, to foster an interest in one's own national identity-- The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired, as has the time for debate. The PRESIDENT —For the information of honourable senators, I table two reports from the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House relating to proposed works in the parliamentary zone. Motion (by Senator McLean) agreed to: That the following Bill be introduced: a Bill for an Act to make provision for and in relation to regular reviews by the Parliament of the delegated legislation of the Commonwealth. Motion (by Senator McLean) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator McLEAN(New South Wales)(4.04) —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 purpose of good government is to make laws for the good of its people in an organised and coherent manner. It is not to overburden its citizens with more and more laws, many of which are outdated, unnecessary and in conflict with one another, although one could be forgiven for thinking otherwise. In 1988, some 87 years after Federation, we have in Australia a national government, six State governments, fourteen Houses of Parliament and 836 local government authorities; all of which make laws for the benefit of their citizens. And yet, with so many different law makers in this country, it is not difficult to envisage why there are not only too many laws, but also too many conflicting laws. Mr President, support for the review of government regulations comes from all sides of the political spectrum. On 21 September 1984, in an address to the Business Council of Australia, the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, said: I am convinced that, after 84 years of federation, we have accumulated an excessive and often irrelevant and obstructive body of laws and regulations. On 13 May, 1985, in a Ministerial statement to the House of Representatives on Australia's trade situation and policies, the then Minister for Trade, Mr Dawkins, said: The Government's successful deregulation of important sectors has also provided a powerful boost to the efficiency and dynamism of the economy and has provided a major fillip to our export sector. Mr President, the Opposition has been no less vocal on the need to reduce government regulation. On 19 November 1986, when speaking to the Public Service Legislation Streamlining Bill 1986, the then shadow minister for public administration, Mr Connolly, said in the House of Representatives: The effects of regulation distort the allocation of resources, reduce efficiency, distort consumer investor behaviour and thereby shift expenditure patterns, increase costs, and cause lower productivity, which therefore makes overall management, both in the public and private sectors, that much more difficult. No one suggests that all regulation is bad per se. What I am saying is that it is the responsibility of the Government not just to take the evidence given to it by its own Business Regulation Review Unit, but also to put in place effective management tools within Departments and within this Parliament to ensure that regulation can be effectively reviewed from time to time. The Government should see that what we have on the statute books is relevant to the problems facing Australia today. On 11 June 1986, in his reply to the Prime Minister's address to the nation, Senator Chaney said: There is absolutely no prospect of the sort of relief that is needed from the over-regulation, cost burdens and ridiculous work practices which afflict so many Australian manufacturers. Later, in his reply to the Budget of the same year, Senator Chaney said: We said that the level and cost of regulation must be reduced dramatically and across the board. Mr President, one has to ask why there has been such growth in the proliferation of government regulation. Some of the major reasons advanced for this growth were identified in a report released in January 1987 by the New South Wales Legislative Assembly's Select Committee Upon Small Business. They included: (i) To save pressure on parliamentary time so that Parliament considers only essential legislation. (ii) A lack of time during parliamentary sittings for politicians to consider legislation of a highly technical nature. (iii) As legislation cannot be easily changed, there needs to be a regulatory mechanism which can be readily amended to deal with changing circumstances. (iv) There needs to be a mechanism to deal with emergency situations when Parliament is not sitting. (v) To regulate, upon request from business, a particular sector of industry. (vi) To protect the interests of consumers and the health and safety of workers. Furthermore, Mr President, delegates to the first Commonwealth Conference of Delegated Legislation Committees, which was held in Canberra in 1981, endorsed the following view: Subordinate legislation is an historically accepted means of governance. There is no longer any point in arguing that it is fundamentally improper or that it should be used only occasionally or for mere matters of detail. What is essential is to surround the making of subordinate legislation with procedural safeguards and measures of control so that the rights and liberties of the subject, which is the object of our Constitutional order, to protect while maintaining a viable system of government may be secured as well under subordinate legislation as well as statute. Subordinate legislation must not become a means, even unwittingly, of suppressing rights and liberties or of subverting parliamentary supremacy over the law. The Crown's power has never stood higher, the potential for its abuse has never been greater. Mr President, to identify how bad the problem of over-regulation is in the Australian economy, one only has to consider the following examples: (i) Between 1960 and 1979 there were some 16,631 laws made by parliaments in Australia and a further 32,551 regulations were made at an annual average of 1,628. (ii) There are some 30 different State Acts of Parliament governing the manufacture of margarine in Australia. (iii) In my own State of New South Wales, in order to operate a small business as a motor trader, one may need to obtain up to 14 different licences. To operate in the retail trade, that figure may rise to 40 different licences. Mr President, with all these different and non-uniform regulations, it is not too difficult to imagine the huge costs incurred by industry while trying to comply with all these regulations. To quote a few examples: (i) The Confederation of Australian Industry (C.A.I.) has estimated that in the decade of 1975-85, Australian consumers paid an extra $500 million in food prices due to over-regulation of the industry. (ii) In December 1986, the Business Regulation Review Unit found in a survey of four large food companies that the following costs were incurred because the regulations changed or because of variations in labelling imposed by the individual States: 1986 Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd (Aug.)...$80,000 Cottee's Foods...$76,880 Coles Myer Ltd...$305,000 Woolworths Ltd...$1,602,500 (iii) In an article in the `Business Review Weekly' of 25 July, 1986, Mr Neil Shoebridge wrote that a Melbourne company, Jarrah Foods, was instructed by the New South Wales and Queensland Departments of Health to change the labels they put on their coffee products, even though nine months earlier the labels were found to be satisfactory. Mr Phil Jaroslow, the Managing Director of Jarrah Foods, estimated that the change in labelling laws cost his company an entire year's advertising and promotional budget along with all the good will they had built up. (iv) Mr Tony Thomas, in another article in the `Business Review Weekly' of 22 August, 1986, found that new export regulations from the Department of Primary Industry threatened to wreck a $20 million export order by a well known food exporter which had been built up over the previous fifteen years. With the excessive growth of government regulations and the ever-increasing costs incurred by industry as a result, governments of all political persuasions in Australia have made attempts during this decade to come to terms with the problem. On a State government level, several different approaches have been tried with varying degrees of success. The Victorian government, with its Regulation Review Unit and the enactment of the Subordinate Legislation (Review and Revocation) Act 1984, is the State government which has done the most in the area of regulation review. Queensland and Tasmania both have non-statutory authorities on deregulation, while in South Australia a government adviser on deregulation was appointed in August 1986. In New South Wales, the Premier's Department provides assistance to specific task forces and in January 1987 the Legislative Assembly Select Committee on Small Business released its first report which dealt with the matters of regulation and licensing. In last year's Budget Session, the Regulation Review Bill 1987 was passed. Finally, the New South Wales government is currently awaiting a review of business licensing requirements which is being conducted by Mr David Block of the New South Wales Government's administrative structure. His report is due to be presented in March, 1988. At a federal level, there is no doubt that the present government has done more in the area of regulation review than any of its predecessors. In May, 1985, the Business Regulation Review Unit (B.R.R.U.) was established under the auspices of the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce. It has as its main function the review of new regulations affecting business, initially in terms of eleven priority areas. In its nine reports to date, the unit has had some success in identifying over-regulation as it applies to such areas as: Industrial chemicals, Packaging and labelling of food products, and Indigenous crude oil marketing arrangements. Mr President, whilst trying not to decry the work of the B.R.R.U., the Australian Democrats believe there should be a systematic review of all government regulations-both current and future-at the federal, State and local levels. This Bill, if passed, will establish such a mechanism at the federal level. Mr President, the first question one should ask is whether or not such a review could be undertaken by an already established Senate Committee such as the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances. This Committee was established in 1932, and was: ``charged with the responsibility of seeing that the clause of each Bill conferring a regulation-making power does not confer a legislative power which ought to be exercised by Parliament itself. It would be required to scrutinise regulations to ascertain: (a) that they are in accord with the statute; (b) that they do not trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties; (c) that they do not unduly make the rights and liberties of citizens dependent upon administrative and not upon judicial decisions; and (d) that they are concerned with administrative detail and do not amount to substantive legislation which should be a matter of parliamentary enactment.''. In 1979, in its 64th report, this Committee changed item (d) to read that the Committee was charged with the responsibility to ensure legislation does not contain matter more appropriate for parliamentary enactment. As such, Mr President, the Committee was charged with the responsibility of reviewing only new regulations and then only in terms of the criteria set out above. The Committee can make no judgment on the merits or otherwise of the regulations, nor may it review current regulations, which would be the prime task of the proposed Joint Committee. In fact, as the Senate Select Committee on Standing Committees reported in 1932: ``It is conceivable that occasions might arise in which it would be desirable for a standing committee to direct the attention of Parliament to the merits of a certain regulation but, as a general rule, it should be recognized that the Standing Committee would lose prestige if it set itself up as a critic of governmental policy or departmental practice apart from the tests outlined above.'' Thus, if we accept the above advice and therefore make a judgment that an analysis of government regulations, in terms of their merits or otherwise, by a Senate Standing Committee, is not appropriate, then we must examine what alternatives there are for this most onerous, most critical and most essential task. A second alternative would be for a House of Representatives Committee to be charged with the responsibility to review current and future government regulations on the basis of merit. However, the arguments against such a proposal were succinctly put by a former federal labor Member, Mr Maurice Blackburn, who said: The Commonwealth Parliament makes provision for the disallowance of statutory regulations by the vote of either House through the Acts Interpretation Act . . . The House of Representatives is not likely to do that work well or, in fact, to do it at all. Upon its fate turns the fate of the Ministry. The regulation is made by the Ministry, and a proposal for its disallowance would certainly be treated as a vote of want of confidence, and would be tested on party lines. Mr President, the only alternative that is left that would overcome the objections discussed above against the establishment of a standing committee of either House of Parliament to review government regulations on the basis of merit, would be for the Parliament to establish a joint standing committee of Regulation Review as outlined in this Bill. Such a committee would be given the onerous task of reviewing, in terms of the guidelines as set out in this Bill, all current regulations and all future regulations before their enactment. Mr President, the work of previous joint committees has been well documented. To quote but a few examples. (i) The Joint Select Committee on the Australia Card. (ii) The Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. (iii) The Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. Mr President, as Senator Cooney has said in the past, a bipartisan approach would be needed on such a committee if it is to work effectively in considering government regulations on their merits. Otherwise, the committee may fail in its task. Of course, there are many examples which show just how costly it is to debate the merits of regulations on the floor of the Senate as a committee of the whole rather than with the assistance of a specialist committee. For example, one only has to recall the Freedom of Information (charges) regulations which were disallowed by the Senate after more than two hours of debate on 13 November, 1985. It may have been possible that a Committee examining the merits of these regulations could have extracted from the Attorney-General an undertaking to amend the legislation and thereby lower the fees to a more reasonable level and, at the same time, he would not have been prevented for six months from introducing similar regulations to those disallowed. Mr President, there are several consequences if this Bill is passed. (i) To begin with, there would be a joint standing committee of both Houses of Parliament who would be charged with the responsibility of reviewing all current regulations and all future regulations before they are enacted on the basis of merit. (ii) It would allow input into the proposed regulations by all interested parties before the regulations are enacted. (iii) It would help identify areas of conflicting regulations between the three levels of government and may well be successful in reducing the number of these regulations. In fact, Mr President, the then Opposition Shadow Minister on Public Administration-Mr David Connolly-said in the House on 11 September, 1985, that this was in fact a major area of concern. To quote him directly: ``--we must reduce government involvement. For example, over one third of the staff of the Department of Primary Industry are involved in meat inspection. In addition we have state meat inspection services and in some states local government is involved in the same activity as well. Clearly, there is a massive need for restructuring and a devolution of the responsibilities between the Commonwealth and the States. We cannot control a cost factor in governmental terms while we have more than one level of government actively involved in the same area of policy. In addition, we have to reduce government involvement overall''. (iv) Not only would the committee help to identify areas of conflicting regulations between the three levels of government, but it would also help to identify areas of conflict at the same level of government. To quote but one example: Under the Queensland Margarine Act, the following inconsistency occurs: ``Section 16 (i) provides that it is an offence to use in the manufacture of margarine, skim milk which contains more than 0.05 per centum of butter fat''. Note also Section 16 (iii) which in spite of section 16 (i) prohibits the sale or manufacture of margarine which contains any butter fat. (v) The Committee would identify outdated regulations propose methods to up date them. For example, the Machinery Ordinance for the A.C.T. of 1949 has not been comprehensively reviewed. This ordinance is the primary regulatory device for industrial safety in the A.C.T. and yet, it does not say anything about modern management techniques of safety committees, the rights to information for employees and the right to stop dangerous work. (vi) The Committee would help identify regulations with unclear intents such as the Machinery (Amendment) Ordinance of 1983. This ordinance provides for fees which are payable ``to the Commonwealth'' for matters for which notice has been given in the `Gazette'. This provision does not define `a relevant matter' except to say it is `a matter in respect of which the Minister may make negotiations'. A person managing a small business is unlikely to read the government `Gazette' or to check on amendments and thus be in a position to cut and paste together what is currently legal. Furthermore, nowhere in the ordinance does it specify answers to questions such as the following: To whom is the fee paid? Where is the fee paid? What is the fee paid for? Why is the fee paid? Mr President, despite Senator Button's statement on 9 January 1987 in which he committed the Government to a ``Plain English Policy''-a policy with which the Democrats wholeheartedly agree-there is still much work to be done in this area, not only to cut out the legal mumbo-jumbo, but also to check regulations for clear intention and how difficult they are to abide with. (vii) The Bill provides a mechanism for the proposed Joint Standing Committee to examine all proposed and existing delegated legislation in terms of a Regulatory Impact Statement as defined in clauses 9 and 123 respectively. (viii) Under clause 14, the Committee is given the power to report to the Parliament and either House of Parliament is empowered to act on a report of the same Committee. (ix) Clause 15 specifies that the power of either House to act upon a report of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee is the same as the power of either House to act upon a report of the proposed Joint Committee. It could be argued that the work of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee would be deemed to be less important than the work of the proposed Joint Committee. Of course, Mr President, it would be a self-defeating exercise if, once the Committee were established, it was not provided with adequate resources such as clerical staff and the ability to second `experts' from the private sector as required because the Committee was starved of funds. These experts would be members of the Committee for as long as required and they would then be discharged. They would not necessarily be voting members of the Committee. The Committee, to be truly effective, must have a budget commensurate with the job at hand, a job which must, at least initially, will be mammoth. But given the potential cost savings to the community from the Committee identifying unnecessary or conflicting regulations, I am confident such a budget would be economically justifiable. Mr President, calls within the community for a systematic review of government regulations have intensified in recent years. This has occurred principally as a result of the public becoming more aware of the fact that urgent action is required in this area if the economy of this country is to get moving again. We have enough problems in Australia without complicating matters further by continuing to promulgate regulations without some mechanism of review. In fact, as Mr Justice Michael Kirby said when he was Chairman of the Australian Law Reform Commission: It is ironic that on the continent of Europe, divided by language, separated by culture and history and ancient enmities, not blessed with a common legal system inherited from a common source, served by utterly different legal institutions and personnel, they can agree on uniform laws on so many varied topics. Yet we in Australia, with a common language and traditions, with like institutions and a great degree of cultural homogeneity, find it difficult even to agree on the time of day. Mr President, the Committee which the Bill seeks to establish would be a vehicle to overcome some of the regulatory problems I have spoken of today, and which others have decried, both inside and outside this Chamber on other occasions. The solution we propose to these problems was endorsed by the Confederation of Australian Industry in 1985 and again in their most recently published annual report, which was released in January 1988. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Bolkus) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Patterson) agreed to: That the Senate- (a) congratulates the members of the Scout Association of Australia on the highly successful 16th World Jamboree held in January 1988-the first official Bicentenary activity and the first World Jamboree to be held in the Southern Hemisphere; (b) acknowledges the outstanding contribution the limited number of paid staff and the army of voluntary leaders have made to Australia through the Jamboree; (c) recognises the value of such an event in promoting international understanding amongst the 15,000 teenage participants and in advertising Australia in the 73 countries participating; and (d) acknowledges the statement by the Scout Association that the estimated $40 million of business generated by the Jamboree significantly assisted the Australian economy. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Bolkus) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator BOLKUS(South Australia-Minister for Consumer Affairs)(4.07) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I table the revised explanatory memorandum and seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- Mr President, the precincts of the Parliament have never formally been defined. In November 1985, the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House saw the relocation of the Parliament in 1988 as an appropriate occasion for the definition of the precincts of the Parliament to be enshrined in legislation. The Parliamentary Precincts Bill 1988 reflects the Government support for this recommendation. It also provides a legislative vehicle for the recognition of the management and control responsibilities of the Presiding Officers within those precincts. Following receipt of the Joint Standing Committee's report, a working party, comprising representatives of the parliamentary departments and interested government departments, was established to co-ordinate a response to it. This Bill represents the level of agreement reached within that working party. It implements the substance of the Joint Standing Committee's major recommendations. Mr President, I now turn to the provisions of the Bill in more detail. The Bill defines the precincts as the land, buildings, structures and works, within a boundary formed by a circular line drawn from the outer edge of the retaining wall right around the site. This circle will, I understand, be defined by a concrete strip or other discernible markings where there is no wall. While this definition does not accord strictly with the recommendation of the Joint Standing Committee, I understand that it is acceptable to you, Mr President and to Madam Speaker. I believe it will be acceptable to all honourable senators. The Bill confers on the Presiding Officers overall management and control within the precincts while providing for separate agreements to be reached between the Presiding Officers and the Government with respect to the ministerial wing, the operations of Australian protective service officers and the detention of persons in custody and with the Director of Public Prosecutions in relation to the launching of prosecutions. The Bill provides for statutory rules to be made deeming buildings outside the precincts to have the same status as those within when being used for parliamentary purposes. In keeping with the provisions I have already referred to, Mr President, the Bill also: provides for the application of the relevant sections of the Public Order (Protection of Persons and Property) Act 1971 within the precincts; adapts section 15 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 to reflect the declaration of the precincts under the Bill; amends the Parliament Act 1974 to enlarge the parliamentary zone by including that area between State and Capital Circles not presently included in the zone; and amends the Parliament House Construction Authority Act 1979 to remove from the Authority responsibility for consenting to the grant of leases and licences within the precincts. The other important effect of this Bill is to empower the Presiding Officers or their delegates to grant leases and licences to commercial operators of business premises within the precincts. Mr President, this Bill is an important piece of legislation to the Parliament itself. It had its genesis in the 1985 report of the Joint Standing Committee and is the product of extensive consultation between all interested parties. I commend the Bill to the Senate. The PRESIDENT —Order! Before the debate on this Bill is adjourned, I wish to inform the Senate that the provisions of the Bill have been the subject of extensive consultations between the responsible Minister and the Presiding Officers and between various executive departments and officers of both Houses. The Bill arises from a report presented in November 1985 by the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House which recommended that certain statutory provisions be made in relation to the parliamentary precincts. Early in 1986 my predecessor, President Douglas McClelland, prepared and circulated a draft Bill to carry out the recommendations of the Committee. The Bill now introduced contains a number of modifications of the provisions proposed by the Committee and by President McClelland. These modifications have come about as a result of the consultations to which I referred. Because of the importance of the Bill to the two Houses I draw it to the special attention of honourable senators. Debate (on motion by Senator Tambling) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Bolkus) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator BOLKUS(South Australia-Minister for Consumer Affairs)(4.08) —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 purpose of this Bill is to remove an inequity in the imposition of levy on dairy products and to streamline the Australian Dairy Corporation's (ADC) administration of the dairy product levy system. The Dairy Produce Levy (No. 1) Act 1986 (the Act) provides for the imposition of levy on dairy products that have been produced at a factory on or after 1 July 1986. The levy is payable by dairy manufacturers upon the sale of specified dairy products, currently butter and cheese, to fund supplementary market support of the dairy product export sector over and above the primary market support funded by the all milk levy. As the levy is intended to support domestic prices, a person who exports butter or cheese may seek an exemption from payment of the levy. Subject to certain limitations these arrangements also apply to butter and cheese contained in mixtures which are exported. Exemptions are issued by the ADC. The arrangements reflect those which operated under the old dairy arrangements (the stabilisation levy on major dairy products operating prior to 1 July 1986) where consignments of mixtures for export under 15 tonnes weight (one container load) and mixtures with less than 25% dairy product content were not eligible for exemption. The intention of these limits was to avoid the need to process small consignments, or consignments involving only minimal dairy product content, which would involve disproportionately high administrative costs with little benefit to the exporter. When the new arrangements commenced, in order to be consistent with the market support element the limit on refund of levy relating to minimum percentage of leviable product in mixtures, as set down in subsection 9 (3) and prescribed in subsection 9 (4) of the Act, was reduced to 1%. However, the minimum weight of 15 tonnes per consignment was retained through subsections 9 (3) and 9 (4) of the Act as it was thought that the administrative costs relating to applications for consignments of less than one container load would be prohibitive. The ADC has since indicated that, in fact, the cost of administering the minimum weight limit outweighs the benefit derived from the exclusion. In addition the limit discriminates against a manufacturer who exports a large amount of butter or cheese in a small consignment compared to one who exports small amounts in large consignments. The Government has decided to accept the ADC recommendation that the situation be remedied by deleting subsections 9 (3) and 9 (4) of the Act to eliminate the weight and dairy produce content constraints. The result will be that any amount of butter and cheese exported in a mixture will qualify for levy exemption. The amendment will apply from 1 July 1986 to put all applicants on an equal basis from the commencement of the new dairy marketing arrangements. Retrospectivity will also validate some exemptions which the ADC has already given but which would on a strict interpretation be inconsistent with the existing provisions of subsections 9 (3) and 9 (4) although not inconsistent with the intention of this amendment. The amendment will result in savings in administration costs to the Australian Dairy Corporation and hence to the dairy industry at large and it will place the payment of levy on dairy products on a more equitable basis. It will have no financial implications for the Commonwealth. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. Debate (on motion by Senator Tambling) adjourned. Assent to the following Bills reported: Australian National Airlines Amendment Bill 1988 Commonwealth Legal Aid Amendment Bill 1988 Child Support Bill 1988 Extradition Bill 1988 Extradition (Repeal and Consequential Provisions) Bill 1988 Australian Airlines (Conversion to Public Company) Bill 1988 Consideration resumed from 25 February. Clauses 23 to 34. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(4.10) —Prior to progress being reported on the last occasion on which the Committee considered the Family Court of Australia (Additional Jurisdiction and Exercise of Powers) Bill, Senator Durack raised a matter concerning clause 34. I think he expressed some concern that Family Court of Australia judges may hear what we term an associated matter arising under part IV of the Trade Practices Act when dealing with a division 1 or 2 of part V matter-in other words, restrictive trade practices, the initial substantial matter being one dealing with consumer protection. The point raised by Senator Durack is a very legitimate one, but it is not novel in the sense that, quite rightly, the trade practices committee of the Law Council of Australia raised the matter last December in a letter to the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) and received a response with which it is apparently satisfied in the sense that it has not come back. The response was to the effect that no matter may be transferred except by order of the Federal Court. The Chief Judge of the Federal Court has indicated the Court's intention that an order for transfer would not be made until after a directions hearing, at which stage it would be clear whether a part IV issue was to be raised. Where such an issue was raised, it is unlikely that a matter would be transferred. That seems to be the time at which it would become apparent that some such associated matter dealing with part IV might be involved. As I am advised, it is at the directions hearing that that will become clear. That is the way in which the Federal Court intends to deal with the matter. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(4.12) —I thank the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) for his reply. However, I understand from the reply that some detailed guidelines have now been established. The Minister has just outlined a way in which a decision will be taken to transfer such a matter. He said it would be unlikely that a proceeding involving a part IV matter under the Trade Practices Act would be transferred. The Minister will recall that at the beginning of the committee stage of the Bill, which is now some time ago, I spent some time on seeking guidance from the Minister as to what would be the basis on which the Chief Judges would make decisions to transfer matters. I asked the Minister to table the guidelines if there were any. I was rather surprised to find that the Minister seemed to know very little about guidelines and what they would contain. As I understand it, he said there were no guidelines that he could table. I ask him whether something has developed since we were first in committee, perhaps three weeks ago. Have there been developments along those lines and are there now some guidelines? It is very nice for the Minister to tell us how a particular decision involving part IV of the Trade Practices Act will be determined by the Chief Judges, but how will the countless other decisions that are called upon to be made by the Chief Judges be made? I have raised a matter which is somewhat embarrassing to the Government in view of some of the statements it has made, as well as the specific provision in the legislation to which my attention was drawn by the Minister in the debate, which excludes matters other than those under part V of the Trade Practices Act. When that was raised, I received an answer which was very specific and clear about the guidelines. But what about all the other guidelines? Earlier I was told that there were no guidelines. Now, when the Government wants to answer a question I have raised, there is a guideline. What is the position about guidelines? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(4.14) —I tried to state the matter as fairly as possible. I did not say that guidelines had been developed in the sense about which we spoke the other day. I reject any inference that it has taken me two weeks to find an answer. Senator Durack will recall that the matters were raised as we were about to report progress on the last occasion on which the Committee met. The guidelines will emerge from the consultations between the Chief Judge of the Federal Court and the Chief Judge of the Family Court in accordance with clause 4 of the Bill, which has been agreed to, which provides that the Chief Judge of the Federal Court and the Chief Judge of the Family Court may consult with each other in relation to the transfer to the Family Court of proceedings pending in the Federal Court, whether generally or in relation to the transfer of particular proceedings. I indicated that Mr Bowen was able to answer the query which has been raised by Senator Durack-that query being put to him by the trade practices committee of the Law Council of Australia-on the basis of the expressed intention of the Chief Judge of the Federal Court that no transfer would be made until after a directions hearing. It was simply on that particular matter that advice had been received to that effect; that that was the intention of the Federal Court regarding those matters. That is all I purported to inform the Committee of a moment ago. No guidelines have been established in accordance with the joint consultation process, but I am confident that those guidelines, when they emerge, will embody that intention of the Chief Judge of the Federal Court. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(4.16) —When we debated this matter three or four weeks ago, questions were raised specifically about guidelines. Apparently, a specific answer was given some time ago to inquiries by the Law Council of Australia about this matter. I find it very strange that an answer can be given to one query when guidelines have not yet been established. The question that has been raised indicated the desirability of guidelines, if there are to be guidelines, being in place when we debate a matter in this chamber. It does not seem as though any further advance has been made in establishing guidelines, other than that in one particular case we can tell the Law Council of Australia, `Oh, you need not worry your head about that because the Chief Judge says we will not be transferring such a case'. The Government is asking the Committee to pass this legislation in a very sloppy way. The Minister has not given us any specific indications as to the way in which litigation will be transferred to the Family Court as a result of negotiations between the two Chief Judges. Yet, when the Law Council raised a particular matter, it was given an answer. The Taxation Institute of Australia is very concerned about the transfer of tax cases. For the Minister's information, the Taxation Institute is a body which is made up of tax professionals, mostly lawyers and accountants. It has been very concerned about the matter. I am sure that it has written to the Attorney-General about it. It has certainly written to me and many other senators about it. It has been looking for guidance as to what sorts of tax cases will be referred to Family Court judges. The Opposition and I have taken the view that many Family Court judges will be qualified to deal with tax cases. However, a number will not be qualified to do so. It seems to me that there is very good reason for a body of highly qualified professional people to be given an answer in the same way as the Minister has now given an answer to the query about jurisdiction under part IV of the Trade Practices Act which, of course, worries a number of other professional people. These people belong to a different group from the Law Council. They belong to a much smaller group. However, the Law Council of Australia put their case and got an answer which, the Minister says, has satisfied them. From the correspondence I have had with them, I do not know whether the answer has satisfied them. However, we will assume that as the Minister has not heard from the Council again he is right in saying that they are satisfied. The point is that the Minister was able to give them an answer; whether it satisfied them or not, perhaps does not matter. It was an answer. It was a rational answer. It might have satisfied even me in my present frame of mind in this debate. But, the fact is that the Taxation Institute is not satisfied. The Minister has not given any indication, in this debate anyway, as to what guidelines will be applied to the transfer of tax cases. It is totally sloppy and unsatisfactory for us to be asked to pass this legislation. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(4.21) —I am sorry, but I can help the Committee only in regard to the matter which was raised by the Law Council of Australia trade practices committee, which has allowed me to indicate that the Chief Judge of the Federal Court of Australia thinks that, in relation to the transfer of matters to the Family Court of Australia, a directions hearing will take place. It is at that stage that the appropriateness of a particular matter being transferred will be determined. I have assumed that the same sort of procedure would apply in relation to the transfer of other matters. However, the only specific instance that we have available to us to judge whether that might be the case is that dealing with trade practices. However, it would seem to be such a sensible proposal that I am sure that in the discussions between the Chief Judge of the Federal Court and the Chief Judge of the Family Court that sort of procedure will commend itself in relation to the other matters also. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(4.23) —I would like the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) to give me some sort of assurance that organisations such as the Taxation Institute of Australia, which has expressed great concern to me and a number of other people I know of, will get a satisfactory answer as soon as possible from the Minister as to the rule relating to the transfer of tax cases. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(4.23) —I give an undertaking, as I think I have already, that the guidelines, once they are determined, will be made available as publicly and as soon as possible. In fact, I believe that I have given an undertaking to table them in the Senate. I do not have in front of me, nor do my advisers, the particular objections that have been raised, but I will make sure that those misgivings are brought to the attention of the consulting parties in relation to this matter. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(4.24) —The Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) will recall that when we dealt with part IV of the Trade Practices Act in relation to the Family Court of Australia Bill on 25 February I asked: Does the Bill say anywhere that part IV of the Trade Practices Act cannot be dealt with by the Family Court? The Minister replied: The Bill is drawn in a way which confines the trade practices jurisdiction which might be conferred to divisions 1 and 1a of part V. I ask the Minister to explain that to me and show me where that occurs. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(4.24) —What I did at that time was to point Senator Walters in the direction of clause 34 on page 14 of the Bill, where one reads: . . . Subject to subsection (2), where: (a) a civil proceeding is pending in the Federal Court; and (b) a matter for determination in the proceeding arises under Division 1 or 1a of Part V; the Federal Court may . . . transfer the proceeding to the Family Court. It is true that under subsection (3) (b)-this is the point that Senator Durack then raised but debate on which was cut off by the adjournment-it is stated: The Family Court also has jurisdiction to hear and determine matters not otherwise within its jurisdiction (whether by virtue of paragraph (a) or otherwise: (i) that are associated with matters arising in the proceeding: Senator Durack raised that question. I undertook on the eve of the adjournment of the debate to provide an answer, which I have done. They are the proposed sections which are pertinent. Amendments agreed to. Clauses, as amended, agreed to. Proposed new part VIII. Amendment (by Senator Tate) proposed: (17) Page 15, after clause 34 add the following new Part: ``PART VIII-AMENDMENTS OF THE FAMILY LAW AMENDMENT ACT 1987 Principal Act ``35. In this Part, `Principal Act' means the Family Law Amendment Act 1987. Transfer of proceedings from court of summary jurisdiction in certain cases ``36. Section 20 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from the proposed subsection (1) in paragraph (a) `the amount in relation to which the court has jurisdiction in an action for the recovery of a debt' and substituting `$10,000 and, where a motor vehicle is involved, $20,000'. Transitional provision in relation to section 46 of Family Law Act ``37. Section 65 of the Principal Act is amended: (a) by omitting `section 18 of the Family Court of Australia (Additional Jurisdiction and Exercise of Powers) Act 1987' and substituting `the amendment of subsection 46 (1) of the Family Law Act 1975 made by the Family Court of Australia (Additional Jurisdiction and Exercise of Powers) Act 1988'; and (b) by omitting `the first-mentioned section' and substituting `that amendment'.'' Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(4.27) —Like most other senators, I have just been handed this amendment. I was wondering when the Government would wake up to the need to amend its proposed amendment relating to the property jurisdiction of magistrates. It appears that that has been attended to now. I remember struggling to find out the meaning of the original Government amendment No. 17, which related to the transitional provision-proposed new section 65 of the Family Law Amendment Act-in respect of section 46 of the Family Law Act. I remember having some difficulty in understanding what on earth the amendment was all about. In the end I gave up the ghost because I assumed that the draftsman knew what he was doing, that I was wasting my time trying to nut it out and that I had better things to do in trying to get come commonsense out of the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) in relation to other matters in the debate. I now see that the Minister is proposing to amend the originally proposed amendment to section 65. This suggests to me that there must have been something wrong with the original amendment and that perhaps that is the reason I was somewhat confused by it. In these circumstances perhaps the Minister could explain why we have now got another amendment in place of the one he was proposing the last time we debated this matter. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(4.29) —It is true that in the proposed clause 36 we have picked up the change to the jurisdiction that is consequential on the amendment moved by Senator Haines and agreed to by the Government in relation to motor vehicles and so on. That is straightforward; that is clear. Proposed clause 37 has not been changed from the original. It has been put on the one page in a convenient form for honourable senators. It is exactly the same as was circulated prior to the adjournment of the debate previously. I agree with Senator Durack that it is an extremely complex provision. When I saw it this morning I asked for a few dot points on what it could possibly mean. I am quite willing to read those into the Hansard record by way of explanation. Senator Durack —Have they satisfied you? Senator TATE —The English is sounder. Whether they convey tremendous meaning is another matter. It may be useful if I read them into the Hansard record. It is a complex drafting requirement. I am advised that this amendment makes consequential changes to the provisions of the Family Law Amendment Act 1987 which has not yet been proclaimed. It is to be proclaimed on 16 March, to commence on 1 April 1988. Section 20 of the amendment Act and clause 18 of the Bill have the same objective-to vary the limit on the property jurisdiction of courts of summary jurisdiction. Clause 18 has been amended by this Committee. An amendment to new clause 36, which amends section 20 of the amendment Act, ensures that section 20 accords with the amended clause 18. That amendment has been distributed today. Clause 18 of the Bill and section 20 of the Family Law Amendment Act 1987 amended the jurisdictional limits in section 46 of the Act. Section 65 of the Family Law Amendment Act was a transitional provision in respect of section 46, in case clause 18 of the Bill came into operation after section 20 of the Family Law Amendment Act 1987. The latter provision will now commence on 1 April 1988. So there we are. The CHAIRMAN —Senator Durack, you had circulated an amendment to the earlier Government amendment. I take it that you no longer wish to proceed with that? Senator Durack —No, that amendment has been superseded. Proposed new part agreed to. Clause 9. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(4.32) —The Committee was debating clause 9 earlier. At that time I pointed out that I believed that the most important thing that the courts should take into consideration in a divorce action is the problems associated with the custody of children. It is imperative, and this is underlined in the Bill, that the judge be satisfied that the best arrangements are made for the child under the circumstances, that both parents are given access to the child, if at all possible, and that the best arrangements are made in relation to the custody of the child. The judicial registrars are really being given the power of judges of the Family Court of Australia. This power is being given to the judicial registrars purely and simply for the purpose of cutting the workload of Family Court judges to enable them to take on cases outside the Family Court. I still maintain that, if we are serious about making the first priority in custody cases the arrangements made for the children and if the Government believes that its first priority must be the welfare of the children, the very least we can do is ensure that that task remains in the hands of the judges. The Judicial Registrars are not Family Court judges. The amendments we have moved have sought to ensure that judicial registrars are as highly qualified as possible. However, they will still not be Family Court judges. I now move the amendment I foreshadowed earlier: Page 3, clause 9, proposed subsection 26b (1), at end of proposed subsection, add `except the power to make, in proceedings under this Act, an order, the terms of which have not been agreed upon by all the parties to the proceedings, with respect to the custody of a child.'. In other words, I believe that because the judges will have their workload lightened, they should as a matter of priority take on custody cases where there is conflict between the parties. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(4.35) —Since it is some weeks since we dealt with this matter, as Senator Durack pointed out, I would just like to put down again the attitude of the Australian Democrats to the duties of both judicial registrars and registrars. I know that one group is dealt with in clause 9 and the other is dealt with in clause 12, but I think it is appropriate that I make some comments about both of those classifications. The Bill proposes that judges delegate to both judicial registrars and to registrars certain of the duties that it is within their province-that is, within the province of the judges-to perform. As far as registrars are concerned-that is the group that will be affected by the Government's amendment to clause 12 of the Bill-I have no difficulty at all with accepting that judges can refer to registrars cases dealing with non-contested substantive matters, whether that be the dissolution of the marriage, the division of property, or questions of custody of and access to children. Under no circumstances, however-I think I made this clear when we were dealing with this matter previously-should registrars deal with or be given the right to deal with any contested matter at all. As Senator Walters has just said, we are making every attempt to ensure that judicial registrars are of the highest possible calibre and have the highest possible qualifications. I presume that the judges of the Family Court of Australia are intelligent, compassionate and sensitive individuals and that they will show some sense and take some considerable care about which cases they refer to judicial registrars. It is important that they do this with care and it is equally imperative that they retain for themselves the most difficult, the most complex, the most problematic and the most potentially explosive of issues. I assume that there would not be a judge in the Family Court who would presume to refer or delegate to a judicial registrar any matter which the judge believes is more appropriate for him or her to deal with. I accept the fact that judges may wish to refer to judicial registrars matters in dispute and that judges may believe that a judicial registrar is competent to deal with a contested matter, whether the contest involves the simple dissolution of the marriage, if any dissolution is simple, a property settlement or a custody or access question. I accept then the premise that the Government is putting, that judges should be entitled to delegate powers to judicial registrars in respect of those matters. I do not accept, however, that they have an absolute right to do that. I would like some clarification of the legislation from the Government, if necessary, to make it perfectly clear that if, at any stage, either party wishes to have referred back to a judge a matter that has been referred to a judicial registrar, that wish will be accommodated. I can see no point in excessively inflaming a situation. We have enough difficulties now with people taking umbrage at a decision made by a judge. It would be quite appalling if that unhappy circumstance were extended to judicial registrars because one of the parties involved changed his or her mind part way through a hearing and was denied the right to have the case taken back before a judge. Senator Walters mentioned the question of the workload of Family Court judges and the fact that some of these delegations are being made to lighten the workload of Family Court judges in order for them to take on other matters from the Federal Court. I think the two things need to be kept separate. I guess that we are dealing with the question of judicial status, a rather unfortunate occurrence, given the differential in income of Federal Court judges and Family Court judges. I think I made it quite clear, when I was speaking during the second reading debate and quite possibly also during the committee debate, that I believe the stresses that fall on the shoulders of Family Court judges are excessive, that they need recompense as well as some relief from that and that they ought-- Senator Peter Baume —Who would ever do it? Senator HAINES —As Senator Baume has interjected, `Who would ever do it?'. Of course, this is getting to be exactly the position. What silk who is on a squillion dollars a year, as most New South Wales silks seem to be, in his or her right mind would take up a position on the Family Court for tuppence ha'penny a week-it is in comparison with Federal Court judges' salaries-and submit themselves to the potential of-- Senator Durack —It's nothing compared with our salaries. Senator HAINES —I will accept that interjection simply to get it into Hansard. They not only submit themselves to the potential of being harassed and bombed but also take on the stresses of dealing with people. I think it is appalling that Family Court judges who deal with people are regarded as lesser individuals than Federal Court judges who deal with those high status matters of property and money. I think it is about time that we, in this society, got our priorities in order. I know that Senator Baume did not intend to get me wound up like that, but he seems to have succeeded. I will bring myself back to the matter at hand. I think this Government is taking an appropriate step in allowing Family Court judges to deal with certain matters other than those that have been in their traditional jurisdiction. In any event, we have needed to do something for a long time to relieve Family Court judges of their intense workload. At the end of 1986 I asked a question, which was put back on the Notice Paper following last year's election and which I finally got an answer to late last year, with regard to the workloads of Federal and Family Court judges. I asked the Attorney-General's Department to come with some information on: (1) How many days did each individual . . . Federal . . . and Family Court judge from each State or Territory sit in the most recent full year for which figures are available. (2) How many cases were listed awaiting . . . hearing . . . and determination in each of the . . . Federal and Family Courts in each State and territory for each of the last five years. (3) What has been the average duration of waiting before the case is heard and determined in each of those jurisdictions and States. The Government finally came up with a masterly piece of prose and some accompanying statistics which my staff and I are still trying to work out, so I would be very grateful for any assistance that the Minister can provide. However, what is said in a nutshell is that Family Court judges are overworked and underpaid in comparison to their Federal Court colleagues. It is, therefore, appropriate that, to improve their status to relieve some of the stress of coping with some of the horrendous cases they deal with, they accept some matters relating to tax, bankruptcy and so on, from the Federal Court and that they are able to delegate the less contentious, less difficult Family Court matters to both registrars and judicial registrars with, as I have said, the two provisos, that registrars not deal with any matters that are contested and that judicial registrars deal with whatever matters judges see fit to refer to them, as long as one or other of the parties may at any stage request that the matter go back before a judge. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(4.46) —I would just like to indicate the Government's attitude to the amendment circulated by Senator Walters to clause 9 and perhaps contrast that with clause 12 in a foreshadowing way. I think there is merit in the point made by Senator Haines previously and again today, and by other honourable senators also, that given the range of duties and powers which it is anticipated should be properly vested in registrars it would be good for this Parliament to make it clear that registrars should not deal with contested custody matters. I have circulated an amendment this afternoon to that effect. Senator Walters —As have I. Senator TATE —I do not want to be on the record as saying that I have ever imitated the honourable senator but, as I have said already, I think there is merit in the arguments which were put which have led to the amendment which I have circulated. I think judicial registrars fall into a different category. Let us look at the qualifications outlined under proposed new section 26h (1). It states: A person shall not be appointed as a Judicial Registrar unless: (a) the person is or has been a Judge of a court created by the Parliament or of a court of a State or the Northern Territory or has been enrolled a legal practitioner of the High Court or of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory for not less than 5 years; and (b) the person is, by reason of training, experience and personality, a suitable person to deal with matters of family law. I really think in that situation those qualifications, being the ones that one would look for if one was considering appointment to the bench, adequately provide for a person of sufficient experience and status to deal with a contested matter. To take up Senator Haines's point, under proposed new section 26d (2) we find: Where: (a) a power . . . is proposed to be exercised in a particular case by a Judicial Registrar; Senator Haines —Is that in the Bill or the principal Act? Senator TATE —It is on page 4 of the amending Bill. Senator Walters —That doesn't satisfy the conditions. Senator TATE —If the honourable senator would just let me finish my sentence, I have pointed to the page which provides: Where: (a) a power . . . is proposed to be exercised in a particular case by a Judicial Registrar; but (b) the Judicial Registrar has not commenced to exercise the power in that case; a Judge may, on application by a person who would be a party to the proceedings before the Judicial Registrar in relation to the proposed exercise of the power, order that the power be exercised in that case by a Judge. Senator Haines —That is prior to the hearing? Senator TATE —Prior to the hearing. In other words, people know that they are going to go before a judicial registrar. They obviously have the advice of counsel and so on and, for some reason or another, they are of the view that the case should go to a judge. No doubt, under this provision, they can go to a judge and seek for the matter to be put before a judge rather than be dealt with by a judicial registrar. Senator Haines —What happens if part of it has been heard? Senator TATE —You cannot really make provision-- Senator Haines —Why not? Senator TATE —Halfway through a case a person might feel that it is going the wrong way, or something like that, and then decide to go off to a judge. I do not think that is appropriate. However, I think it is appropriate that if the problem is that the matter is being dealt with by a judicial registrar rather than a judge, the person should have the opportunity to seek that the matter be heard before a judge. I do not believe that we can provide for persons who are unhappy about a particular judicial registrar's dealing with a matter once it is under way. I concede that an argument can be raised before a matter gets before the judicial registrar. That is provided for in the Bill. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(4.51) —The Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) seems to have overlooked the point I was trying to make, perhaps not very well, in my comments a moment ago; that is, if somebody suddenly becomes aggrieved, we are doubling the jeopardy if we do not allow the proceeding to go back to a judge. Why place judicial registrars in jeopardy when a matter could quite easily be referred back to a judge? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(4.52) —I was trying to point out that I do not think it is appropriate that, halfway through a proceeding being conducted by a judicial registrar, people should be able to say that they are not happy with the way things are going and want to go off to a judge. I have pointed out that if, before the matter gets to the judicial registrar, the person concerned considers that inappropriate, he or she can apply to a judge under proposed section 26d (2). Of course, once a decision is made by the judicial registrar, if it is unsatisfactory to a party, he or she can seek a review of that decision by a judge. That is provided for in proposed section 26c. I think that is the more appropriate way to deal with it. Proposed section 26c (2) states: The Court may, on application made under subsection (1) or of its own motion, review the exercise by a Judicial Registrar of a power delegated under subsection 26b (1) and may make such orders as it considers appropriate in relation to the matter in relation to which the power was exercised. I am saying that it is satisfactory to make a decision at the beginning or to seek a review at the end. However, it is not appropriate halfway through a proceeding to march off from one forum into another. Senator Puplick —Can a review be reviewed? Senator TATE —Yes. The normal appeal processes would apply. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(4.53) —The bitterness of Family Court proceedings that involve property disputes is bad enough. However, when proceedings involve the custody of children there have been situations where violence has been not only threatened against Family Court judges but also actually taken against them. We must understand the bitterness that accompanies those proceedings. Halfway through a contested case a party may believe, as Senator Haines said, that the proceeding is being conducted by a second-class judge. Considering the bitterness involved with custody proceedings, there is no way that that will not occur. However, if a matter is being heard by a judge, the highest person in the Family Court, parties will be less likely to believe that they have been treated shabbily than they would if their partner or their lawyers persuaded them that it would be quicker to have the matter dealt with by someone who is not even a judge, someone who is second class. I agree with the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) that the qualifications for judicial registrars are very strict and are very good. However, I am looking at this matter as a senator. I am not looking at it as a mother desperately wanting custody of children. If I were a mother fighting for the custody of my children I would see a judicial registrar as someone of a lower class than a judge. In order to speed up matters, parties may have to agree to go before a judicial registrar. As the case proceeds, as Senator Haines said, a party may believe the proceeding to be hopeless, that the registrar is not listening to him or her. Honourable senators know how emotional parties can become. However, if the matter is being determined by a judge, the highest person available, I think the bitterness and disappointment would be less. For that reason I say that at least matters of the highest priority, those involving the interests of children, should be determined by a Family Court judge. I understand exactly what Senator Haines was saying. In the middle of a case one ought to be able to change one's mind if one believes one is being given a raw deal. However, I agree with the Minister also that that could be difficult. If the Bill stipulated that only Family Court judges should deal with matters involving the highest priority in divorce proceedings, that is the care of children, that would be doing the best possible for children involved in this unhappy situation. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(4.57) —I rise to express my support for the amendment that Senator Walters has proposed. I do not understand how the clauses of the amending Bill to which the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) has referred can satisfy Senator Haines. In view of the very strong conditions that Senator Haines has laid down, I hope that she will support Senator Walters's amendment. Senator Haines —This is to clause 9, you are talking about? Senator DURACK —Clause 9, yes-limiting judicial registrars, by excluding contested custody cases from their general jurisdiction. The Minister has pointed out that if at the end of a proceeding a party is dissatisfied with it or the way in which it was conducted there may be an appeal to a judge. However, that is cool comfort to someone, as Senator Haines said, who finds that the judicial registrar is not handling the matter properly, and he or she must go to all the further trouble and expense of an appeal; and perhaps then an appeal from the judge to the Full Court. That is unnecessarily expanding the agony and expense of the parties. The point I should like to stress in support of Senator Walters's amendment is that it is in accordance with what the Minister has said is the intention of the judges. When this matter was raised, I think firstly by Senator Haines in the committee stage when dealing with clause 9, the Minister specifically said that judicial registrars would deal with only minor custody cases. When further queried, the Minister tightened his comment by saying judicial registrars will not deal with any contested custody cases, though they might deal with access matters, I think the Minister said. From further inquiries, I have ascertained that judicial registrars will not even deal with access. It is intended that they will deal only with machinery matters, such as pre-trial proceedings that might arise in custody cases. That is my understanding of the intention I have ascertained from elsewhere-not having received any clear guidance from the Minister on these matters. Be that as it may, the Minister has indicated that the Government's policy is that judicial registrars should not be dealing with full-blown contested custody cases or, indeed, access cases, which can be just as disturbing and traumatic as a full custody case. If that is the position, I cannot see why the Minister or the Government-if the Minister does not like the wording of Senator Walters's amendment he might want to tidy it up-would be opposed in principle to Senator Walters's amendment. The Minister has now agreed that registrars should be specifically excluded from dealing with contested custody cases. Senator Walters will move an amendment in that regard later. I put it to the Minister that his own view of the matter, as expressed in answers to questions in this debate, is very much in accord with the principle of Senator Walters's amendment. Therefore, I think he ought seriously to think about it. He may feel that it needs some tidying up, that some qualification is desirable to enable registrars to deal with some machinery orders in a pre-trial proceeding before the full case is heard. Maybe Senator Walters's amendment would stop them doing that in a contested case. That is something that the Government might want to consider, but simply to take a stance of complete opposition to Senator Walters's amendment, in the light of the policy announced by the Minister when he answered questions earlier in this debate, seems to me to indicate a quite pig-headed attitude. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(5.02) —I would like to make just a couple of comments on this matter. First of all, I repeat my earlier comments about registrars and judicial registrars; that is, that as far as we are concerned, registrars can deal with any non-contested substantive matter and that judicial registrars should be entitled, if a judge so rules, to deal with any matter, contested or not, provided only that there is a right of appeal to a judge from one of the parties concerned. Senator Walters has given a hypothetical case in which a person may feel that the judicial registrar is not dealing appropriately with that individual's matters and is not listening properly to his or her point of view, and so on. I can only point out that plenty of people believe that individual judges do not do precisely that and complain that they have not had a fair hearing. That is why, as Senator Durack pointed out, we have an appeals mechanism from judicial hearings. Without wanting to sound terribly cynical, however, from the cases that have come to my office it appears that people fight far more over who gets the property than over who gets the children. Senator Durack —I think you have a pretty selective group, then. Senator HAINES —I am only talking about the people who complain to me about not being fairly dealt with-- Senator Durack —There are plenty of complaints about custody cases. Senator HAINES —Just wait a minute, Senator. I am talking of the people who complain to me about not getting a fair deal from the Family Court. But, in so far as children are a matter of dispute, as Senator Durack pointed out, access is as important as custody. Again, very many of the arguments are not about who is to have custody but about equitable, fair and reasonable access. Indeed, if more men were prepared to take on custody, we would have child-care centres popping up all over the country as they discover that it is not possible to be a sole supporting parent and work as well. I look forward to the day when 50 per cent of custody orders are made to the father. I think we need to be a bit realistic about who fights over what but, by the same token, we do not need to make life more difficult than need be for either judges or judicial registrars in instances where people believe they are getting a raw deal. If they believe they are getting a raw deal from a judge-and plenty do-they have the capacity, as Senator Durack pointed out, to appeal. All I am asking for is that they have the right to go back to a judge from a judicial registrar in the event of their being unhappy. I accept the Minister's point that we may not be able to do it halfway through crossing the stream. I used to teach English and maths and am not into legalese, and I would just like to check how the lawyers use the word `may'. Senator Puplick —Selectively. Senator HAINES —Senator Puplick says, `selectively', and I have an awful sinking feeling that he is right. I understand that, if somebody seeks to appeal against a judicial decision, that appeal will not automatically be granted. There must be some grounds for the appeal and, if there are not, people do not have the right to appeal against a judicial decision. If that is correct, we may be only compounding the problem by not giving people a right to appeal, and have that appeal heard, from the decision of a judicial registrar to a judge. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(5.07) —Proposed new section 26 (2) states: The Court may, on application . . . review the exercise by a Judicial Registrar of a power delegated . . . and make such orders as it considers appropriate . . . The word `may' has several meanings. Clearly, one meaning is that the Court is permitted to do that; it is able to do it; it is quite within its powers to do it; it can do it. But the additional meaning must be to make it not mandatory, to make it a discretionary matter. In other words, the word `shall' is not used. Senator Haines —Why not? Senator TATE —That is a very good question. Senator Haines —I think we got into this because I asked a very good question about three weeks ago. Quite seriously, Minister, it is a problem. Senator TATE —I understand that it is serious and I am taking it seriously. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(5.08) —I accept that people ought not to be able to make frivolous appeals from a judge's ruling to a full bench, but it seems unfortunate that this is being compounded by the fact that somebody whose case is heard by a judicial registrar can have a request that it go back before a judge turned down. I think we all accept that there is not going to be automatic approval for a review, for appeal, on a judicial decision, but I do not think it is right that we remove all absolute rights of appeal when the power is being delegated. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(5.09) —I should perhaps draw Senator Haines's attention to another discretion in that area; that is, the one to which she has already referred. Proposed new section 26d (2) on page 4 of the Bill states that where there is a power delegated to a judicial registrar but the judicial registrar has not commenced to exercise his discretion, a judge may, on application by a person, order that the power be exercised in that case by a judge. Again, of course, it is a discretion. So even at the beginning all a person can do is go to a judge and ask that it be heard by a judge. A person has no absolute right to have it heard by a judge, and this is a further problem of the kind that Senator Haines has identified under section 26c. So, clearly, if a judicial registrar has had delegated to him or her a contested custody matter, including access, there is no way in the world under this section that a person has any absolute right to have the matter heard by a judge. It is only a discretion. A person has the right to apply for it to be heard by a judge; that is all he or she has. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(5.11) —I agree with that. A discretion is vested in a judge to decide whether or not to review the exercise of power by the judicial registrar. I am advised that the decision by the judge not to exercise the discretion to review the decision of the registrar could then be appealed. Senator Puplick —To whom? Senator TATE —To the appeal court of the Family Court. In other words, it is a decision by the judge not to review the decision by the registrar. I am advised that that decision is then able to be appealed because it amounts to a decree as defined in the interpretation section. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(5.12) —I appeal to the Minister to agree to the amendment moved by Senator Walters. Senator Haines's conditions are clearly not satisfied by him in terms of his attitude. Senator Walters's amendment expresses in pretty well general terms the policy of the Government, as announced by the Minister in his answers to questions. We have already gone over this ground. Instead of the Minister opposing, or seemingly continuing to oppose the matter, why should we not now agree to Senator Walters's amendment? If the Minister wants this clause tidied up, if there are difficulties with it, this can be done when other amendments are being considered in the House of Representatives. That seems to me to be a fair sort of compromise and I appeal to the Minister to agree to it. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(5.13) —What I am thinking of doing is meeting Senator Haines most of the way she wants to go. Indeed, I am thinking of meeting Senator Walters all of the way she wants to go. I propose to do this by using the amendment that I have circulated to revised clause 12. I think we will probably need to amalgamate Senator Walters's amendment and my amendment in regard to paragraph (d) of my amendment. Senator Haines —Is this a merger? Senator TATE —In the most theoretical and abstract sense. Senator Haines —I think Senator Puplick is right-a marriage of convenience. Senator TATE —Yes. The paragraph would read: except the power to make an order in relation to the custody, guardianship or welfare of, or access to, a child, other than an order made in undefended proceedings or with the consent of all the parties to the proceedings. Senator Walters —That is for the judicial registrars? Senator TATE —Yes. Obviously I am foreshadowing that we will do that in relation to registrars. Senator Walters —Are you happy with that? Senator TATE —I am not happy but I am prepared to-- Senator Puplick —Senator Walters says that she would be happy with that. Senator TATE —If Senator Walters is happy, I am delirious. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Peter Baume) —Minister, would you clarify the position? Are you proposing to amend the amendment by adding certain words which you have just indicated to the Committee? Senator TATE —The words that I would need to offer to the Committee as an amendment are: Page 3, clause 9, proposed subsection 26b (1), at end of proposed subsection, add `except the power to make an order in relation to the custody, guardianship or welfare of, or access to, a child, other than an order made in undefended proceedings or with the consent of all the parties to the proceedings'. Senator Haines —Done. Senator Walters —Done. Senator TATE —Mr Temporary Chairman, could you put clause 9? The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Do I understand, Senator Walters, that you would seek leave to withdraw your amendment? Senator Walters —I seek leave to withdraw my amendment and I am delirious. Leave granted. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Senator Tate, I understand that you now wish to move an amendment in the terms which you have just outlined to the Committee. Senator TATE —I move: Page 3, clause 9, proposed subsection 26b (1), at end of proposed subsection, add `except the power to make an order in relation to the custody, guardianship or welfare of, or access to, a child, other than an order made in undefended proceedings or with the consent of all the parties to the proceedings.'.''. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 12 (Delegation of powers to Registrars). Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(5.17) —Mr Temporary Chairman, to save a lot of time I should point out that I have circulated a revised clause 12. I think its terms are very clear. We have had a debate on all the issues that are comprised in the amendment that I have circulated. I wish it a speedy passage. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(5.17) —I think before we debate the Government's amendment to clause 12 it would be appropriate for the Committee to attend to my amendment to clause 12, which is a wider and more significant amendment. The Government's amendment proposes a much more limited change. I think the Committee should first decide whether it wants to make a more substantial change. My amendment, which was circulated during the last committee debate, proposes to delete from clause 12 paragraphs (a) and (b). In other words, my amendment virtually guts the clause. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —The Chair is in the hands of the Committee. It is now up to Senator Tate to respond to Senator Durack. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(5.18) —I am happy that Senator Durack's amendment be dealt with first. However, his amendment completely contradicts the purpose of the Government proposal. I think the differences between us were discussed at length both at the second reading stage and earlier during the committee stage. So obviously we will be opposing the amendment. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Senator Durack, would you move your amendment? Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(5.19) —Mr Temporary Chairman, I think that is the appropriate way to go. I move: Page 6, paragraphs 12 (a) and (b), lines 20 and 21, leave out the paragraphs. Let me just recapitulate a little. Previously we had quite a lengthy discussion in committee which resulted in the amendment which I have circulated, although we did not deal with it because we went on to other clauses. Clause 12 deals with section 37A of the Family Law Act which was passed by the Parliament in 1985 and which provides for a very wide delegation of powers to registrars. We have moved away from judicial registrars and we are now dealing with a better understood concept, namely, that of registrars who are officers of the Court. From the inception of the Court, they have performed most important functions of a minor character in conducting conferences, settling property disputes and exercising an increasing range of minor judicial functions. In 1985 the Parliament, in its wisdom, decided to give registrars these wider powers-perhaps more than was envisaged in the original Act-to enable judges to delegate to registrars a whole range of matters, some of which are spelt out but not exhaustively, and which restrict the registrars in this way. Section 37A (1) (g) of the Family Law Act 1975 states that the powers of the Court that may be delegated do not include: (i) a decree of dissolution of marriage or nullity of marriage; (ii) a declaration as to the validity of a marriage or the dissolution of annulment of a marriage; or (iii) an order approving a maintenance agreement under section 87. The Government's original amendments totally omitted that restriction so the Government came into the Senate with a proposal that there should be no restrictions whatsoever on the power to delegate to registrars. Of course, the Government retreated from that policy as a result of the committee debate, and as a result of the debate we have just had it has retreated from its stand in relation to delegation to judicial registrars in a very sensible way, if I may say so, even though the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) took a long time to see the sense of it. Perhaps it was the numbers that carried the day, but let us hope it was the sense of it. It seems to me that the amendments we passed to section 37, as recently as 1985, make very considerable sense. The registrars of the Court, although well qualified people who, by and large, have successfully exercised important functions, do not have the proposed status of the judicial registrars who will be created and who will be like mini-judges. The Parliament showed good sense in 1985 in restricting the registrars' jurisdiction so that they could not make orders for the dissolution of a marriage whether defended or undefended; could not make declarations as to the validity of a marriage; and could not approve maintenance agreements under section 87. The approval of maintenance agreements under section 87 is a very important power because such a maintenance agreement could take away the future rights of a party. This power, like others, is very important. The Government is conceding, by its new proposed amendments, that registrars will not have power to grant a decree of dissolution when proceedings are defended. They will not have power to deal with decrees of nullity whether defended or undefended-that is the same limitation that exists under the present restriction. They will not have a power of declaration as to the validity of marriage or its dissolution whether defended or undefended-that is already in the restrictions. Now the Government is saying that they will now not have the power to make an order in relation to contested custody proceedings. The language of the Minister is more detailed but this is essentially what it means. This means that there is a considerable change of policy by the Government from the one that was embodied in clause 12 of the Bill. I simply want to go a little further than the Government to ensure that we go back to the situation as it operates in the existing section 37A which would mean that the registrars could perform a whole range of minor judicial work. They could of course carry on their work of conducting conferences and settlements in relation to property and other matters such as maintenance and so on, but they would not be able to pronounce decrees of divorce, whether defended or undefended. Senator Tate —No, that is not right. Senator DURACK —That is the position if the Government adopts my amendment. The Government has now gone halfway and has said, `Oh well, we agree they cannot do defended divorces'. It is not very much different from the situation which we now have, because with the Government's amendment the registrars will not be able to deal with nullity of marriage, whether defended or undefended, or with a declaration as to validity of marriage, whether defended or undefended, or defended custody cases. Again, I fail to see why the Government, having retreated to the extent that it has in relation to clause 12, is bothering at all to proceed with this halfway house, so to speak, between the present position and the one it originally proposed. In view of this debate, I think that the Committee would be happier to adopt my amendment which would leave the situation as it stands and as was agreed to by the Parliament as recently as 1985. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(5.27) —I do not think I can usefully add a great deal. It is the Government's primary desire in regard to an extra role for registrars that they be enabled to deal with undefended dissolutions of marriages. That remains our core intention in pushing this particular clause 12. During the two weeks I have been overseas I have had a chance to read the Hansard record and reflect upon the debate. I think honourable senators will agree that we have gone a long way-- Senator Haines —That makes you an accredited masochist. Senator TATE —In Manila it was very interesting to go through the Hansard debates. Honourable senators will agree that we have gone a tremendously long way to meet the concerns expressed in this chamber and, in particular, with the addition of paragraph (d) to my circulated amendment, the Committee should accept that the Government has gone as far as it can without abandoning the core of clause 12 which we still regard as important. Amendment negatived. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(5.29) —I move my amendment as circulated under the heading `Revised clause 12': Page 6, clause 12, lines 20 to 21, leave out proposed paragraphs (a) and (b), insert the following paragraph: (a) by omitting subsection (2) and substituting the following subsection: ``(2) (a) a decree of dissolution of marriage in proceedings that are defended; (b) a decree of nullity of marriage; (c) a declaration as to the validity of a marriage or the dissolution or annulment of a marriage; or (d) an order in relation to the custody, guardianship or welfare of, or access to, a child, other than an order made in undefended proceedings or with the consent of all parties to the proceedings.'.''. Senator Haines —Could the Minister please add to his amendment that the theme that is currently (c) in the Bill will become (b); otherwise we are left with a sort of gap in the middle. Senator TATE —I was told that that will be dealt with in the Table Office. Senator Haines —That happens as if by magic? That's wonderful! The CHAIRMAN —Order! It is not done by magic; it is done by the Chairman. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(5.30) —The amendment that Senator Tate is proposing, as it stands, does not seem to make sense. The amendment that we have now passed leaves out proposed paragraphs (a) and (b). The CHAIRMAN —No, that is the amendment before the Chair at the moment. It has not yet been passed. Senator DURACK —I thought you were suggesting that some words were to be added to Senator Tate's amendment, which seems quite necessary. The amendment says that we omit subsection (2) of the Family Law Act, which states: The powers of the court that may be delegated under subsection (1) do not include the power to make: That has been omitted completely and the following subsection substituted: (2) (a) A decree of dissolution of marriage . . . That does not make any sense. We need to have the words in the existing section: The powers of the court that may be delegated . . . do not include the powers to make: I thought that was what Senator Haines was talking about. The CHAIRMAN —I was referring to the point that Senator Haines made about what would happen to amendment (c) that would become correctly lettered by the Chairman's amendment when the Bill went through. But, if it is a matter of the principal Act at issue, the Minister should answer. Senator DURACK —We need some further elaboration from the Minister. He seems to be struggling with this. If he looks at his original amendment, it included those words. It omitted the clause and substituted the following: (2) The powers of the court that may be delegated under subsection (1) do not include the power to make: (a) a decree of dissolution of marriage in proceedings that are defended; (b) a decree of nullity of marriage; or (c) a declaration as to the validity of a marriage or the dissolution or annulment of a marriage. But those opening words have been omitted from the amendment that has been circulated at the last minute today. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(5.33) —I am advised that the amendment that has been circulated under the heading `Revised Clause 12' amends clause 12 of the Bill as originally circulated. It does not in itself purport to amend section 37a. It is an amendment to clause 12 of the Bill so that, if one looks at page 6 of the Bill, it would read: Section 37a of the Principal Act is amended: (a) by omitting subsection (2) and substituting the following subsection: Then (2) (a), (b), (c) and (d) would follow. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(5.34) —But that does not make any sense. Senator Walters —You still have to turn back to the principal Act. Senator DURACK —The Minister has not amended his original amendment. If he looks at his original amendment, which was put down the other day-I do not know when it was circulated-it did not have a proposed paragraph (d). It is the right drafting because it has the necessary words in it. Is the Minister saying that he is amending that amendment? He is putting down another substitute for the amendment in the printed Bill. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(5.35) —Section 37a (2) in the principal Act starts off: The powers of the Court that may be delegated under subsection (1) do not include the power to make: Senator Durack —But you have omitted that. Senator TATE —No, that is the preamble to section 37a (2) in the principal Act. It reads: The powers of the Court that may be delegated under subsection (1) do not include the power to make: Those words are retained. Senator Walters —But you are omitting the whole of subsection (2) in this revised clause. If you omit the whole of subsection (2) you have to have some words leading in. Senator Haines —What the Minister is saying is that the words leading in are not affected; it is only what is in subsection (2) that are omitted. Senator TATE —Mr Chairman, in that case, I think some enlightenment is dawning. Senator Durack —It is taking a long time. Senator TATE —Yes, I know. The amendment should read: Page 6, clause 12, lines 20 to 21, leave out proposed paragraphs (a) and (b), insert the following paragraph: ``(a) by omitting subsection (2) and substituting the following subsection: `(2) the powers of the Court that may be delegated under subsection (1) do not include the power to make: (a) a decree of dissolution of marriage in proceedings that are defended; (b) a decree of nullity of marriage; (c) a declaration as to the validity of a marriage or the dissolution or annulment of a marriage; or (d) an order in relation to the custody, guardianship or welfare of, or access to, a child other than an order made in undefended proceedings or with the consent of all the parties to the proceedings.'.''. Senator Durack —That is what I was trying to tell you. Senator TATE —I appreciate Senator Durack's assistance. The CHAIRMAN —Is leave granted by the Committee to amend the amendment accordingly? Leave granted. Senator TATE —I am indebted to the Committee and to Senator Durack in particular. Senator Durack —Senator Haines saw it and tried to help you. The CHAIRMAN —The question is that Senator Tate's amendment, as amended by leave, be agreed to. Paragraph (c) will be relettered by the Chairman to (b). Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. The CHAIRMAN —The question is that the title be agreed to. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(5.37) —I would like to raise a matter which was drawn to my attention a short time ago. It concerns an effect of the new clause 8b that we agreed to the last time we dealt with this Bill in committee. The Government circulated a whole raft of new amendments. We have started debate today at the very end of that list of amendments. At page 3 of the Government's revised amendments, under the heading `Seniority', it seeks to insert a new clause 8b into the Family Law Act. It deals with the rearrangement of seniority of judges as a result of the creation of the positions of Deputy Chief Judge and judge administrators. I have been informed that at a meeting-I think only this morning-of a number of judges of the Family Court of Australia some concerns were expressed about the effect of clause 8b, which certainly affects the seniority of some existing judges as a result of the amendments and the creation of the office of judge administrator. This has been brought to the attention of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen)-I do not know whether the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) is aware of it-and the judges have been told that this proposed new section will be amended to deal with the anomaly that it creates in relation to this question of seniority of some of the existing judges who have been in the appeals panel as against the new office of judge administrator which is created. I cannot give any further details to the Minister, but I wonder whether he has heard of this. The information I have received seems to be from an impeccable source. If some further amendments are to be made to the proposed new section, can the Minister tell us when that will be done? The CHAIRMAN —The matter before the Chair is the title of the Bill. I will allow that as a question, but, if there is to be a prolonged debate, a motion for the recommittal of the relevant clause would be necessary. The Minister may wish to answer. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(5.41) —Very briefly, Mr Chairman, and with your indulgence: as you were speaking it was drawn to my attention that apparently the matter arose in discussions between the Attorney-General and the judges of the Court at a meeting in Sydney this morning. The Attorney has not indicated to me any amendment that he will push, in order to deal, as I understand it, with one judge who apparently is to lose some seniority in some hierarchy. I have no amendment to offer. I have no doubt that it will be for the Attorney to determine whether it is appropriate that, in light of the discussions, some amendment be moved in the House of Representatives. Certainly, I have no amendment to offer here. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(5.42) —Can the Minister take it one step further and indicate whether the Attorney proposes to make any amendment in light of the anomaly that has arisen as a result of a clause we have already passed and about which we were never informed by the Minister? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(5.42) —I think it is a bit unfair for Senator Durack to say that he was not informed of this. The matter arose in discussions between the Attorney and some Family Court judges in Sydney this morning. I can hardly be blamed for not bringing it to his attention when we considered the clause three weeks ago. Senator Durack —Your amendment was brought forward three weeks ago. Senator TATE —Yes, but at that time, apparently, the matter had not been raised in discussions between the Family Court judges and the Attorney. Senator Durack —It arises out of your amendment. You must know what it means. Senator TATE —I know what it means. Apparently, it has an effect which, as I understand it, disturbs one judge. There may be others. All I can say at the moment is that the Attorney has not indicated to me that the Government is prepared to bring an amendment into this chamber at this late stage. It may be that, after the Attorney has had an opportunity to review the discussions held this morning, an amendment will be brought into the House of Representatives to deal with this matter. However, I do not want to give and cannot give any undertaking to that effect. Title agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Tate) read a third time. Debate resumed from 25 February, on motion by Senator Richardson: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(5.44) —The Opposition will vigorously oppose the Conservation Legislation Amendment Bill and will do so, I hope, effectively in terms of drawing public attention to what it believes to be a series of totally undesirable amendments which the Government will seek to make to two pieces of legislation by the passage of this Bill. The Bill represents, on the part of the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson) and the Government, an admission of their failure to make the federal system work and their inability to deal with the constituent States of the Australian federation in a proper and civilised fashion. The Bill represents, in effect, an attempt by the Government to treat all environmental matters as if it were dealing with the Enmore branch of the Australian Labor Party. (Quorum formed) The first thing that the Bill does to which I wish to draw attention is seek a significant extension of the Commonwealth's power in relation to areas which are or are potentially being considered for listing on the World Heritage List. It proceeds, by way of amendment to section 3 of the principal Act, to redefine the term `identified property' so as to bring into the term, and therefore to bring into the Minister's jurisdiction, property which is subject to an inquiry established by a law of the Commonwealth whose purpose, or one of whose purposes, is to consider whether the property forms part of the cultural heritage or natural heritage. The term `one of whose purposes' may be fairly limited. The purpose may be quite subsidiary to the main purpose for which an inquiry has been established. It is the sort of inquiry which may cast its net widely and which may, in fact, have quite extraordinary powers over the future land use decisions to be made within Australia. The first point I make is that I believe such an amendment is rendered unnecessary by the clear decision of the High Court of Australia on 10 March in relation to the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Act. If one looks at page 12 of the printed judgment of the High Court and at the words of the Chief Justice, Mr Justice Mason, and Mr Justice Brennan, one will see that they say: It is for each State- on this occasion they mean a State party to the convention-that is, Australia- to determine what it will do by way of protecting a particular property pending resolution of its status as part of the heritage. They went on to say: . . . the State's duty to ensure protection of the heritage and to the attainment of the object of the Convention. They say, in relation to that legislation: . . . the absence of such action on the part of the Minister- that is to say, a restraining action- by way of interim protection in the meantime would expose the property to the possibility of irreparable damage. The important thing to understand about this is that the High Court of Australia, in fact, has said that the power which the Government claims it needs to put into legislation is a power which is already there. Therefore, it is unnecessary for the rest of the Bill to be hinged upon some alleged necessity to undertake a course of action which clearly has been stated by the High Court to be within Commonwealth power. The second point of real objection in this legislation relates to the appalling new system of inspectors. I refer to this new, intrusive system of inspectors whom, I suppose, one might refer to now as Richardson's greenshirts, who will be able to go crashing through private property to take all sorts of extraordinary actions on their own initiative. Despite the fact that Senator Richardson put out a Press statement on 3 March in which he said that these inspectors would really not be anything to worry about, everybody who has looked at this legislation knows that they are to be worried about. There have been representations to me from the Queensland Coal Association, the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia, the Tasmanian Chamber of Mines and the Executive Director of the Australian Mining Industry Council, to name just a few, who have all drawn attention to concerns that this new system of inspectors is to be put in place. These inspectors really may do just about anything. They may enter and search premises, although I concede they are not entitled to enter a place defined as a `dwelling house' because an `eligible place' does not include a `dwelling house'. Whether one dwells in a caravan perhaps is a moot point or, indeed, like most of Senator Richardson's friends, whether one dwells in a tent may indeed be an equally interesting point. These inspectors may enter and search; they may take photographs; they may examine, inspect and measure. They may stop, detain and enter any vehicle. Allegedly, they are to do so either with the consent of the property owner concerned or on the basis of a warrant or-here is the great Richardson cop-out clause-if the entry is made in `circumstances that are of such seriousness and urgency as to require and justify immediate entry' without the consent of the person in charge, or the authority of a warrant issued under the relevant subsection. Look at those tests: `such seriousness', `urgency', `require and justify', `immediate entry', `without the consent', `or the authority of a warrant'. In other words, it is an absolute, open-ended arrangement for all of Senator Richardson's greenshirts to now come traipsing through the private property of individual Australian citizens. Even if they were to get a warrant, from where would they get their warrant? They would get a warrant from a `judge of a court created by the Parliament'. Presumably, that could mean the Family Court of Australia because that is a court created by the Parliament. Senator Aulich, who is a great expert on and supporter of the intrusion into the civil liberties of Australian citizens, nods his consent. I can hear it from here. It is indicated that such a judge has to consent in writing to be nominated by Senator Richardson as one of the friendly judges who, presumably, are prepared to give a warrant whenever a warrant is asked for. Finally, these wonderful inspectors are to be provided with identity cards which contain up to date photographs. Once again we have a system in which the insistence of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to have identity cards is back on the agenda. If we look at the West Australian of 10 March this year we see the headline `Hawke revives ID card debate'. Once again we see that the whole paraphernalia of identity cards, inspectors and entry on to private property without consent or warrant is part of this Government's Enmore approach to dealing with the environment. We will find next that to qualify as an inspector one will have to have a certificate of character worthiness from the Minister's mate Tommy Domican. We have vast paraphernalia put into the legislation that will remove from the jurisdiction of Australian courts the right to make certain determinations about the validity of nominations or, indeed, about the quality and worth of the nominations. In fact, under this Bill the Commonwealth will remove the test under the World Heritage Convention ensuring that an area is genuinely part of the cultural heritage or of the natural heritage of the nation. In doing so the Commonwealth has sought to make the World Heritage Committee the final arbiter of these matters. It is not dependent on an Australian court, Australian evaluation or Australian expertise, and there is plenty of that around. If one goes back to the decision of the High Court in the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests case which I previously mentioned, one will see that the judges in fact are at pains to make that sort of evaluation. The majority of judges, speaking through Justices Mason and Brennan, in fact make it quite clear at page 14 of the transcript that they have made certain objective judgments about the validity of the law prohibiting tree felling and the removal in the course of forestry operations, road and track construction and excavation, which are `generally speaking acts involving a potential risk or injury to a particular place'. Similarly, in coming to a decision that parts of the Act were invalid, Her Honour Justice Gaudron did so on the basis of looking at the scientific evidence which was presented to the court and coming to the conclusion that the scientific evidence did not justify the provisions of the Bill. Therefore, to say that in Australia, even at the level of the High Court of Australia, we do not have the capacity to make these judgments, is not only insulting but is, in fact, also revealing of the fact that Senator Richardson does not want these matters dealt with properly within Australian jurisdiction, subject to the normal public scrutiny and debate which would accompany those things in Australia. We have a specious part added to the Bill to the effect that we will have some fast track mechanism of dealing with compensation claims in cases in which there has been an acquisition of property. Yet the most vulnerable area in Australia remains the Northern Territory. Senator Collins, who is in the chamber, and my colleague Senator Tambling will know that as a result of the High Court's decision in the Teori Tau case in 1969 the Commonwealth is not obliged to provide just terms for the acquisition of property which takes place within the Territory which they represent. But there is no attempt in this Bill to address that particular matter. The Bill simply states that if there is an acquisition of property it shall have the same meaning and be done on the same terms as paragraph 51 (xxxi) of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia. This is of no comfort whatsoever to any of Senator Tambling's or Senator Collins's constituents. However, that matter is not addressed. Next in the legislation we have the removal of the provisions of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 from the Commonwealth's own actions. This is the situation that arises: If I am the potential builder of a motel adjacent to Ayers Rock, Uluru, I have to go through the process of an environmental impact statement to see whether in fact such construction is environmentally sound. I have to make my presentation; I have to have it evaluated and judged. I have to go through a whole set of evaluation procedures. However, if I am Mr John Brown and reinstated as Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories and I want to build a wretched monorail around Uluru, then I am entitled to do so and to desecrate it without having to go through the analysis and rigour of the impact of proposals legislation. In other words, the Commonwealth frees itself under this Bill from any necessity to submit its own development proposals in World Heritage listed areas or areas subject to potential World Heritage listing to its own legislation, something which it requires other people or indeed the States to adhere to if they want to build or develop in exactly the same way. That is absolutely unjustifiable. The Government gives itself carte blanche. In fact, it retrospectively seeks to validate actions already undertaken which may have been in breach of that legislation, and it does so by asserting that the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act does not apply to anything done under the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act or regulations made under that Act. That is absolutely scandalous. The next thing we have in the legislation is the thimble and pea trick with the regulations made under the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act relating to the tropical rainforests of north Queensland. Today time does not permit me to go into great details about this particular matter, other than to draw attention to the level of debate in which Senator Richardson has engaged. He has consistently refused the offer made to him by the Ahern Government in Queensland to discuss this matter and come to a sensible, rational decision and determination in which both the Commonwealth and the States can be participants and partners. The Minister has consistently refused that offer. Instead he has indulged in gratuitous abuse of the Queensland Government and the Queensland Department of Forestry. Senator Richardson put out a statement on 3 March in which he claimed that forestry maps reveal some `gross deceit' about how much or how little virgin rainforests remains and how much of that has been logged or not logged. A detailed examination of the reply which the Queensland Department of Forestry has prepared on this matter reveals that it is Senator Richardson's Department which has been guilty of gross deceit about these figures. If one reads carefully the material provided and if one examines the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation studies done by Hopkins, Tracey and others, one sees that the area to which Senator Richardson refers is in fact not the area which is exclusively concerned with the question of the World Heritage listing boundaries. In fact, it is a much larger area. It is the whole of the rainforest estate remaining between Townsville and Cooktown. The Minister has provided a quite dishonest presentation of the facts in this matter. We are already at a crisis point in terms of the economic development of Australian resources. Something of the order of 20 per cent of the land mass of the Australian continent has already been removed from potential economic evaluation, let alone exploitation. If this process continues unabated, we will soon get up towards one-third of the Australian land mass quarantined out, not simply from development which may or may not be justified once environmental and economic considerations have been properly taken into account and evaluated but even from being properly and scientifically examined as to its economic and ecological worth. Throughout this whole process I have stressed repeatedly, and the Opposition has stressed repeatedly, that this matter could have been handled in a proper, coherent and federalist manner by dealing fairly, openly, and honestly with the Queensland Government in respect of the north Queensland situation. Discussions which took place a couple of days ago in my Sydney office involving myself, the Hon. Mike Ahern, Premier of Queensland, and my senior shadow cabinet colleagues, Mr Andrew Peacock and Senator John Stone, brought us to a position in which we have made it abundantly clear that the Federal coalition in government could have negotiated openly with the Queensland Government to bring about a resolution of this particular matter. I am in a position to say that the approach we would have made to the Queensland Government as the basis upon which those discussions would have proceeded-I believe they would have proceeded in a satisfactory fashion towards a satisfactory conclusion-would have been on the following premises: First, we would have proposed that the State of Queensland take steps to create a greater Daintree national park which would have been created within the laws and jurisdiction of that State. It would have been created in the area between Mount Molloy and Cooktown, based upon the existing national parks of the Daintree River, the Dagmar Range, Wonga, Cape Tribulation, Cedar Bay and Black Mountain. We believe that it would have been possible to identify clearly the absolutely unique characteristic of the Daintree-Cape Tribulation area and to give that area very special protection, because it is quite unique and undoubtedly worthy of very special protection, without in fact drawing the sort of extensive, ambit claim boundaries which have been drawn by Senator Richardson and his Government. We would have sought to have, in conjunction with the Queensland Government, a complete socioeconomic and environmental evaluation of the Queensland wet tropic rainforests. That inquiry would have been open and public and conducted along the lines of the Fox Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry so that everybody who was interested, everybody who wanted to present scientific evidence, to challenge scientific claims, to have evidence or claims independently, properly and publicly evaluated, would have had the chance to do so. We would not have proceeded with World Heritage listing until that process had been completed and until we had secured the agreement of the Queensland State authorities to proceed with that World Heritage listing. We would have sought to develop a sensible multiple land use plan, using the sorts of zonal arrangements which have been applied successfully by the Commonwealth in Queensland to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. We would have ensured that the north Queensland timber industry would have been allowed to continue its operations and that there would have been an independent evaluation of the need to commence any logging activities in areas which are currently virgin. We would have expected that, as evidence of good faith on the part of the local industry, it would have agreed to a voluntary moratorium on that particular activity; and, indeed, there should be no variation in the current logging quotas set by the State Government. That, together with the proclamation by Queensland of the Greater Daintree National Park in which those activities destructive of the environment, including specifically logging and mining, would not have been allowed to proceed, would have been the basis for an intelligent discussion of these particular matters. We would have sought to bring an end sensibly and in an orderly fashion those activities which could be demonstrated to be sufficiently and significantly environmentally destructive in a way which clearly would have been incompatible with the maintenance of a good national park and significant heritage values. I take this opportunity to make two remarks about Queensland's national parks and about its timber industry in particular: The standard of establishment and maintenance of Queensland national parks is of the highest order, and the competence and capability of the Queensland Department of Forestry is of the highest order. There is no reason to believe that this would not have been something which a clear public examination of these issues would have demonstrated to be the case. We certainly would have sought to provide Queensland with additional assistance under the national rainforest conservation program. Indeed, we would have hoped that any inquiry would have been concluded within a reasonable timeframe and that its decision would have been final so that other important and highly desirable activities in the region, such as the development of the Cape York space centre, were in no way placed in jeopardy or in no way prejudiced in their future development. We would have ensured that any authority managing the Greater Daintree National Park area would have had the closest co-operation and the closest liaison with the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority because, after all, we are talking about two physically immediately adjacent areas. That would have been the basis upon which we would have entered into sensible negotiations with the Queensland Government. I believe, given the willingness of the new Queensland Government, which has been repeated by Premier Ahern on a number of occasions, it would have been possible to achieve balanced development, both in terms of environmental protection and in terms of economic development, in that particular region of Australia. Exactly the same process could have been under way in Tasmania. Just a week or so ago my Liberal Party Leader, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard, went to Tasmania for discussions with the Premier of Tasmania, Mr Gray, and they issued a joint statement which said in part: The States traditionally have responsibilities for land use matters. Clearly, some environmental issues involve national considerations as well and views we have we will seek to put in a co-operative and constructive manner. In other words, the basis for constructive discussion with Tasmania has also been made abundantly clear. That, however, is not the way in which Senator Richardson and his mates in the Australian Labor Party proceed. Senator Stone —And his mates in the Australian Democrats. Senator PUPLICK —Indeed, as Senator Stone has said, his mates in the Australian Democrats. They proceed on the basis quite simply of seeking deliberately to manufacture confrontations where confrontations need not exist. The very perceptive article by Mike Seccombe in this morning's Sydney Morning Herald has as its headline `Has Richardson barked up the wrong tree?'. Of course, the answer to that is yes because, quite simply, the Minister is looking for every available opportunity to provoke a confrontation in which he does not care who are the victims. He does not care whether the victims are either the townspeople of Ravenshoe, or the people of south-west Tasmania, or indeed even the trees in north Queensland, or the trees in Tasmania, as long as he sees political advantage in the seats in Sydney and Melbourne, which, as far as he is concerned, are his power base and the power base of the Labor Party within this Parliament. So he now produces this piece of legislation which is absolutely unnecessary in terms of the powers of the Commonwealth, given what the High Court of Australia has most recently said in the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests Commission of Inquiry case. Under this Bill we have established a system of absolutely unnecessary inspectors-Richardson's greenshirts-with all their powers, with all their enforcement provisions to enter and search places, take photographs and record occurrences, inspect, examine and take photographs and measurements, and stop, detain, enter and search any vehicle-the whole gamut of this sort of environmental police state that the Minister wishes to establish. The Government wants to remove from Australian courts and tribunals the right to make final determinations and, above all, to remove from the Government the necessity to comply with its own Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act so that it may read it in such a way as to give retrospective justification to the things which it has done but which it was not entitled to do in the first place. This is a bogus, dishonest piece of legislation. It has been produced for bogus and dishonest reasons. It deserves to be rejected and, above all, it should be exposed as a clear admission on the part of this Federal Labor Government that it cannot make co-operative federalism work for one reason and one reason only: the Minister, Senator Richardson, and his Government do not want co-operative federalism to work. They seek deliberate confrontation regardless of cost and, above all, regardless of the gravest cost to our unique Australian environment. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(6.14) —At the outset I find it quite difficult to agree with some of the remarks made by Senator Puplick. One reason why we have not been able to have cooperative federalism is the intransigence of the Queensland Government. I will mention that later because I think it is quite important to have a look at that Government's record and at how it tries to do anything it possibly can to frustrate the efforts of the Commonwealth Government. The Senate is debating the Conservation Legislation Amendment Bill 1988. This Bill is an important Bill for World Heritage areas throughout Australia. In the short term it has special significance for certain areas in Queensland, the State that I represent in this chamber. The main purpose of the Bill is to clarify and strengthen the protection afforded by the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983. The Bill sets out in more detail than is now present in Commonwealth legislation when property is to be regarded as identified property for the purposes of the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act. The Bill also provides for the appointment of inspectors. It repeals certain provisions of the Act that I have just mentioned. These provisions were held to be invalid in the dams case. It also simplifies the procedure for determining compensation when the operation of the World Heritage Properties Act results in the acquisition of property. An important practical effect of the Bill is to afford interim protection to the wet tropical rainforests in Queensland, pending a decision by the World Heritage Committee on the nomination of this area for World Heritage listing in December last year. I shall return to this specific matter later. But before I do, I wish to outline the importance of retaining certain parts of our environment in their present state and the consequent importance of World Heritage legislation. The World Heritage Convention is an important international expression of the need to protect and conserve the world's natural and cultural heritage. In the days of redevelopment and massive uses of non-renewable resources it is important for the whole world to consider what parts of our cultural and natural environments should become inviolate. The Convention helps to do this. It was adopted by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation General Conference in 1972 and came into force in 1975. Australia ratified the Convention in 1974, and was the seventh nation to do so. There are now 100 countries which are party to the Convention. These include the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table listing all those nations which are now party to the Convention. Leave granted. The table read as follows- WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION List of Countries which have Deposited an Instrument of Ratification, acceptance or accession in relation to the World Heritage Convention. January 1988 Afghanistan Algeria Antigua Argentina Australia Bangladesh Barbuda Benin Bolivia Brazil Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Canada Chile China Colombia Congo Costa Rica Cuba Cyprus Denmark Ecuador Egypt Ethiopia Finland France Gabon Gambia Guinea Guyana Haiti Holy See Honduras Democratic Yemen Ghana Germany Iraq Italy Ivory Coast Jamaica Jordan Lebanon Mexico Luxembourg Malta Mauritania Monaco Malawi Maldives Mali Nicaragua Mozambique Nepal New Zealand Philippines Niger Nigeria Norway Oman Pakistan Panama Peru Sweden Poland Portugal Qatar Saudi Arabia Spain Saint Christopher Senegal Seychelles Nevis Sri Lanka Sudan Zaire Switzerland Thailand Tunisia Turkey Uganda Yemen Yugoslavia Guatemala Zambia Dominican Republic Greece Hungary India Northern Ireland Iran Zimbabwe Morocco United Kingdom of Great Britain United Republic of Cameroon United Republic of Tanzania United States of America Central African Republic Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Syrian Arab Republic Socialist Republic of Vietnam Lao People's Democratic Republic Senator COLSTON —I thank the Senate. Signatories to the Convention commit themselves to help in the identification, protection, conservation and preservation of World Heritage properties. They accept that it is their responsibility to identify and safeguard those parts of the heritage which are located in their own countries. They agree that they will do all they can, with their own resources and with what international assistance they can obtain, to ensure adequate protection. Signatories also undertake to refrain from deliberately damaging their cultural and natural heritage and to take the appropriate legal, scientific, technical, administrative and financial measures necessary for the heritage's protection. The Convention is administered by a World Heritage Committee consisting of 21 nations elected from those nations which are party to the Convention. Elections are held every two years. It is noteworthy that Australia has served as a member of the Committee continuously since 1976. It is the only nation to have done so. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard tables listing the 21 nations which currently form the World Heritage Committee and those nations on the World Heritage Bureau, a body which I shall shortly mention. Leave granted. The tables read as follows- WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE List of member countries of the World Heritage Committee as at January 1988 Algeria Malawi Australia Mexico Brazil Norway Bulgaria Pakistan Canada Sri Lanka Cuba Tanzania France Tunisia Greece Turkey India United States of America Italy Yemen (Arab Republic of) Lebanon WORLD HERITAGE BUREAU LIST OF MEMBER COUNTRIES ELECTED 11TH MEETING 1987 Canada Chairman Bulgaria Rapporteur France Vice Chairman Mexico Vice Chairman Sri Lanka Vice Chairman Tunisia Vice Chairman Republic of Tanzania Vice Chairman Senator COLSTON —I thank the Senate. The executive body of the World Heritage Committee is the World Heritage Bureau. This consists of a chairman, five vice-chairmen and a rapporteur. The Bureau is elected by and from the Committee at its annual meeting and holds office until the following meeting of the Committee. Australia served on the Bureau for three consecutive years-1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83-and also in 1984-85. The conditions which have to be satisfied before any property, cultural or natural, is inscribed on the World Heritage List are extensive. It is worth while to outline how these conditions are assessed. Only the national governments of member countries can nominate areas for the World Heritage List. It is not the role of national governments to decide, however, whether the area so nominated is accorded a World Heritage listing. This is the responsibility of the World Heritage Committee. Once a nomination is lodged, it is first thoroughly assessed by the World Heritage Bureau. The Bureau is assisted in this task by non-governmental organisations. On occasion, internationally acknowledged scientists are invited to act as referees for a nomination related to the natural environment. The rigorous procedures adopted by the Bureau and by the Committee which makes the final decision are evident in the number of nominations which have not been successful. Of the 63 nominations scheduled for consideration by the Committee in 1987, only 41 were accepted for inscription on the World Heritage List. What are some of the places on the World Heritage List? There are 288, and they include the Pyramids of Egypt, the Grand Canyon of the United States of America, Westminster Abbey, and the Great Wall of China. Australian properties on the World Heritage List are the Great Barrier Reef, which extends for a greater part of the length of my State of Queensland, stages 1 and 2 of Kakadu National Park, the Lord Howe Island group, the Australian east coast temperate and sub-tropical rainforest parks, the western Tasmanian wilderness national parks, and Uluru National Park. The Australian Government has a first-class record in its commitment to the environment and to heritage conservation. Australians look to the Commonwealth to maintain this commitment, and it is doing so in collaboration with the States and Territories. Unfortunately, the Commonwealth does not always receive co-operation from the States. This has been particularly so with regard to the area known as the wet tropical rainforests of north-east Australia. This area in Queensland was nominated for inclusion in the World Heritage List in December last. For many years it has been identified both nationally and internationally as being of World Heritage value. Despite this, the Queensland Government has opposed and continues to oppose the nomination. Given its past record in matters pertaining to the environment, the Queensland Government's attitude is hardly surprising. Only by the actions of firstly the Whitlam Government and then the Fraser Government was Fraser Island spared from destruction by mineral sand extraction. The only lasting record of the Bjelke-Petersen Queensland Government in relation to Fraser Island was Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen's unscrupulous act of blackguarding and financially ruining John Sinclair, who was the saviour of Fraser Island. In 1975, the Commonwealth passed the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act. The Bjelke-Petersen Government was unco-operative with the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Indeed, there were often suggestions made by the Queensland Government opponents that the Barrier Reef should be available for oil exploration. Returning to the North Queensland rainforests, or, to use the full title, the wet tropical rainforests of north-east Australia, it is highly likely that this area will be included in the World Heritage List. These rainforests contain the highest concentration of primitive plant families on earth, they are home to a high diversity of animal life, including one endangered species, and hold important clues to the origin, evolution and migration of flowering plants. Senator Boswell —Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I draw attention to the Bill that we are debating, the Conservation Legislation Amendment Bill. In 20 minutes Senator Colston has not addressed one part of that Bill. I ask you to direct him to be relevant to the Bill. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. Senator Colston is being relevant to the Bill. Senator COLSTON —I was speaking about the wet tropical rainforests of north-east Australia. In addition to what I said earlier, the region is one of natural beauty, with waterfalls, deep gorges, fast-flowing rivers, and spectacular mountain peaks. The Commonwealth Government believes that this area qualifies for World Heritage listing on cultural grounds as well. The only remaining recognised Australian Aboriginal rainforest culture is found in the wet tropics. For those who are unconvinced of the significance of this region, I refer them to a 1986 publication of the Australian Heritage Commission. The publication is entitled Tropical Rainforests of North Queensland. Their Conservation Significance. This is a report to the Australian Heritage Commission by the Rainforest Conservation Society of Queensland. Undoubtedly, that Society would have been desirous of putting forward its point of view. But a careful reading indicates a well written scientific appraisal of the area. Allow me to quote from a part of the summary: Geologically, the Area has both very old and relatively recent elements, and includes granites, basalts, acid volcanics, metamorphics and alluvia. It is a region of rugged topography with fast-flowing rivers, deep gorges and numerous waterfalls. The highest mountain in Northern Australia, Mt. Bartle Frere (1622 metres), is a biologically important site within the area. The association of fringing coral reefs and rainforested coastline in the Cape Tribulation region has no recorded parallel. The summary goes on to describe the flora of the area, outlining the diversity of plant life. In describing the fauna, the summary notes: With respect to the fauna, the wet tropical region of North-East Queensland has the highest diversity of any area in Australia. It contains 30 per cent of Australia's marsupial species, 60 per cent of the bat species, 30 per cent of the frog species, 23 per cent of the reptile species and 62 per cent of the butterfly species. Eighteen per cent of Australia's bird species occur in the rainforests of the Area. There are no less than 54 species of vertebrate animals that are unique to the Area. Senator Boswell —How many workers? What about the workers? Senator COLSTON —If Senator Boswell wants to hear about the workers of the area I invite him to be here at 8 o'clock, because at about that time I shall be speaking about them. The summary makes mention of the record of Aboriginal culture which I mentioned earlier. It states: The section of the Study Area between Cooktown and Cardwell contains the only recognized Australian Aboriginal rainforest culture and is therefore a significant component of the cultural record of Aboriginal society which has the longest continuous history in the world. The oral pre-history of this surviving Aboriginal rainforest culture is the oldest known for any non-literate indigenous people: Archaeological studies in Jiyer cave in the remote Russell River valley have yielded valuable information to date, and are believed to hold records, as yet unexcavated, dating back more than 10 000 years. The Study Area contains the only remaining, functioning Aboriginal culture using the coastal environment anywhere on the east coast of the mainland. Finally, the summary concludes: It is concluded that the wet tropics of North-east Queensland are of outstanding conservation significance and more than adequately fulfil the criteria defined by the World Heritage Committee for inclusion in the World Heritage List. I recommend a reading of not only the summary but the whole publication. It clearly outlines what a unique area this part of Australia is. In spite of the heritage value of the area, the Queensland Government has steadfastly refused to consider World Heritage nomination and has maintained that rainforest logging should continue. What was the Commonwealth to do under these circumstances? Would it have been acceptable to ignore its obligations under the World Heritage Convention and allow a potential World Heritage listing to be destroyed? Of course it would not be acceptable. The Commonwealth's only real option was to nominate the area for the World Heritage List and ban rainforest logging. Even though the Commonwealth has finally nominated the area, the Queensland Government has indicated that it believes that normal forestry management practices in north Queensland should continue. This would put in danger the integrity of the nominated area. The passage of this Bill will permit the area to be protected while World Heritage listing is being considered. Under the Bill, identified property-that is, property to be protected-will cover the three stages of the World Heritage Convention: identification, nomination, and listing. Protection will be afforded at each stage. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator COLSTON —Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner I was discussing the Conservation Legislation Amendment Bill 1988 and had mentioned various aspects in relation to the north Queensland rainforests. I indicated that the passage of the Bill will permit the north Queensland rainforest area to be protected while the World Heritage listing is being considered. Identified property, that is, the property to be protected, will cover the three stages of the World Heritage Convention-identification, nomination and listing. Protection will therefore be afforded at each stage. The amended World Heritage Act, therefore, will afford interim protection to the north Queensland rainforests pending a decision by the World Heritage Committee on the application for their inclusion on the World Heritage List. The World Heritage Committee will determine whether the north Queensland rainforests constitute a natural heritage of outstanding universal value for all the world. This determination will be made at its next meeting in November this year. In making its determination it will be assisted by the advice of independent experts. These people will have inspected and assessed the area and will have conducted discussions with both the Commonwealth and Queensland governments. It is absolutely essential that, until the World Heritage Committee makes its determination, the area should be afforded protection. It would be absurd if the World Heritage Committee later this year decided to include the north Queensland rainforests on the World Heritage List, only to find that they had been irreparably damaged in the meantime. Protection of this area from human interference will be permanent if the rainforests are placed on the World Heritage List. If the World Heritage Committee decided against the nomination, the protection under the amended Act would cease. I would like to make some mention of the social dislocation which will occur as a result of the nomination of the northern rainforests for World Heritage listing. This is a real problem and concerns not only senators representing the State of Queensland but all senators in this chamber. I remind the Senate that the Hawke Government has a first-class record in the provision of employment prospects for people throughout Australia. Since the Government came to office in 1983 a million new jobs have been created. Well over one million families have benefited from this massive increase in employment opportunities. The rate of unemployment is decreasing and, although the Queensland State Administration has caused higher than average unemployment in that State, the Federal Government is pleased, but not complacent, about its record. I mention this to show that this Government gives a high priority to providing work opportunities. It is well aware that, behind the statistics of the unemployed and the employed, there are real people with financial obligations and, in some cases, families to support. The Government has no intention of lightly making policy decisions which have the effect of taking away the livelihood of any group of Australian workers. Where policy decisions do have this effect, the Government will do all it can to alleviate the dislocation which occurs. Some people may suggest that if specific employment opportunities are to be lost due to certain policy decisions, those decisions should not be made. In relation to the north Queensland rainforests, that is just not an acceptable option. Continued logging would destroy a highly sensitive area, an area that the World Heritage Committee is likely to decide later this year should be afforded protection from destruction. Logging, therefore, must stop. I am not unmindful of the initial trauma caused by such a decision. I was brought up in a family dependent upon the building industry and know only too well the dislocation that occurs when a job finishes and no further work is available. I can remember when my father was shamefully put off by Hornibrooks, then a major Brisbane firm, because he had been working for the company for 9 1/2 years and, if he had attained his ten years, would have been eligible for prorata long service leave. The family disruption was immense. So, yes, I do understand the problems. But, unlike Hornibrooks, there is nothing shameful about the Government's policy in relation to the north Queensland rainforests. Unlike Hornibrooks, the Federal Government is assisting those whose method of earning a living has been disrupted. Workers who were directly employed in the timber industry and who lost their jobs as the result of the Government's decision to seek World Heritage listing for the north Queensland rainforests are eligible for a lump sum payment of $2,500 from the Commonwealth. These unemployed workers, plus those workers employed in other industries who can show that they lost their jobs as the result of the Government's decision, are eligible for short term council employment and wage subsidies in other jobs. At present about 220 people have received local authority employment, paid for by the Commonwealth at award wages. It is expected that there will shortly be work for 500 to 600 people. These jobs will run for between 13 and 52 weeks and will comprise a variety of blue and white collar council jobs. A wage subsidy of between $50 and $125 per week is available to employers who hire retrenched workers. This program is essentially the Jobstart program without the need of the six-month waiting period. All that I have mentioned are essentially short term jobs. The Government, however, intends to go further than this. A Cabinet submission on compensation for the north Queensland rainforest areas is being prepared and is likely to be considered in the next few weeks. This will include the establishment of long term employment opportunities and compensation for companies connected with the timber industry. The package is based on six socioeconomic consultant studies which have been received by the Government. I must stress that the success of the package will not depend on Commonwealth action alone. There will have to be co-operation at all three levels of government. I have no doubt that local authorities will give the co-operation that is required. They understand that the well-being of their area depends upon an active work force, not an unemployed one. The Queensland Government's record of co-operation with the Federal Government has really been one of a lack of co-operation. For the sake of workers in north Queensland, it is essential that the Queensland Government take a mature approach to the Commonwealth's package when it is released. I earlier outlined the essential nature of this amending legislation. I have dwelt upon its significance for the north Queensland rainforests because this is an important contemporary matter. It is important for the State of Queensland, for Australia and for the world, but the legislation will assist the Australian Government to fulfil its obligations in relation to the north Queensland rainforests. It will also assist the Government to fulfil its obligations in other areas under the World Heritage Convention. I support the legislation. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(8.08) —The Conservation Legislation Amendment Bill 1988 is just a further stage in the naked opportunism that the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson), who introduced the legislation, demonstrates in relation to his professional career. It is a blatant attempt to buy some votes from a few people that he thinks exist in Sydney and Melbourne. But, like most of the schemes or rorts that the Australian Labor Party gets involved in, it is very badly thought through and it will misfire upon those opposite. I think it has misfired already, from the way they were caught with their hands in the cookie jar over the Harris-Daishowa business. That showed the sincerity of the commitment of Senator Richardson to the conservation cause. Senator Sanders —He was taking money from a woodchipper. Senator MacGIBBON —As Senator Sanders says, on the one hand he is taking money from a woodchipper, reducing the landscape to the sort of devastation that only a nuclear disaster can bring; and, on the other hand, he is turning around to all the white wine whingers of Sydney and Melbourne and saying, `Trust me. I will keep your grass green, the trees growing, the birds singing and the rest of it'. What a hypocrite. Unfortunately for Senator Richardson, times move on. I have been involved in the conservation movement for far longer than Senator Richardson has known the meaning of the word `environment'. That involvement goes back over 30 years to my university days. As a bushwalker and a rockclimber I learnt the principles of conservation of the Australian bushland which Senator Richardson still has not learnt today. Ever since I have kept an interest in what is going on in the community. None of us wants to live amongst our own garbage. None of us wants to change the things that we have in the natural environment to the extent that our children and grandchildren will not enjoy them. Senator Richardson —But. Come on, give us the but. Senator MacGIBBON —There are no buts, Mr Minister. There are just some facts, if you have the intelligence to follow the argument. The community realises that we want to preserve the assets that we have. But people want a balanced view. They do not want the fruitcakes and the obsessionists running around denying the assets that we have for the use of mankind. What the community wants is a balanced view which allows us to preserve what we have and to use it for our benefit and enjoyment if that can be done. There is no simple formula for this. The situations are not the same. Dealing with the rainforests is not the same as dealing with the Great Barrier Reef. Again, the environment around Ayers Rock is quite different. The community recognises that. What people want from governments is an intelligent management plan so that an asset is preserved and not destroyed through use. But it must be recognised that the community may want an important asset used. I would like to say something about World Heritage listing. I think the way in which the Australian Labor Party, with its great cultural cringe, always leaps to be part of international treaties says a lot about the confidence it has in its ability to manage and its judgment on cultural matters. There is also a dark and sinister side to this because one of the attractions for the Labor Party of international treaties is that they allow it to use the external affairs power of the Constitution and outflank in a dishonest way, in a way that was never intended, the Constitution of Australia. Whatever the nature of State and Federal governments of Australia, I would defend very strongly the standards of public administration in this country. With respect to the administration of public affairs, I do not believe that either a State or Federal government in Australia has to sign an international treaty in order to give it a leg up to attain a higher level of management. This country has a great deal to be proud of in regard to all levels of public administration. We can run things properly, sensibly, responsibly and honestly. I have a personal view that while there are cases for World Heritage listing of some assets, I do not see this automatically as the desired path to follow. For example, I think in the case of rainforests, the National Parks and Wildlife Service of Queensland has proved its ability to administer the area in question. Indeed, under the legislation, if it ever goes through, it will be the administering authority in the fullness of time. The Service is well able to do the job and preserve the park in every way that the Minister wants. But the area does not have to be a World Heritage listing just because it is a national park. But that is a side issue. This Bill is designed, first of all, to cut the ground completely from under the Queensland legal challenge which would have succeeded under the existing legislation. The Government has altered the goal posts. It seeks to achieve through legislation a cover-up for the faults in its earlier legislation. This is the most naked grab for an expansion of central powers by the Canberra Government that we have seen for many a long year. I hesitate in giving the Government the ultimate accolade because, if one goes back through history, one finds that the Labor Party has always had this great hang-up. Somehow it seeks to compensate for that inferiority complex which I was talking about before-the doubts that it has about its own administration ability. It feels that if it takes over everything it will eliminate any challenges to its powers by State governments. I suppose that is the psychology behind this legislation. This Bill allows property which has been designated by the Minister to be isolated and treated as if it already was listed and approved by the World Heritage Commission. In so doing, the Commonwealth takes unto itself powers that no responsible government would ever take. Under the legislation inspectors can be appointed and can operate as secret police with rights of entry on the basis of a simple judicial warrant, a warrant issued by any judge of any court set up by the Parliament. As Senator Puplick said, this can be done by a Family Court judge, and in saying that I do not mean any disrespect to those judges, who have a very difficult job to perform. But they are hardly the people in the community to pass judgment on whether a claim by a Minister for a permit to be issued for a search and destroy or a search and enter exercise into bushlands is in the public interest. They simply cannot make that sort of judgment. Very interestingly, too, the Bill absolves the Commonwealth from observing its own environmental impact study legislation. In other words, it is the old Labor business of one law for you and one law for me-just do not ask me what the law is that applies to me. The big problem with this legislation is that it is a gross abuse of the federal system. Under the Australian Constitution we hold that how land is administered is a matter for the sovereign States. That does not mean that the Commonwealth, in its wisdom, cannot consult with, counsel or advise if it thinks that what a State is doing is not in the public or national interest. But it is not part of our practice, and it is not our legal right as members of the Federal Parliament in a federal system, to be dictating in this jack booted fashion as to what the States will do on land use matters. I find it particularly galling that in this House, which was set up to be a States House, we have a Minister, who is a senator, introducing some legislation that flies in the very face of what a federal system is about. The Liberal Party of Australia has no objection to moves towards World Heritage listing. But we have made it abundantly clear-and we will continue to do so-that there must be co-operation between the States and the Commonwealth. It is okay with us if a State approaches the Commonwealth Government and says, `We would like such and such an area listed or considered for World Heritage listing'. What we will not have is a Federal government dictating to a State government that such and such a thing will be done. As Senator Puplick said, in this instance Liberal and National party policy would have been to set up a Greater Daintree National Park which would have included most of the area that is in dispute. As a Queenslander and as someone who has spent a great deal of time in the north-since Senator Richardson went adrift and took leave of his responsibilities, I have been forced to spend a great deal more time up there-I have found no opposition at all in Queensland to preserving the rainforest areas. The great majority of the Queensland community is quite happy to see those areas as a national park and have them preserved in perpetuity. There is no argument about that at all. The Liberal Party and the National Party recognise that. We would have liked to have seen a Greater Daintree National Park set up. We would have liked to have seen an independent authority come in and define the boundaries of that national park. Unlike Senator Richardson, we would not have decided, with the great clarity of vision that comes from being about 2,000 miles away from the site, where those boundaries should be drawn. We would have left that to independent experts. We would have protected the timber industry, though we would have put a prohibition on the logging of virgin forests. We would have set up an inquiry into sustainable yields for long term logging. Unlike Senator Colston and other speakers on the Labor side, we do not believe that when we are spending $1 billion a year in importing forest products we should be negligent of the assets we have in this country. More important than the $1 billion a year we are spending on importing forest products is the loss of 2,000 to 3,000 jobs as a result of the callous actions that the Labor Party is imposing on the community in north Queensland. These people have given most of their lives to supporting the timber industry and working in it. They are honest, hard working citizens and they do not deserve to have their livelihood taken away by a stroke of the pen by an ignorant Minister who is pursuing a few votes for blatant, political and opportunistic purposes. We would also have done something to secure private landholdings on the borders of whatever national park we set up because there is no security at all for private landholders under the Richardson scheme. One of the very great worries about the World Heritage listing is the way that, once a property is listed, the Federal Government can, by regulation and without any reference to the Parliament at all, expand the borders of that listing willy-nilly. To anyone who lives in the area that is quite frightening. I turn to how World Heritage listing takes place. This is a function of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), one of the agencies of the United Nations, but when a proposal for World Heritage listing is made to UNESCO by a government, the actual examination is carried out by a body called the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN). One of the regrettable facts is that extremists in the conservation movement in Australia-the Bob Browns, the Mosleys and the Ketos-have politicised the IUCN, which has a proud record as a responsible scientific body. On occasions it has been irritated by the actions of people such as those I have mentioned who have gone to its conventions and have tried, for narrow personal aims, to politicise what has been an impartial international body. It has come to my notice that delegates of member nations of IUCN are more than a little disaffected by the behaviour of these more radical Australian delegates who have gone to conventions on various occasions. I was interested to read the nomination, which Senator Richardson characteristically did not table in the Senate, that the Government made of wet tropical rainforests of north-east Australia for inclusion in the World Heritage listing. With his usual scrupulous attention to detail and the truth, the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories has given a lead in to the nomination. One is required to put in juridical data on the owner, legal status and responsible administration. We then come to a blatant lie. We find that the public property is administered by the Queensland Government through many agencies, including principally the National Parks and Wildlife Service, the Department of Forestry and the Land Administration Commission. Private property is the responsibility of the owners, who must comply with relevant laws on ownership and occupation of their land. The Government has enacted the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 to implement its responsibilities and obligations arising from the World Heritage conventions. We now come to the significant part of the nomination, which says that a joint authority of the Australian and Queensland governments `is envisaged to assume responsibility for administration of the property'. That is a blatant lie. In the second reading speech the Minister says that, unfortunately, the Queensland Government has no intention-or words to that effect-of co-operating with the Federal Government on this matter. On page 3 of his speech he says: It is an unfortunate fact, however, that this is not always the case- he is talking about co-operation between the State and Federal governments- the area known as the `Wet Tropical Rainforest of North-east Australia', nominated by Australia in December 1987 for inclusion in the World Heritage List, has been identified for a number of years both nationally and internationally as being of World Heritage value. Despite this, the Queensland Government continues to oppose the nomination. His very words in this chamber were `continues to oppose'. But here is this blatant lie in this presentation for the World Heritage listing claiming that a joint authority of Australian and Queensland governments is envisaged. How could the Minister envisage it with the history of opposition from the Queensland Government? It is a blatant misrepresentation of fact to a world authority. Conservation is important. We are all on this earth and as there is nowhere else we can live we have an obligation to protect what we have. The Minister has introduced this legislation purely as a misguided vote buying exercise. The big issues facing Australia are not the preservation of rainforests or Ayers Rock; they are the issues of soil erosion, soil preservation and salinity. Not a word has been said by the Minister about the really big issues-the life and death issues of Australia. Senator Sanders —Why don't you do something about it? I haven't heard you say anything. Senator MacGIBBON —I have done so on many occasions over a 10-year period. Senator Sanders —I haven't seen you in the streets marching. Senator MacGIBBON —The honourable senator should sit back and listen then. Nearly half of Australia's export earnings come from agriculture. Whatever one may think about the need for developing industrial capacity-and I believe in that-the fact of life is that for the next two to three decades at least the export of agricultural products will be vital to us economically. Primary production is enormously important and that is the area in which the Minister, if he has any real interest in the environment, should be directing his efforts. But we have not heard a word of that. We have never heard him say that $100m a year is being lost as a result of land degradation from primary production in Western Australia. He does not tell us that Australia is a very different continent from most of the other continents of the world. One of the characteristics of this place is that we have a very thin layer of topsoil. We do not have many areas such as the great prairies of the United States of America where there is 40 feet of topsoil or the central plains of Europe where, again, there are huge areas of topsoil. We have very little soil. We have suffered great loss through the removal of vegetation, tree removal, overgrazing and burning. Unless the problems of land degradation are arrested they will have a dramatic effect on Australia's ability to produce food, not only for export but also for our own consumption. Senator Richardson —So we need more trees. Senator MacGIBBON —Yes, we do need more trees; that is quite right. I would be glad if the Minister started a reafforestation program. But I would be interested if he took note of farming practices which are well known and which do work and sought ways in co-operation with State governments, to have those applied so that further loss of soil does not take place from Australian farms and properties. Very few people realise how much soil can be lost in the high rainfall areas. Figures between 100 and 300 tonnes of topsoil per hectare are not uncommon in high rainfall areas on the Queensland tropical coast. Senator Richardson —Innisfail is a good example. Senator MacGIBBON —That is correct, but we hear nothing at all from the Minister; no incentives at all from the Government. We then move to the matter of salinity. We have had an enormous land clearance program, particularly through the Murray-Darling Basin. Naturally, we have areas where saline scalding takes place. But probably our biggest problem comes from the removal of trees. Wide-scale tree removal has taken place in the Murray-Darling valley, which has allowed the water table to rise, with the consequent destruction of the pastures and the farmland above from increasing salination. We have problems also in irrigated areas. These are the big issues that face Australia from a conservation point of view. But we hear nothing-not a word-from the Government about them. Rome is burning while the Government is fiddling, trying to get a few votes from a few misinformed people. The legislation before us is just a cynical, opportunistic move by the Government. It is a dangerous move because it is nowhere near the end of the trail. The Minister does not realise that, in dealing with people on the extreme fringes of the conservation movement, he really is riding a tiger and he cannot get off it; and that tiger will eat him. I would like to tell him what will happen in Queensland because the appetite of these people is insatiable. When this legislation goes through, the next thing that the conservation movement in Queensland-and Aila Keto, who is doing this because she realises the great ravaging of the rainforests that her parents did in their farming years and for which she is somehow trying to compensate by making us all suffer with irrational schemes-will want will be a total prohibition on logging in any natural forest in Queensland. The great majority of logs in Queensland happen to come from natural forests. The next thing that will happen will be the conversion of Fraser Island to World Heritage listing. That has already started by changing the name from Fraser Island to Great Sandy Island; somehow or other it is felt that it has a better ecological ring if it is called Great Sandy Island. Great Sandy Island, or Fraser Island, is a place I know very well. Logging has taken place there under the auspices of the Queensland Forestry Department for well over 100 years. Just as Senator Richardson could walk into forests of north Queensland that were logged 30 years ago and say, `This is beautiful virgin forest; look at this, we cannot have foresters in here', he can also walk onto Fraser Island and say, `This is marvellous. There are beautiful stems. Mankind has never been through here'. But he would be wrong. It has been logged for over 100 years and it is a beautiful example of controlled logging and the finest professional skills of foresters. But that will be next on the list. After the wet tropics, we will see a move for World Heritage listing of Fraser Island. then there will be a move to ban clearance of the brigalow country in central Queensland. When the brigalow movement starts, it will cut the heart out of the cattle export industry in Australia because it is based on the brigalow lands in central Queensland. After that there will be a move into the Channel country, which also will have profound implications for the cattle industry. Then it will be a move into the Gulf country, to keep the beautiful flats up there for crocodiles. At the end of the day the Government will find that agricultural production in Queensland, which is its staple production, its major economic resource, will have been cut to shreds by a number of irresponsible people. I do not even give those people the courtesy of saying that they are well meaning; they are just ignorant and emotional. The interesting thing to me is that, although members of the Australian Labor Party are slow learners, they are at last learning. I happen to believe that the accounts that have appeared in the Press about the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) using four-letter words about Senator Richardson and his intelligence are true. I am told there are now enormous fights in Caucus as members have started to realise that the sort of nonsense that Senator Richardson goes along with has enormous implications economically for the welfare of this country. But the great revelation will come on Sunday morning, and the knives will be out in Caucus on Sunday morning when all the people in the Labor Party who have been denied their democratic rights within the Labor Party by Senator Richardson and his bully boys from headquarters suddenly find that the Richardson doctrine of buying votes has not worked. When Barrie Unsworth goes through the back door at a great rate of knots, people will be saying, `What happened to `Richo' and his environmental policies? They did not deliver the votes'. At the next Caucus meeting here in Canberra, Senator Richardson will be tarred and feathered by his colleagues. I just want to say one thing in conclusion about this legislation. I give the people of Australia an undertaking that, when the Liberal and National parties are in government, I will move to repeal this legislation. There is no question that the argument has moved way beyond what Senator Richardson imagines the Australian public want. The Australian public want balanced environmental policies. They want intelligent management plans. They want to be able to use resources and to preserve them for their children. This is not the way to attain those goals. (Quorum formed) Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(8.38) —It certainly is nice to see so many smiling faces in the chamber tonight. We have heard some rather strange presentations by the Opposition. One of the strangest comments was made by Senator MacGibbon just previously, who claimed that the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) was annoyed by the actions of the dreadful Aila Keto, Bob Brown and Geoff Mosley, who had the temerity to propose these areas for World Heritage listing. In fact, the IUCN is perplexed that Australia alone amongst all the nations on earth harbours local governments which actually want to knock back World Heritage listings. Everywhere else on the face of the earth, when a local agency finally succeeds in getting the IUCN to recognise an area for World Heritage listing, there is joy and dancing in the streets; there is great pride. But here in Australia, especially in the benighted States of Queensland and Tasmania-that horrible north-south axis-the local politicians throw up all sorts of impediments-- Senator Richardson —Threw up! Senator SANDERS —They threw up-regurgitated perhaps-all sorts of impediments to the implementation of World Heritage listing. That is what annoys the IUCN. Actually, its members ar too gentlemanly to be annoyed; they are flabbergasted. This never happens anywhere else and they do not understand how it could happen in Australia. Frankly, I think that it does the country a great disservice for Queensland and Tasmania to act in the manner they do. It gives Australia a bad name. I think that the listing was a good idea. The Conservation Legislation Amendment Bill is a good idea and we will support it. We were worried about some aspects of it, which I will go through in some detail later, but we will support it. Senator Boswell —Without amendment. Senator SANDERS —Without amendment. Senator Puplick, the Opposition's spokesperson for the environment, sounded like a spokesperson for mining-for ripping off the resource. He sounded like the man who claims to be the Minister responsible for the environment in Queensland-the Hon. Geoff Muntz, a member of the Legislative Assembly. Senator Puplick cannot really expect anybody in Australia to take him seriously when he parrots the same line as the Queensland Minister responsible for the environment. Can anybody outside of Queensland take him seriously? Of course not. Senator Puplick said that something like 30 per cent of Australia is already locked up and cannot be-- Senator Boswell —He said 20. Get your notes right. Senator SANDERS —He said 20 to 30 per cent. He was a bit imprecise and I tended to take his upper number. I will take his lower number. At any rate, he said that a percentage of Australia is locked up and cannot be developed or used by developers. In fact, that was an extraordinary exaggeration. The mining companies have access to 95 per cent of this country. Under the present laws, mining companies, if they wanted to do so, could drill for oil in the middle of this chamber and there is nothing that we could do about it. Mining companies and timber companies have huge powers. We know exactly what powers they have. The Queensland Minister responsible for the environment, the Hon. Geoff Muntz, was reported as saying: . . . more than 75 per cent of North Queensland's rainforests had been set aside already, never to be logged. They were not disappearing or endangered, but in fact were expanding annually. The Minister responsible for the environment in Queensland says that the rainforests are expanding annually. In a media release dated 18 December 1987 he said that the rainforests are actually expanding. That is the same line as Senator Puplick-- Senator Richardson —How do they do that? Senator SANDERS —I do not know how they do it. Perhaps an honourable senator will tell us how the rainforests are actually expanding when they are being logged so heavily. The Queensland Minister, Geoff Muntz, also made some other interesting statements. He claimed that Queensland is an enlightened State when it comes to such issues. He said that if there is one State that has given the Aboriginal people their heritage and rights it is the Queensland Government. Furthermore, he said that the average Queens- landers have a right to determine their own destiny and not have their destiny determined by some other radical race or radical country across the world; that is, the international conspiracy-the IUCN. There is a degree of paranoia in Queensland, which is reflected in Tasmania, that somehow it will be controlled by a radical group of internationalists-the IUCN. I think that those States should be controlled not only by the IUCN but also by the Federal Parliament because it is obvious that neither the Queensland Government nor the Tasmanian Government is capable of administering its own territory. I refer to another of Geoff Muntz's little gems which appeared in a media release issued in Brisbane and dated 17 September 1987. It reads: Melbourne's `Toorak blue rinse set' has been accused of placing the future of North Queensland tourism in jeopardy. Another theme which we hear on this side of the House is that somehow the wealthy people in the cities-the Range Rover drivers-are the only people interested in the environment. What utter rubbish! The Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, Senator Richardson, knows full well the political power of the environmental movement. It extends up and down the spectrum. Everyone in Australia is interested in the environment. The Opposition parties pay lip service to it and do very little about it, but everyone is interested in it. More people are becoming interested in actually doing something about it. That is the vein which Senator Richardson hopes to tap and I say, `More power to him'. Senator Aulich —Don't tell him that, for heaven's sake! Senator SANDERS —I think that he should be told that. He is a responsible politician and he listens to the will of the people. As such, I think that he is doing a good job. Senator Puplick said that somehow the Federal Government should have sensible negotiations with the Queensland Government. I fully agree, but how can one have sensible negotiations with a government that will not negotiate? A similar situation existed with the Tasmanian Government over the dam issue. How does one have sensible negotiations with a government that will not negotiate? One cannot do so. So the Federal Government is taking the only steps it can. Senator Puplick lauded the Queensland Department of Forestry. He said that it is a wonderful thing and should be in charge of the forests. The Queensland Department of Forestry is very much like the Tasmanian Forestry Commission; that is, it is wholly a subsidiary of the timber industry. It works for the timber industry and is firmly in the pockets of the timber industry. Senator Richardson —That is a fact. Senator SANDERS —Senator Richardson verifies that and says that it is a fact. That timber industry has so overcut-- Senator Boswell —It is a slur on the character of public servants who can't even defend themselves. Senator SANDERS —They certainly need it. The forests are so overcut that the industry is on its knees. In many areas, there is only three years of viable timber left, even if the people concerned go after all the logs. This Forestry Department which Senator Puplick said should be in charge-- Senator Boswell —Where did you get that information from? Senator SANDERS —From the people in Innisfail who work at the mill. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Peter Baume) —Order! Senator Sanders should address his remarks through the Chair. Senator SANDERS —I am sorry, Mr Acting Deputy President. You are an impeccably good arbiter in these affairs and we have been transgressing. The trees have been cut far beyond the sustainable yield and that is why these people have had to go into virgin areas. If they had not cut beyond the sustainable yield there would not be this cry to go into virgin stands of timber. I thought that Senator MacGibbon contradicted himself. He said that we should worry about soil erosion and look at the massive problem these tropical rainforest areas have with soil erosion. The reason there is a massive problem with soil erosion is that the trees have been cut. If we leave the trees and the natural vegetation on the land we will not have erosion. As soon as the topsoil is disturbed by removing the trees, erosion occurs. I should think that Senator MacGibbon understands that, but I do not think that he did at the time. The Australian Democrats had some basic difficulties with the Bill. On our reading of it, we were afraid that it would deny access to the freedom of information (FOI) legislation. That worried us because we believe that we should have more freedom of information, not less. Certainly, the Government has not been innocent in this area. It has denied and limited freedom of information. It has made it much more expensive to apply for information and we have been worried about that. According to the interpretation which was given to us, clause 17c, which relates to information and documents collected by the inspectors, will operate in conjunction with the Freedom of Information Act 1982 and will be subject to FOI requests. Section 38 of the Freedom of Information Act deals with secrecy provisions in other Acts and allows exemptions to freedom of information. Thus, clause 17c (4) works to preserve rather than weaken freedom of information access by making it clear that section 38 of the FOI Act does not apply to information or documents collected by the inspectors. After looking at section 38, which I will not read into the record, we are satisfied that the Bill does that. We feel however that the language is awkward and that it should be cleaned up so that ordinary people, without being lawyers, can understand it. I think that all framers of legislation should be directed to make legislation understandable to people other than lawyers. This does, in fact, clear that area up. I refer now to the powers of entry and search. Much was made of the so-called limitation of civil liberties. Senator Richardson —My greenshirts. Senator SANDERS —Yes, Senator Richardson's greenshirts who wish to take over the world. More power to them. There were some mutterings about entry into private homes. It is simply not permitted in the Bill under any circumstances. There is no threat of a knock on the door at midnight by an inspector who wants to come into a private home to see whether there is any cedar under the bed. This is simply not going to happen. I refer now to private property in general. Most World Heritage properties in Australia are almost entirely composed of crown land. There is very little private property involved. For example, in the nominated rainforests of north Queensland about 20 to 28 freehold properties make up considerably less than one per cent of the nominated area. Access to crown forest areas is controlled by the State governments. In order to check reports of, for example, logging, the Federal Government currently must gain a permit from the various State forestry departments. This is an unsatisfactory arrangement as it can give pre-warning of Federal inspection and checking of reports of damage or destruction. We had the same problem in Tasmania where, during the Franklin Dam dispute, the Australian Federal Police were not allowed to inspect what was happening on State lands. In fact, that led to the famous F111 flight because, as the Commonwealth police were not allowed to inspect the infractions of the injunction so that the F111-- Senator Richardson —Don't mention that; I was enjoying it up until now. Senator SANDERS —Senator Richardson did not like the F111 flight. But it was a fact. In fact, it got so bad and so ludicrous that if the Commonwealth police who were allowed to chuff up and down the Gordon River wanted to use a phone at Warners Landing they could not do so because the Tasmanian police had been told to deny them the use of the telephone. The Federal police had to get in their boat and go clear down to Strahan, a distance of some 30 or 40 miles across water, to use a telephone. I am sure that the same thing would happen in Queensland. There has to be some mechanism to make sure that the Federal authorities can inspect what is happening in World Heritage properties because we simply cannot trust the Queensland Government. What about vehicles? The searching of vehicles is necessary in determining logging operations. The Queensland wet tropical rainforest is a vast area. Logs are carried on trucks. A schedule of logging operations and their exact locations is not made public. An operation may involve only a single cutter or a group of cutters. Thus the first indication that logging is taking place in an area is often the movement of cutters and support resources into the area and the movement of timber jinkers carrying logs. As there may be no information available as to where the timber has come from or where it is going, it is important that the vehicle can be stopped and the load inspected. If the logging is being carried out under a State licence the logs will have been crown stamped and numbered. This enables the timber to be traced to both a mill operator and a sale area in the forest. Quick processing of these logs once at the mill could destroy the numbers and the Crown stamp. Therefore it is important that the search of a vehicle or place can be undertaken without a warrant, if necessary, to allow inspectors to identify and examine the log markings. There is no emergency seizure power. In effect, inspection is limited to delaying the removal of, for example, a felled tree until it is examined. Under the heading of `inspectors', the amendments do not seek to create a separate conservation police force. The inspectors would have powers similar to those people who operate under, for example, agricultural Acts. In fact, inspectors would probably be members of a Queensland governmental agency such as the National Parks and Wildlife Service. In the final analysis this is an enabling mechanism to allow the Federal Government to make sure that the Queensland Government or any people operating under permits from the Queensland Government are not adversely affecting a World Heritage area. These are not draconian powers. They are made necessary-it is unfortunate that they are necessary-by the previous actions of the loggers and the Queensland State Government. Such powers have a place in the Bill. What about retrospectivity? As Australian Democrats we do not like retrospectivity. Senator Boswell —You heard what Senator Chipp said about retrospectivity. Senator SANDERS —Yes. We believe that it should not be. I know that the mining companies are sending out letters saying that the Government is moving the goalpost now that the game has started. An honourable senator on this side of the chamber used the same term, so I guess such people are working closely with the mining companies in this matter. In fact, the proclamations and regulations were signed and gazetted on 19 and 20 January 1988. These were intended to prohibit commercial forestry operations. However, logging operations were then, and are now, suspended for the normal wet season close-down. They are due officially to resume on 1 April. Therefore, nothing has been affected by the legislation because, up until this point, nothing has taken place. Therefore, the Commonwealth's prohibition on logging operations has so far been prospective as there has been no logging while the regulations have been in force. What about the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act? Part III of the proposed amendments in the Bill provides that no action taken under the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act since it came into force on 22 May 1983 will apply to the Environment Protection Act. The Commonwealth has informed me and convinced me that the Environment Protection Act is irrelevant to conservation initiatives taken under a special case environmental law such as the World Heritage Act. It was never the Commonwealth's intention that actions taken under the World Heritage Act be subject to environmental protection. It would be ridiculous in the extreme to have it under environmental impact assessment legislation. If the intent of the action is to preserve an area and to put it under protection, it would be absolutely ludicrous to have an environmental impact statement prepared. It is put under protection to save it from any development which, in fact, might require an environmental impact statement. After it is listed and has received it listing, any development which might take place in the area should be under very close scrutiny in terms of environmental impact. The Government has stated that any action which would take place in such areas which would adversely affect the environment would be under impact statement requirements if, in fact, it involved export licences, foreign investment and that sort of thing. There are circumstances in which development could take place without an environmental impact statement. This is not peculiar to this legislation or to this area but is endemic in Australia. As a former American it is something that has always bothered me. In the United States any project which has any involvement in any way either legislative or monetary with many of the States and all the Federal governments is subject to an environmental impact statement, a hearings procedure and an appeals procedure. What we really need in this country is a good national environmental policy Act. We do not have one. We have piecemeal legislation. We do not have a good national environmental policy Act and until we do we cannot truly and adequately protect our environment. We think that the Bill to amend the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act will help to ensure that the intent of the people of Australia is acted on. The people of Australia make the plea that the wet tropics be included in a World Heritage listing. The Government is making sure that the people of Australia get what they wish and that the rather petty, shortsighted and very greedy Queensland State Government cannot contravene the wish of the Australian people. Therefore, we commend the Government for its action in pursuing the wet tropics listing. We commend the Government's action in introducing this amendment. We will support the Bill. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(9.00) —The Conservation Legislation Amendment Bill, which is now before the Senate, seeks to amend the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 and the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974. According to our learned Senator Richardson, the Bill is designed to clarify-I emphasise the word `clarify'-and strengthen existing legislation for the protection of World Heritage areas and is a measure of his Government's commitment to the World Heritage Convention and the conservation of the environment. I take issue with the word `clarify' because certain parts of this Bill are ambiguous and are open to different interpretations. Far from clarifying the situation, they tend to lead to certain problems. However, more seriously, upon examining the Bill a little more closely, I believe it has the potential to be a wolf in sheep's clothing. In fact, the Bill has very far-reaching implications for Australia. Regrettably, this Bill is confrontationist in its approach. Senator Richardson —Never. Senator WATSON —Furthermore, it infringes the rights of private property owners. Never? Senator Richardson —Never. Senator WATSON —I disagree. However, more importantly, it passes the final and sole responsibility for deciding World Heritage status in Australia to an external body. But this external body is not an elected group. The Bill passes this responsibility to the World Heritage Committee. In so doing, it abrogates Australia's sovereignty in these matters. Can I have the Minister's response? Never? Senator Richardson —Never. Senator WATSON —That is basically what it does. We are passing our responsibility over to an unelected group outside Australia. This Bill contains amendments to the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act. They clearly state that, in relation to World Heritage, that Act will no longer apply and will be taken never to have applied to any action by the Federal Government under the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act or regulations under that Act. In other words, the Bill has a retroactive aspect to it. In the past some of the nominations for World Heritage status have been questioned on the grounds that the inquiries that have been conducted prior to the particular nomination being made have been quite inadequate in terms of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act. Often that has been a legitimate claim. I firmly believe that if this Bill comes into effect this option, which has been available to the States as a means by which they can challenge the Federal Government's decision in respect of nomination for World Heritage status, will be lost to them. This amending Bill is the subject of some dispute. While Senator Richardson said that its intention is to try to clarify the issues, we have a distinguished body of legal opinion, including the opinion of the Queensland Attorney-General, that is at odds with Senator Richardson. While he is saying, on the one hand, that the Bill is intended to clarify this issue, this other body of opinion suggests a different result, because that body of opinion is that no appeal in an Australian court against any nomination by the Federal Government would be possible if this Bill comes into force. Senator Richardson says by way of interjection, `Australians will have the right of appeal before an Australian court if this Bill comes into effect'. I submit that that is contrary to what he said in one of his recent Press statements. In essence, the Bill will give the World Heritage Committee total responsibility for the determination of World Heritage nominations here in Australia. Senator Richardson is apparently, without compunction, abrogating Australia's responsibility with regard to World Heritage matters; he is bowing out. He said: Arguments about heritage values are not something Australian courts should be asked to determine . . . the World Heritage Committee . . . is the appropriate body to be making a judgment. That is what Senator Richardson said in his Press release of 3 March. Yet, he interrupted me by way of interjection in the Senate tonight to say that Australia's rights are not being abrogated. He cannot have it both ways. He said in his Press release that the appropriate body to determine these matters is the World Heritage Committee and not the courts. In the chamber tonight he said that Australia's rights to lodge a judicial appeal will not be affected. What are we to believe? He says that this Bill is intended to clarify this issue. It is adding to the confusion. His remarks in the Senate tonight are confusing because they are contrary to what he said in his Press statement. Where will the people of Australia stand on this issue? Where are we as senators to stand in relation to the legislation before us? Senator Richardson said in his Press statement: Arguments about heritage values are not something Australian courts should be asked to determine . . . the World Heritage Committee . . . is the appropriate body to be making a judgment. Again there is tremendous confusion. I suggest that in this important matter Senator Richardson appears to be a prime exponent of what my colleague Senator MacGibbon referred to as the cultural cringe. Unfortunately, this cultural cringe has really dogged Australia for too long. The question really is: Are we, as Australians, considered not to be capable of making informed decisions on matters relating to our own heritage in our own lands? Are we so incapable that we have to abrogate this responsibility and pass it over to an unelected unrepresentative group overseas? In other words, is the prime exponent of this cultural cringe saying that we do not have the capability or understanding and that we are not prepared to stand up for our own destiny, our own lands in our own home? I strongly object to such a notion. That is really what this Bill is all about. It is about abrogating sovereignty to an outside body. It is about giving away power over our own lands to some other body because the Government believes that we are incapable of making these decisions ourselves. I contend that we are a proud nation and one capable of making these decisions. I think it is a reflection on the Australian people the Government is supposed to represent that Senator Richardson believes that they are incapable of making these decisions and that the power to do so should be handed over to an outside body. How certain can we be, for example, that the World Heritage Committee will make the best decisions for Australia? What qualifications do its members have? They lack the proper qualifications, and I shall go into that matter later. This particular Committee consists of representatives of 21 nations. Its members are elected from the signatory countries. Its current membership includes Australia and, to name a few of the others, Algeria, Malawi and Cuba. I certainly would not say that those nations are high on the list of countries known for conservation and preservation. One need only look at some of the problems of creeping deserts and the way in which Algeria and Malawi, for example, are managing their environments. But, typically, these representatives are actually career diplomats rather than authorities on environment and heritage matters. I should imagine we would take a slightly different view if they were experts or scientists. But, no, they are so-called career diplomats from the sorts of countries that do not themselves always have the best record in environmental matters. However, this Committee does receive advice. It receives advice from such groups as the International Centre for Conservation and the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. But I submit that, while it receives advice from these sorts of groups, the submissions from the latter organisations are characteristically brief. In fact, they are so brief as to be 1 1/2 pages long. I submit that the area we are looking at tonight-the north Queensland rainforest-would require a briefing of more than 1 1/2 pages. Unfortunately, this Committee meets in Paris for one week per year, during which time as many as 60 proposals may be considered. How can an informed opinion by non-scientists accepting briefs of up to 1 1/2 pages really look into all the ramifications of world heritage? So even with the best intentions it is possible for errors to be made in such circumstances. I submit that, if there is any uncertainty whatsoever as to the efficacy of the decision-making process or any doubts whatsoever as to the ability of State governments to challenge nominations by Federal governments, this Bill should be rejected. I think it is a sad reflection on our system of law and appeal in this country if we are to pass this Bill with these sorts of powers. I just do not think that, in cricket parlance, it is cricket to pass this Bill if it has these sorts of powers. Let me deal now with what I term identified property. Clause 5 of the Bill amends the definition of identified property in the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act. We are told that this definition is to be expanded to include property subject to an inquiry to consider whether or not it forms part of the cultural or natural heritage and property declared by regulations to be part of the cultural and natural heritage. It brings Australia's legislation more into line with the provisions of the World Heritage Convention, but it also gives the Commonwealth considerably expanded powers under the Act to control land use practices. It is interesting to note that Australia is the only country in the world to enact specific legislation to fulfil its responsibilities under the World Heritage Convention. If we are to be a pacesetter we are setting a pace that is far and above that which will be accepted by any other nation. I ask Senator Richardson whether he considers that the 281 properties listed for preservation outside Australia are inadequately protected. On the question of entry and search, following this expansion of the ambit of the Federal Government's powers, clause 7 of the Bill deals principally with the appointment and powers of inspectors, despite the fact that article 6 of the World Heritage Convention states that it should be applied, `without prejudice to property rights provided by national legislation'. This Bill is a direct infringement of the rights of private property owners. Under the conditions imposed by this Bill, Senator Richardson's inspectors will have the right-I mention that they need have no special qualifications and he could send in an army of inspectors if he wanted to who could be people's neighbours-to enter, search, photograph and examine private property and vehicles at any time of the day or night, provided it is for a so-called eligible purpose. Thankfully, personal dwelling places are excluded. Senator Puplick —And that is for a limited term. Senator WATSON —And that is for a limited term. In other words, there is no limitation as to the number of inspectors the Minister can appoint. He could appoint hostile neighbours, if he so wished, as inspectors. Senator Puplick —He could appoint the local branch of the ALP. Senator WATSON —That is more likely. Just imagine the local branch of the Australian Labor Party descending on a farmer's property at midnight. It would be rather frightening. So these inspectors can enter, search, photograph and examine at any time of the day or night, providing there is an eligible purpose. They have to do it for a justifiable cause, and that is not difficult to substantiate. They can determine whether any part of that property might form part of our cultural or natural heritage-that is very easy to determine as the north, south, east and west of Tasmania all contain parts of our cultural or natural heritage-or whether unlawful acts, as defined in the principal Act are being perpetrated. As my colleague Senator Puplick has said, this would be under warrant. He has referred to it as a phoney warrant because an inspector could have a warrant authorising him to enter an eligible place with such assistance and by such force as is necessary and reasonable up to one month after the issue of the warrant. He may do all these sorts of things that I have just outlined without the consent of the property owner if he believes that it is necessary to enter to prevent the concealment, the loss or the destruction of an eligible thing-it could be a hunch-or if he believes that circumstances are urgent and serious enough to justify immediate entry. There is not much hope for the poor landowner under these circumstances. We have really reached a police-type state. These extensive powers are, therefore, loaded with opportunity for abuse. The protection of the rights of individuals is completely infringed. I think we are entering a rather sad stage of development in the evolution of Australia and Australian culture when we start taking these sorts of attitudes towards ordinary Australians. Australia is not yet a police state; it is not part of the Eastern bloc. I believe that it is up to every Australian and certainly every parliamentarian in this place to make sure that we do not pass legislation that will impose these inspectors-they will be called tax inspectors next-who will be given these powers which are loaded with opportunity for abuse. Surely we should be protecting the rights of individuals to overcome situations in legislation which give draconian powers loaded with opportunity for abuse. They are invasions of privacy; they are infringements of the basic right to own land and to have quiet and peaceful possession and occupation of that land. Should the property owner seek in any way to restrict the inspectors in the exercise of a virtual carte blanche to enter his property he may be fined $1,000, imprisoned for 12 months, or both. What happens if a shooter comes on his land with a shotgun at night? He is not given 12 months imprisonment or a fine of $1,000. But if a landowner seeks to check and to question an inspector he can be thrown into prison for 12 months or fined $1,000. He is treated worse than the ordinary deer poacher in my State. He is treated worse than an illegal trespasser on land. The owner of this land is put in an inferior and onerous position. This legislation is loaded with opportunity for abuse. As if this were not enough, inspectors are to have right of entry powers that extend beyond areas already listed on the World Heritage List and beyond those areas being nominated for listing to just about anywhere they choose outside dwelling places. Again the ramifications of this legislation are far and wide and are outside the nominated areas. How frightening it will be if somebody has a bit of a grudge or is hostile to a particular practice of an ordinary farmer. By this legislation these inspectors could be used to invade a farmer's property at any time of the day or night. I think that this whole Bill is quite foreign to our notion of justice and fair play in this country. As such, the legislation should be thrown out. These inspectors will have access, with minimal constraints, to all eligible places, defined in proposed section 17a (10) as, `any land, building or structure, whether or not identified property, or on identified property'. So, we must rely on the judgment and discretion of inspectors in the pursuit of this duty. I just do not think that is good enough, because these inspectors may be appointed, in any number, without qualifications, and without training. I just do not think that it is good enough for the Minister to say to us that we have to rely on the judgment and the discretion of people who might be unskilled but, who because of a political judgment, are given the opportunity to enter property at any time of the day or night. We are told that we must rely on the judgment and discretion of these inspectors, who probably would have a bias or chip on their shoulders. However, this legislation does not specify who the inspectors will be. If the Government were sincere, I believe that the legislation would specify the qualifications required by the inspectors. The Bill does not specify what, if any, experience or training these inspectors will require. Yet the inspectors will have draconian powers to enter property at any time of the day or night and frighten people. The legislation does not specify how many inspectors there will be, how secure the system of identification will be, and to whom, other than the Minister, inspectors will be responsible. I trust that none of the Ministers has a little shack in the bush, because at some time of the day or night he will find his property being invaded by inspectors. Any honourable senator who has ever lived in the country and had a carload of hoons arrive on the property after midnight will realise that it is a rather frightening experience to have to go out and confront them. I think that this is a pretty poor approach by this Government in giving inspectors these sorts of powers. Surely the decent thing would be for the legislation to require at least some sort of prior notice or advice of inspection. The Bill does not specify the guidelines under which the inspectors will work. Again we are told that we must rely on the skill, judgment and discretion of these people, who have no special training and who might not necessarily have any special skills. I believe that the powers are excessive and that the safeguards are quite inadequate. I turn to the confrontationist nature of the Bill. Environmental issues have been the subject of heated and emotional debate in recent years. The intense media cover that has surrounded the debate has meant that the issues have escaped the attention of few Australians. As a consequence there has been a polarisation of opinion within the community regarding conservation issues, and the respective points of view are held very strongly. However, this Bill does nothing to ease that situation or that polarisation. As I said, the Bill is confrontationist, and assumes barriers where none may exist. The arrogant disregard that the Bill provides for the rights of property holders is guaranteed to create ill will in some quarters. Property owners have been cast as the villains of the piece. It is apparently now necessary to keep them under surveillance to ensure that they do not damage or destroy our cultural or natural heritage and to threaten them with heavy fines or imprisonment should they seek to protect their property. All of this, allegedly, is to ensure that we meet our obligations under the World Heritage Convention. Yet, no other country has found it necessary to legislate in such a manner in order to fulfil commitments to the conservation of world heritage. This Bill goes well beyond the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) Convention. For example, a recent publication produced by UNESCO on the World Heritage Convention states: A site which is protected by a World Heritage listing does not necessarily mean a cessation of economic activity; private property rights are not invaded. However, if this Bill were to be passed in its present form, that would patently not be the case in Australia, because property rights would be invaded here. So, the Bill goes well beyond UNESCO's requirements. For many people in Australia the UNESCO requirements are considered to be far ahead of their time. What we are doing is leading the field by a mile. The aim of the World Heritage Convention-to encourage co-operation among nations and to conserve the heritage that is recognised as being of outstanding value-is a very valuable one. However, adherence to this aim will mean that Australia must delegate the power to make the final decision regarding the significance of its own territory to other nations, to other people, to an unelected, uneducated and uninformed group essentially composed of diplomats. Further, adherence to the aim will mean that the rights of property holders over their land will be disregarded, and their rights to privacy will be so invaded that these unqualified inspectors will be able to enter at any time of the day or night. Therefore, there is good reason to question this legislation which purports to fulfil our international obligations. I believe that Senator Richardson has no other option than to take this Bill back to the drawing board. I ask Australians to stand up and be counted. We must not surrender our sovereignty over our destiny. We must not accept this cultural cringe attitude that we are not good enough and that we do not have the capability of determining these issues for ourselves. I submit that this Bill seeks to abrogate this responsibility to an outside body that is unrepresentative of the people of this country. We are a proud nation. Let us remain so. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(9.28) —Tonight the Senate is debating the Conservation Legislation Amendment Bill 1988. Senator Collins —That is the only thing you will get right. Senator BOSWELL —If this Bill is passed, and it is likely that it will be unless the Australian Democrats have some deathbed repentance, it will take the right to decide the fate of our Constitution away from the High Court of Australia and will give the final say on constitutional matters such as this to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. If I have that wrong, I invite Senator Collins to get up and say so-because he will not. Senator Collins —You have got it wrong. Senator BOSWELL —I have not got it wrong; I have it dead right, and the honourable senator cannot deny that. This is a piece of blunt legislation and is nothing more than a ploy to stop any challenge by the Queensland Government to take its constitutional battle to the High Court of Australia. It is a coward's way out. The legislation allows the fate of Australia to be determined by unelected members of international organisations that do not have the same democratic requirements as this country has. The Labor Party not only has tried to bypass the State governments but also is now trying to bypass the High Court of Australia and allow some unelected bodies to decide our fate. I completely concur with the previous speaker, Senator Watson. I think his contribution was one that everyone should take note of. He made a wonderful contribution, particularly when he summed up his remarks. The Commonwealth Government has removed the test under the United Nations convention as to whether an area is part of the cultural heritage or the national heritage. By taking this approach, the Commonwealth has sought to make the World Heritage Committee the final arbitrator in these matters. But it is still trying to have two bob each way. It is stated in proposed new section 3a (1) (a) (iv) that it can still claim a listing by regulation. I do not believe there has been any time in Australia's history when the Constitution, in its 90-odd years, has been under a more severe attack. The Government is in its death throes, inflicted with Ministers resigning and waiting around for other jobs, with jobs for the boys being carried out to an art form. It is so desperate to stay in office that it is prepared to sacrifice the Australian Constitution-a book of regulations which we live by and which everyone in this country holds so dear-for a few lousy votes in the metropolitan areas of Sydney and Melbourne. If the Government wants more power it has the opportunity under the Constitution to ask for it. All it has to do is go to a referendum and ask the people of Australia whether they want to give more power to Canberra or whether they want a balance of power between the States and the Commonwealth, as was written into the Constitution. It is a very simple thing to do. I suspect that the answer would be very definitely no, but if the Government wants more power it should ask the people at a referendum. It should say, `We want to control more of your lives from Canberra. We believe that we can do it more effectively 3,000 or 4,000 miles from Perth and 2,000 or 3,000 miles from Cairns'. I tell the Government now that the resounding answer it will get is a definite no. The people will not give the Government more power in Canberra and it should accept that. But, no, the Government has gone to some shonky backroom deal, selling out our Constitution under an international treaty. If this legislation is passed-and, according to Senator Sanders, it is likely to be-it will establish a special police force. I suspect that there will be Commonwealth police all over the Queensland wet tropical rainforests. They will be able to go onto private land, take pictures, make inspections and pull cars over on the road to inspect them, all without a warrant. If a landholder objects, he can be gaoled for 12 months or fined up to $1,000. Are these the type of civil liberties that the Australian Democrats support? We hear them bleating in the Senate day in and day out, saying that they demand civil liberties, yet when it comes to the acid test they fail miserably. I ask Senator Gareth Evans whether he supports this invasion of privacy. The hypocrisy of Senator Evans never fails to amaze me. He is a great civil libertarian when it suits his own cause. No wonder the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) gave him nought out of 10 when he was Attorney-General. He is about as useless as an ashtray on a motor bike in his present portfolio, too. The people of western Queensland cannot even get a telephone, not to mention what he is doing to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. But I am not here to attack Senator Evans; I will do that on another occasion. Let us go through what the Bill does. It sets up another police force with the power to fine and imprison. That measure is backed by the Democrats. The Bill declares retrospectively that no action under the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act is subject to an environmental impact proposal. This is clearly an attempt retrospectively to legalise the Government's own unlawful act of not obtaining an environmental impact study before the listing. The Government is using retrospective legislation to cover up the fact that the reports it obtained and commissioned do not support World Heritage listing. Six or seven months ago Senator Richardson said to an Estimates committee that he had spent $300,000 on consultants' reports, yet the Government is not prepared to present those reports to this Parliament. The Government required the reports to be finalised by 18 December 1987, yet in the Courier-Mail of 23 January 1988 we were told by a spokesman-not Senator Richardson; he did not want to mislead anyone-that the reports were not finalised. In the last sitting week of Parliament I asked Senator Richardson whether he would table the consultancy reports on which he had spent $300,000 of taxpayers' money. He said, `I will do it in good time'. Here we are debating one of the most important issues to face Australia and the Constitution, and we are flying blind because Senator Richardson has not had the courage to put the $300,000 worth of reports on the table of this Parliament so that we can make an objective judgment. I maintain that the reason the Government is being forced to bring this retrospective legislation before this chamber is that it does away with the environmental impact studies. This Government is not prepared to table those consultancy reports because they will not support its argument for World Heritage listing; so it has brought down retrospective legislation to say that such studies are not required. The Government is clearly running for cover. If it had nothing to hide, Senator Richardson would lay the environmental impact studies on the table. If he is not prepared to do that, surely one out of eight would give him some sort of positive result. But, no, he will not do it. I made an application for those studies under the Freedom of Information Act two weeks ago and I will get them in the next two weeks. If Senator Richardson is not game to put them on the table, I will. I guarantee that I will send them to UNESCO. This Bill, if passed with the Democrats support, will retrospectively make lawful the unlawful action of seeking a World Heritage listing without having to supply an environmental impact study. It takes away the power of the High Court of Australia and vests it in the World Heritage Committee. It circumvents the trial of live issues properly before the High Court of Australia and sets up a Commonwealth police force. The action of the Commonwealth is directly engineered to undermine the case of the State of Queensland before the issues which are the subject of the current legislation have been fully aired in the High Court. Senator Aulich —You ought to write your own speeches; they are better. Senator BOSWELL —I did write this speech. It is a very good one. I know that its hits right at the heart of the Australian Labor Party. This legislation is retrospectively changing a law while it is before the High Court of Australia. I want to quote what former Senator Chipp, the former Leader of the Australian Democrats, said about retrospective legislation. Unfortunately, none of the Democrats are here. Let us see what Senator Chipp, the founder of the Democrats, said about retrospective legislation. The Bill before us is retrospective legislation, whichever way you look at it. Senator Chipp said: I hold the view that once retrospective legislation is regarded as the norm, once the Parliament allows it on one occasion, there is an enormous danger that governments or politicians will follow it in other directions or will similarly legislate in other areas. I say, as do my colleagues Senator Macklin, who is not here, and Senator Haines, that once penal retrospective legislation becomes normal in our law-making we no longer live in a truly democratic society. It is as serious as that. I agree with Senator Chipp. I did not often agree with him, but I agree with him on this occasion. He also said of retrospective legislation: Students of history will remember that Adolph Hitler used that measure with devastating effect in Germany. In 1938 he brought in a law that any meeting of Jews had to have the permission of the Prefect of Police of the district, and he dated it back to 1933. If any Jews met anywhere without a permit from the Prefect of Police they were guilty of a criminal offence. Every Jew who had been to a synagogue between 1933 and 1938 was immediately deemed to have committed a criminal offence and was put into a concentration camp. That is what retrospective legislation empowers politicians to do. While I am a member of this Parliament I will fight retrospectivity in every cause. It is a pity Senator Chipp resigned from the Parliament, because he may have been able to give his Party a bit of backbone, which I do not believe it ever had. If Senator Chipp were here today I wonder whether the Democrats would support the statement that he made. The moment of truth is here for the Democrats. They can establish some principle and integrity in this Parliament by backing the stand on retrospectivity taken by their founder and former leader. If they turn their back on his stand on retrospectivity they will be revealed as members of an insincere party with no principles, desperately trying to stay in Parliament at any cost, trying to attract the support of a narrow political power base. I warn Senator Macklin that if he votes for this Bill I will be out in the highways and byways of the country areas that he does get a little support from and I will tell the people what he has done. I guarantee that he will have to find another constituency if he wants to get his Senate quota. He certainly will not be getting it from the country areas of Queensland. I have spent considerable time in this debate addressing myself to legal matters of the Conservation Legislation Amendment Bill, the issue of State rights, the Constitution and the High Court of Australia. But when addressing this legislation we should give consideration to the families that are going to be devastated and the communities that are going to be destroyed. Between 2,000 and 3,000 jobs will be lost. I want all Labor and Democrat senators, sitting here on a minimum of $48,000 a year with a large superannuation entitlement to fall back on, to consider that they are destroying the jobs of their mates-the jobs of their fellow unionists. I hope that they feel proud about it. They are breaking their families up; they are destroying their lives; they are decimating the assets of their families, whose houses are being devalued; they are destroying the future of people who are not traditionally National Party supporters, although I would now say that they will never vote for the Labor party again as long as they live. They are working men and women. They are not members of the farming or grazing communities. They are workers; they are traditional Labor voters. They are the grassroots support that the Government has neglected. Most of them are members of the Australian Workers Union (AWU). I hope that Senator Black has the decency to get up in the Senate and apologise for the actions of the Labor Party. He has been sent here by the AWU faction to support in this Parliament AWU members and workers. I hope that he has the decency to do that. He is going to speak in this debate and I will be very pleased to listen to what he says. I am going to circulate his speech to all the workers who are losing their jobs. I would like to read into Hansard a copy of a letter that I received from Mr Reg Lockyer. The letter, which was sent to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), states: Dear Mr. Hawke, I am one of the timber workers of Ravenshoe in North Queensland who will be soon out of a job as a result of World Heritage Listing of the Wet Tropics. You made the statement on June the fifth that no person working in the Timber Industry would be disadvantaged. I am beginning to despair of that promise being fulfilled as my time comes closer, as some of my fellow workers in the industry have received only short term and demeaning jobs, such as picking up plastic bags and bottles on the local beaches etc. and by June 1988 will find themselves not unemployed timber-workers, but unemployed council workers with no security whatsoever. I am a family man with 10 children, in a reasonably well paid job as Logging Manager for a local sawmill, a position which I have held for the past 22 years. All told I have worked in the same industry since 1949; in Ravenshoe where I was born and where I had hoped to work for my entire life, and to live with my family and friends in the industry and place of my choice. Can you please tell me what job you have planned for me, taking into account my age, training, and background and my stated intention to live out my life in Ravenshoe. I would hope that your promise that ``No timber worker would be disadvantaged'' would take into account all that I have mentioned. I know that my comments will be noted, and that you will pass my letter to the minister responsible; Senator Graham Richardson, but like so many of my letters, to practically all of your ministers, who also passed my letters on to Senator Graham Richardson, (I'm sure that he must have a wad of them by now;) not one reply has come my way. So I'm asking you Mr. Hawke, what job in Ravenshoe do you have for me? Yours sincerely, Reg Lockyer P.S. My family co-operated with the people that you hired to do a socio-economic study. Again you promised a report on this study, but none have materialised. That is a desperate plea from a family man from the timber areas of north Queensland who is trying to protect his family. I would suspect that that man would have voted Labor all his life. He would have put his trust in the people opposite. But they have betrayed him and sold him down the river. Since the Labor Party decided to go ahead with the listing, this Parliament and the Australian people have been subject to a barrage of misinformation and subterfuge by Senator Richardson as he has tried to turn public opinion behind the listing. I say to Senator Richardson that he has well and truly missed the boat because, in politics, what was an issue three years ago is dead today. It is a matter of timing and the issue out there now is jobs. People are worried about their jobs. Senator Richardson has used every trick in the book to get publicity. Even last Sunday we saw a feature on Senator Richardson in the comic strip section of the Sunday Mail. One of the main points of interest in the story was that he was sent from a swimming pool for wearing obscene swimming trunks. That is the sort of story that Senator Richardson has to put out to get a bit of popularity. Senator Richardson issued statements that the logging industry in the World Heritage area was finished. We have been subject to so much misinformation that I am going to take the remaining time that I have in this debate to point out the misrepresentations that Senator Richardson has made to the Senate. And, quite frankly, they are disgraceful. Let me deal with the first piece of misinformation that Senator Richardson gave. He said that the logging industry in the World Heritage area was finished, that thousands of jobs had already been lost and that it was only a matter of time before the industry was closed. Senator Richardson did not tell the Senate that the Queensland Government had reduced of its own volition the timber harvest from 195,000 cubic metres a year to 60,000 cubic metres a year to bring the harvest to a figure that could sustain the logging industry indefinitely. It could employ between 2,000 and 3,000 people. It was a $33m industry that could be sustained. But Senator Richardson did not say that. All we heard from him was misinformation. He said that the logging industry was finished because the number of jobs had already been reduced. That is a blatant mistruth. On 3 March Senator Richardson made a claim that 45 per cent of the rainforest between Townsville and Cooktown had been logged. He displayed deceit in making that statement, which is quite wrong. The proposed World Heritage area is now clear for all to see. I seek leave to incorporate a table in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- ON 1:100 000 MAPS BY SENATOR RICHARDSON ON 11TH DECEMBER 1987 AREA CALCULATION BY QUEENSLAND DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY Boundaries were taken from the 1:100 000 maps and charted on Forestry 1:50 000 Australian Map Grid (A.M.G) Series maps, from which all area calculations were made (rounded to the nearest 100 ha). Area Source and Method of Area Calculation Gross Area 900 300 ha Boundary digitised from 1:50 000 maps and area computer calculated. Areas by Tenure State Forest (SF) ... Timber Reserve (TR) ... National Park (NP) ... Other Crown Land, Crown Selections Freehold & Freeholding Selections ... 492 800 ha 108 100 ha 183 000 ha 102 700 ha 11 300 ha Total: 897 900 ha SF, TR and NP-Gazetted area. Parts of SF, TR and NP areas NOT INCLUDED in Heritage area were calculated with planimeter or digitiser and these areas DEDUCTED from the gazetted area. Other Crown Land, Freehold by planimeter or digitiser. Difference between Gross Area and Areas by Tenure: 2 400 ha (i.e. 0.27% of gross area). Note: GROSS area includes all dedicated roads and stream beds. TENURE areas include some dedicated roads and stream beds. Areas of Rainforest State Forest ... Timber Reserve ... National Park ... Other Crown Land, Crown Selections Freehold & Freeholding Selections ... 383 900 ha 61 400 ha 120 100 ha 44 900 ha 4 600 ha Total: 614 900 ha Departmental computer system which counts each 1 000m grid intersect recorded as occurring within rainforest. Each 1 000m grid intersect represents 100 ha. Areas by Logged Rainforest Within nominated Heritage Area ... Outside nominated Heritage Area ... GROSS: 174 300 ha 3 600 ha GROSS: Manual count of 1 000m A.M.G. intersects from mapped logged area. Within nominated Heritage Area ... Outside nominated Heritage Area ... NET: 143 000 ha 3 000 ha NET: Productive area excludes inaccessible and unproductive fragments, within area mapped as logged. Areas Held Under Grazing Leases Within State Forest and Timber Reserves:- Stock Grazing Permits ... Special Leases ... Within National Parks ... 22 000 ha 64 300 ha Nil Areas calculated with planimeter except where wholly within nominated Heritage area, in which case area on lease document was used Senator BOSWELL —I thank the Senate. This table, prepared by the Queensland Department of Forestry, clearly shows that there are 900,300 hectares of area included within the World Heritage listing and of that the proportion of rainforest logged is 143,000 hectares. Senator Richardson said that 45 per cent had been logged but he did not include 61,400 hectares in timber reserve, 120,100 hectares in national parks, 44,900 hectares in cattle grazing leases and 4,600 hectares freehold and freeholding selections. About 16 per cent of the total area of 900,300 hectares has been logged and 23 per cent of the rainforest has been logged. Senator Richardson pulls in two Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation scientists to give him some moral support. I feel sorry for those people because they have either been forced into being used as political pawns or have been manipulated by Senator Richardson. Either way they are wrong. Senator Richardson is responsible for further misinformation. Last week, I think it was, Senator Richardson's attempts to discredit the Queensland Government and the logging industry reached new heights. He claimed that a report made by the Northern Rainforest Management Agency (NORMA) had recommended that the rainforests should not be logged. This report that Senator Richardson quoted from in such an authoritative manner is an internal preliminary report by one scientist on the scientific committee. The report was submitted in incomplete form; it explored a method and did not expose facts. The method included a survey that had been criticised by a leading scientist, Dr Webb, on the pro-heritage side. In no way has this report been endorsed by the NORMA scientific committee. Despite this, the Minister would have us believe that this report is a definitive work supporting his claim and, on this basis, he expects the logging lobby to cave in. More misinformation and more untruths. It has gone on and on. As Senator Richardson loses the debate in his Caucus we hear many people in the Australian Labor Party, as leaks come out, saying, `For goodness sake, let's think about the people, about the workers. Let's put them in front of the bat, the possum and the snake and whatever. All these are important reptiles and creatures, but let's just put the working man and woman in front of these animals even if it is only for pragmatic reasons-those possums and trees cannot vote for us'. We find that Senator Richardson is losing his grip and as someone quite correctly said, come Sunday, when the Labor Party is defeated in New South Wales, Senator Richardson will have a bit of gloss wiped off him. Instead of being a king maker he will be one of the back room boys and people will be whispering in the corridors about him. In the few remaining minutes that I have I want to clear up a couple of other misrepresentations that Senator Richardson has made. He claimed that the Federal Government is meeting its commitment to compensation to those people disadvantaged by the World Heritage listing. That is a laughable claim. Timber workers in north Queensland have been thrown on the unemployment scrap heap with little regard for their future or that of their families. Senator Richardson said that everyone would receive compensation. I give an example of a couple of people-an example which is quite common in the area of World Heritage listing. Jack and Linda Coleman of Ravenshoe put up their cattle property as security for a sawmill which lies 100 metres within the listing boundaries and is operated by their son John. Under the Government's compensation package mill owners such as John Coleman are not entitled to anything. His parents, who put up their property as security in good faith and in the belief that the timber industry in north Queensland had a healthy future, will now be bankrupted. Time and time again we have heard that the Queensland Government would not co-operate or negotiate. I seek leave to have a telex from the Premier of Queensland, Mr Ahern, incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The telex read as follows- NORTHERN RAINFORESTS As new premier of Queensland, I look forward to working constructively with you on matters of mutual interest to our governments. One matter requiring urgent attention concerns the confrontationist situation which has emerged as a result of your government's action to proceed with world heritage listing of Queensland's wet tropical rainforests. As indicated in a recent press release, I believe that this matter has been mishandled by your government and that if the current situation is not corrected, there will be serious adverse economic and social consequences. I strongly urge that your government make no final decisions on this issue until our governments and our officials have had discussions. Once my ministry is finalised and has met, I will be in a position to suggest arrangements for progressing consideration of the rainforest issue. M. J. AHERN, Premier of Queensland Senator BOSWELL —That should lay to rest the claim that the Queensland Government has not been prepared to negotiate. I asked the Premier, Mr Ahern, if he could give me an answer to that telex. He said no, it was a private matter and, to his credit, he was not prepared to give me the answer of the Prime Minister. But I suspect that it was in the negative and he said, `No. We don't want to negotiate, we've gone through with this now and we will go ahead with the World Heritage listing'. So let it never be said in the Senate again that the Queensland Government was not prepared to negotiate. It was prepared to negotiate. The Federal Labor Government washed its hands like Pontius Pilate of the whole negotiating process. It is a disgrace that we have sold out our constitutional rights; sold out our heritage and sold out our High Court. We have put in another police force and the great civil libertarians in the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Democrats have done it all retrospectively. They ought to be ashamed of themselves. They have sold out the workers and their Australian Workers Union mates. They do not deserve the support of the working men and women of this nation. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(9.58) —Tonight the Senate is debating the Conservation Legislation Amendment Bill 1988 introduced during the last fortnight's sitting by the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson). I am very happy to follow my colleague Senator Boswell. From his impassioned speech one can see that he is concerned, as I am, about what this Bill will do to the World Heritage listing area in far north Queensland and to the people who live there. If enacted, this piece of legislation will strip Australian courts of the power to determine whether an area of our country is of world heritage value. In effect, the Bill surrenders the right of Australians to challenge planned additions to the World Heritage List. Our justice system exists, amongst other reasons, to protect citizens from the whims of government administration. Yet this Bill seeks to rob Australians of the right to challenge, in our courts, government action relating to World Heritage listing. If the Government has no qualms about negating our rights to challenge on that topic, how long will it be before we are prevented from turning to the courts for an independent assessment of other matters? I wonder where it will end. The World Heritage Committee in Paris is to make the final judgment about whether a nominated portion of Australia has world heritage value. Yet Australia has no influence over the composition of the World Heritage Committee. The Government is prepared to entrust the fate of thousands of Australians, together with huge parcels of our land, to nameless bureaucrats in Europe. Indeed, how can the Hawke Government justify selling out our nation's sovereignty? This Bill represents a further erosion of States' rights. If it becomes law, it will be another victory for those who wish to see the complete centralisation of power in Canberra. The Bill allows the Government to exercise control over any property which has even a mere nomination pending before the World Heritage Committee or is subject to any Federal inquiry considering the potential world heritage value of the property. Then, of course, there is the system of inspectors who will gather for the Government, data on individuals and their activities. The Government assures us that these inspectors will wear photographic identity cards. They will sometimes require a judicial warrant. But the Government says that that can be obtained from a court created by the Parliament. However, I believe there is an escape clause which allows inspectors to act even without such a warrant. I believe there is no case for such an extension of Commonwealth powers. There is no justification for a bureaucracy of inspectors. It really will be another type of Commonwealth police force. It is a typical case of this Government's bulldozing State governments that are not of its political persuasion. It is trying to squash the Queensland Government's High Court challenge over the north Queensland rainforest issue by introducing this new legislation. Speaking of the north Queensland rainforest, it was in September last year that I visited the rainforest areas of north Queensland and welcomed the opportunity to study the situation first-hand. I spent a very large part of my visit talking to the people, to the workers who understood only too well that their jobs were at stake. I spoke to the families who were frightened and confused and to the owners of small businesses who fear that the World Heritage listing will drive the timber workers from the towns, leaving them without customers and facing financial ruin. The residents of Ravenshoe, Atherton, Mareeba and several other small towns are understandably terrified at the prospect of World Heritage listing. It is clearly apparent that this Government plans to adopt its usual policy of bowing to the wishes of vocal minority groups to the detriment of other Australians. The wishes of the citizens of north Queensland timber towns count for nothing when balanced against the petulant demands of the conservation lobby groups. Professor Harris from the James Cook University has undertaken an independent study into the effects of World Heritage listing. He predicts that 1,092 jobs would be lost as a direct result of the listing, with a total of 1,994 jobs lost eventually. Yet how many jobs does the Government propose to create in return? The answer is only 640. The timber towns face a very bleak future if the Federal bid for World Heritage listing is successful. The towns will rapidly die as the residents depart in search of alternative employment. Local businessmen deprived of customers will be forced to close their doors. Those towns are doomed to become little more than ghost towns which, of course, is the real tragedy for Australia. In recent years many rural towns have died as the scarcity of employment and the lack of industry have driven the inhabitants to cities and major provincial towns in search of a better life for themselves and their families. However, in this case the timber industry and the timber towns have not died a natural death. Rather, they will die because the Hawke Government is so desperate to gain the conservation vote. The timber workers-men who have proudly worked in the industry for many years-are confused and angry. I listened to my colleague Senator Boswell read a letter from Mr Reg Lockyer from the area just outside Ravenshoe. I had the pleasure of meeting him when I was up there last September and I can well understand how upset he and a lot of his workers are about what is happening. The Federal Government is in effect destroying the lives of those people. Of course, without employment, they are left with no alternative but to leave the towns in which many of them have lived all their lives. They must take their children out of school, uproot their families and begin the search for work in a new field. Of course, the vast majority have only ever worked in the timber industry, and new jobs will not be easy to find. The Federal Government has failed to present viable employment alternatives for these men. Senator Richardson and others have suggested that tourism will replace the timber industry in terms of economic importance to the area. He claims that to a very large extent the tourism industry will absorb displaced timber workers. I find that suggestion outlandish and it could never seriously be considered as a solution to the unemployment problem. I wonder whether Senator Richardson realises that the majority of these displaced timber workers are over the age of 35. The majority have been employed in the timber industry and timber related industries for most of their working lives. They are simply not interested in, and I do not believe they could be expected to adapt to, jobs in the tourist industry. I heard Senator Boswell say how some of them have had to go down and pick up papers and various objects that have been left on the beach around Cairns. If that is working in the tourist industry, I do not think very much of it. Generally speaking, these workers are not of the type sought for employment in five-star hotels. It is quite dishonest of Senator Richardson to indicate otherwise. Resort managers are interested in attracting young people with a reasonably high standard of education who are eager and able to be trained. It is ludicrous to suggest that retrenched timber workers could be successfully transplanted into such an environment. I understand that the Government is also in favour of establishing timber plantations in order to absorb retrenched workers. Apparently the maximum number of potential jobs that could be created would be a mere 250, with the cost of providing those jobs running into many millions of dollars. With such drawbacks, the costs of the proposal appear to outweigh the benefits rather heavily. Senator Boswell has also referred on other occasions to an evaluation prepared by the accountancy firm Touche Ross and Co., which suggests that the Federal Government would be obliged to pay a minimum amount of $60m compensation to the timber industry alone, not to mention the compensation that would have to be paid to the other groups adversely affected by World Heritage listing such as the retrenched workers, the landlords whose property values will plummet and the small business proprietors who will be forced to close their doors as the townspeople depart in search of a new life elsewhere. The figure of $60m may well be the minimum amount which in all fairness the Government should be providing to those people whose lives will be so disrupted by the World Heritage listing. But I very much doubt the Government's willingness or ability to make a financial compensation to such an extent. That figure of $60m has not been plucked out of the air. It has not been calculated by people who are opposed to World Heritage listing. Sixty million dollars is the figure arrived at by an independent and highly regarded firm of accountants. In effect, the Federal Government is wreaking economic damage worth more than $60m, and I for one have yet to hear that amount or anything like it promised in the form of compensation. Indeed, the $2,500 dislocation allowance being offered to the workers has often hindered rather than helped many. The reason is that apparently the recipients are being told that they are ineligible for unemployment benefit for a period because the $2,500 allowance is regarded as income earned. This Government has no qualms whatsoever about giving with one hand and taking with the other. The $2,500 allowance represents a rather meagre attempt by the Government to ease the pain and uncertainty of retrenchment and dislocation. To discount that payment against the recipients' eligibility for unemployment benefit only adds insult to injury. One group of citizens in particular has been drastically affected by the cessation of logging. Yet, as far as the Federal Government is concerned, that group does not appear to warrant compensation. I wonder whether the Government and the Labor senators from Queensland are aware that many north Queensland citizens operate small private timber mills as a family business. Those families rely on mills as their chief source of income. I understand that the compensation regulations approved by the Government contains no provision to extend assistance to the owners of private timber mills. So the cessation of logging has resulted in a cessation of income for many families. If the Federal Government succeeds in ruining the Queensland timber industry, I understand it is highly probable that alternative supplies of timber will need to be imported. In speaking in the Senate on 25 February last to the report of the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment I said that timber had to be brought in from other countries. It is worth noting that Senator Richardson is on record as saying that we can afford to save rainforests, but he has not specified whose rainforests. Australia imports about 10 times more rainforest timber than is produced in north Queensland. I believe that it is rather hypocritical to worry about saving our rainforest and yet continue to exploit the rainforests of the Third World. Senator Boswell —Of course it is. It is the most hypocritical government we have ever had. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —It is very hypocritical indeed. After listening to Senator Boswell's impassioned speech earlier this evening, I am sure that he will agree with what I have said. The Government's reasoning on this issue defies commonsense. On the one hand, it embarks upon huge advertising campaigns exhorting Australians to buy goods made in this country and, on the other, it sets out to destroy a viable local industry which provides an essential raw material. The Government has proceeded down this path because it has accepted, without question, the advice of ill-informed people who have so far failed to produce a shred of evidence to prove that the current logging practices are harmful to the environment. Indeed, Professor Harris, a professor of economics at James Cook University-I mentioned him earlier in my speech-compiled the first independent study of the effects of World Heritage listing on north Queensland rainforests. He maintained that the Federal Government either was misleading Australia about the impact of logging on north Queensland rainforests or intended to mislead the World Heritage Committee about the rainforests' quality. He said that the Government has claimed that the logging will destroy the integrity and heritage listing qualities of the rainforests but that it also claims that, after 100 years of logging, sometimes uncontrolled, the integrity of the forests is still maintained. One has to choose between the two arguments. They cannot both be right; one has to be invalid. Logging should be permitted to continue unless the Government is able to produce clear, scientifically based evidence that it compromises long term conservation. The Federal Government has failed to prove that a controlled program of logging is in any way incompatible with conservation. It has produced no evidence to suggest that any species of rainforest flora or fauna is endangered or under threat of extinction. The Hawke Government is guilty of actively seeking to destroy this section of the industry in order to placate the environmentalists who demand that the logged areas be preserved at any cost. Unfortunately, the environmentalists will not be asked to bear the cost of World Heritage listing. Their jobs are not at risk; their lifestyles are not threatened. They view the issue academically and make impassioned appeals on behalf of the trees. They ignore the plight of the people living in the area. What will become of them? Does the Government plan to put entire towns on the dole? That seems to be what is being done in north Queensland. The residents of the timber towns should not be condemned to rely on government handouts in the form of social welfare. They are proud, industrious people. Many have invested years of personal energy and commitment into making a life for themselves in the area and now they are being forced to stand by and see their efforts wasted and their communities disintegrated in the name of conservation. I am not against the protection and conservation of genuinely sensitive areas, but over 80 per cent of the wet tropics are already exempt from logging. Senator Richardson and his colleagues have misrepresented the situation. They speak as though there are just a few hectares of rainforest remaining in north Queensland. In fact, the rainforests cover an area of approximately 877,000 hectares and only 156,000 hectares within the proposed World heritage boundary area are zoned for sustained-yield timber harvesting. Even within the designated area, the Queensland Department of Forestry has already shown that it is prepared to set aside from logging an adequately representative area of any section of special significance as regards flora or fauna. The rainforests are being managed effectively by the Forestry Department in conjunction with those responsible for harvesting the timber. The Federal Government is not justified in its criticism of Queensland's record of rainforest management. Successive Queensland governments have managed the area for more than 100 years and the result has been a sensible and effective balance of conservation, preservation and development. I was interested to read in a newspaper today a statement by the Leader of the Liberal Party in Queensland that the Federal Government's heritage policy is a jackboots type of policy. Mr Innes said: The Federal Government's World Heritage nomination of northern rainforests was fraudulent . . . That is a pretty wide and strong statement. Unfortunately, of course, it is true. The newspaper article continued: Mr Innes released copies of the Federal Government's 30-page, December 1987 nomination form in which Canberra said most of the north Queensland rainforest area nominated for listing was in very good condition. This was contrary to Federal Government claims that listing was necessary because the State Government could not be trusted to manage the valuable and fragile rainforests . . . I believe that Mr Innes put the case very strongly. He is reported as saying: Never before in any World Heritage listing in Australia has the Federal Government named the State Government without first reaching agreement with the state on the matter. This nomination application is a fraud because the State Government has not agreed to anything. There has been no agreement, in fact, there has been virtually no consultation. In other words, he said: The Federal Government has used a jackboots approach. That is putting it fairly strongly. Mr Innes is reported as saying further that the listing is a political ploy. We all know that. Of course, the States that the Federal Government are concerned about are the States of Queensland and Tasmania, neither of which has a Labor government. Of course, after this coming Saturday New South Wales will not have a Labor government either. I believe that you, Mr Acting Deputy President, would agree completely with that statement. I also want to say that we have to be careful that the Federal Government does not try to put on the World Heritage List other areas in Queensland such as the Central Highlands, the Gulf Country and the Great Sandy Region, including Stradbroke, Fraser and Moreton islands. Once the Federal Government gets started on a policy of World Heritage listing, goodness only knows where it will stop. State government foresters plan and oversee rigid logging procedures based on the principles of selective harvesting for sustained yield. This means that about eight to 12 trees per hectare are carefully selected for harvesting. No more than 4,000 hectares of the rainforest area are disturbed by logging at widely dispersed locations in any one year. That is less than half of one per cent of the area proposed for World Heritage nomination. Adequate seed trees are always retained and logged areas will not be recut for about 40 years. Only trees marked by the Department of Forestry officers may be harvested by logging contractors. That is always done in strict accordance with the approved logging plan for the area. Heavy fines are incurred by logging contractors if there is avoidable damage to unmarked trees in the harvesting process. Procedures such as these ensure the continued viability of the industry. Senator Richardson and his colleagues claim that World Heritage listing will be a boon for north Queensland and that tourists in their thousands will flock from far and wide to admire the rainforests. I maintain that tourists have been doing just that for years without World Heritage listing. I can remember going up to the far north of Queensland about 40 years ago-I was but a little girl, of course. I can remember seeing Lake Barrine and Lake Eacham and the beautiful rainforest that surrounded them. That rainforest still surrounds them to this day. If the rainforest had been so badly treated by the Forestry Department as the Labor Government says there would not be anything left at all for World Heritage listing. Therefore, I do not believe that we need to put such areas on the World Heritage List just to get the tourists there. There is no doubt, as I said, if the forests still have the integrity for World Heritage listing after 100 years of logging, that the industry must indeed be compatible with conservation. As far as this Bill is concerned, I believe that there is no case for the extension of Commonwealth powers or the new regime of inspectors. As I said before, it will be like another Commonwealth police force. This Government is indeed taking away State rights and undermining our Constitution. I believe that that is something we shall look at. I had a letter from a Minister from the People's Church of Esperance, who said: Senator Richardson's bill to `prevent Australian courts hearing challenges to Government action under the World Heritage Act' is but another attack on State's rights. If decisions on heritage listings become the province of the World Heritage Committee in Paris, then Australian as a sovereign nation really no longer exists! That letter came from someone in Western Australia. Before closing, I want to record my opposition to the legislation. Indeed, may I express the hope that when our parties return to government at the next election this legislation will be repealed. Debate (on motion by Senator Cook) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Cook) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(10.27) —I want to make two remarks in my speech on the adjournment this evening. First I wish to express on behalf of the Opposition a very clear dissatisfaction with the way in which the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson), the Government Whip and the Australian Labor Party have dealt with the debate on the Conservation Legislation Amendment Bill 1988. It is gutless and shameful for them to have gone through the whole process of pulling speakers off the debating list this evening for the simple reason that they were not prepared today to enter into the debate on this significant piece of legislation. The Opposition was supplied with a speakers list on this matter showing Government speakers who were to participate. Either those Government speakers have been too dilatory to have their speeches ready or they have been prepared to play ducks and drakes with the way in which this chamber is managed. I appreciate that some Government senators will particularly want to speak when the Senate is being broadcast tomorrow. However, they will find their task a little more difficult than would otherwise have been the case, given the fact that they think they can present to the Opposition a speakers list and then at will pull their speakers off the list-in order to reschedule them for what they regard as a more convenient time tomorrow or because they are too incompetent to have their speeches ready on their legislation, programmed to suit their ends and according to their timetable, in a way which they think is of maximum advantage to them. They will find that that is an extremely short-sighted attitude if they think they can manage a political debate in that fashion. I make it quite clear that we are most concerned about being supplied by the Government with a lengthy speakers list only to find that the Government's speakers simply have been dropped off the list when it suits its convenience. The main matter which I want to speak on tonight is something quite different. In fact, I want to talk about an activity which has taken place as part of the bicentennial celebrations in Australia this year. I believe it is one of the really great events reflecting cultural life in Australia. I refer to the premier a couple of nights ago in Melbourne of the Australian Bicentennial Dance Event, which goes by the title of Vast. This is an extraordinary production which brings together a number of Australian dance companies under the artistic direction of Graeme Murphy, the Artistic Director of the Sydney Dance Company. This is a modern ballet which has been choreographed and directed by Graeme Murphy in association with Janet Vernon, the Associate Director of the event. It is danced to the music of Barry Conyngham, who is probably the most distinguished and exciting Australian composer at the moment, in a production designed by Andrew Carter. It brings together the Australian Dance Theatre, whose artistic director is Leigh Warren, the Queensland Ballet, whose artistic director is Harold Collins, the Sydney Dance Company, under the artistic direction of Graeme Murphy, and the West Australian Ballet, under the artistic direction of Barry Moreland. It has been put together with the assistance of Mr Peter Sarah from the Australian Bicentennial Authority, who is responsible for the Authority's arts program, and Catherine Williams, the general manager of the National Bicentennial Dance Event. The music, which, as I said, has been composed specifically for this purpose by Barry Conyngham, was played at the opening night by the Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra, the concert master being Barbara Gilby and the conductor being the distinguished Australian conductor John Hopkins. The Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra will play the Barry Conyngham score in Adelaide and in Melbourne; in Brisbane the music will be played by the Queensland Symphony Orchestra; and in Perth and in Sydney it will be played by the Western Australian Symphony Orchestra. Senator Cook —A very fine orchestra. Senator PUPLICK —As Senator Cook says, a very fine orchestra. I shall have a little more to say about Western Australia's participation in this matter in a moment. I think it is quite exciting that dance companies from Western Australia, New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia have been brought together and that concert orchestras from Tasmania, Queensland and Western Australia have been brought together. The whole production comprises the artistic work of some 69 separate Australian dancers. It is my belief that of all the current artistic undertakings in Australia, Australian dance is probably the most exciting and the one art form which most clearly, I believe, puts Australia as a world leader in a modern cultural activity. The reviews which the ballet Vast has received have been uniformly ones of praise. Helen Thomson, the dance critic of the Australian, wrote this in the 7 March edition of that newspaper: Crucial to the success of the dance is Barry Conyngham's magnificent musical score, written before Murphy began the choreography and performed excitingly by the Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra under the baton of John Hopkins. There appears to be a particularly solid conjunction of talent between Conyngham and Murphy, where both music and movement give the fullest significance to the imagination. She goes on particularly to point out the dance roles of Janet Vernon, Ross Philip and Brett Roberts in a particular group called The Family which appears in each of the three scenes of the Murphy ballet which are entitled `The Sea', `The Centre' and `The Cities'. Although I think it is invidious to pick out the activities of three particular dancers in the cast of some 69 performers, I certainly agree that that praise is worthwhile. John Cargher writing in the Bulletin of 15 March was also very effusive in his praise and in his comments. I regard John Cargher as perhaps one of the most interesting and significant art, music and dance critics in Australia. He praises a number of features of the performance. He says: The set designs by Andrew Carter are all that Sydney Nolan's never are: beautiful, if abstract, artistically flawless and, most importantly, effective as a stage picture. He goes on to praise Kenneth Rayner's lighting and the impact of Jennifer Irwin's costumes throughout the performance. The design may be that of Andrew Carter, and it is a very great design, but it is interesting to note that in fact the Western Australians participated yet again in that the Western Australian Opera was responsible for the actual construction of the sets. Speaking of Murphy, Cargher says: . . . his inventiveness with `vast' numbers of dancers instead of dozens produced some spectacular effects. The use of blue-draped bodies to create the waves of the ocean was good, but not particularly original, but the wonderful images of static bodies flowing into ever more beautiful friezes as man emerges from the crab-like creatures of the deep are inspired. And the final tableau is sheer genius. That is a comment which I certainly endorse, having seen the performance. Further on in his review he says: . . . no possible fault can be found with even one of the 69 dancers and . . . their styles do not clash . . . He concludes his review by saying: You could not get dancers trained by Martha Graham or Merce Cunningham or Pina Bausch to blend as these do. From basic ballet you can step up or down into any other dance form, while training in modern dance alone restricts the dancer in his or her repertoire. The lesson of VAST is that for once Australia's isolation is a positive asset. Incest in dance training has paid off handsomely in this case. It is perhaps rare that one takes any time in the Parliament to actually try to analyse what is happening in Australian modern cultural and artistic performances. In the dance companies around Australia we have a group of young men and women-in terms of performers, choreographers, musicians, set designers, costume designers, lighting specialists and the people responsible for making the designs and bringing them to life on the stage-who are world leaders and certainly the equal of any in the dance companies that can be found anywhere around the world. Vast has been a considerable gamble on the part of a number of people. It was a gamble on the part of the Australian Bicentennial Authority in that it was prepared to underwrite a great deal of this activity. It was a gamble on the part of Graeme Murphy who I think is outstandingly one of the great artists in Australia today. It was a gamble on the part of the dance companies in South Australia, Queensland, Sydney and Western Australia. It was a gamble on the part of the symphony orchestras in Tasmania, Queensland and Western Australia to try to put together something which had never been done before, and that is to amalgamate four quite different and quite separate companies and to try to bring them together in a celebration of Australian dance, an event which took place initially at the Palais Theatre in St Kilda and which will tour around most of the States of Australia, including performances in the Australian Capital Territory. The bringing together of many choreographers, of many people involved in the artistic side, the design side, the lighting side and, above all, perhaps the musical side is a great and exciting adventure. Vast has been a spectacular success in terms of the celebration of modern art and modern art forms in Australia. I wanted to take this opportunity in the Senate quite simply to place on record, both as somebody who is particularly interested in Australian dance and also as the shadow Minister responsible for the arts, words of praise and commendation for the hundreds of people involved and the thousands of hours which must have gone into bringing this spectacular event together in the one place and with such outstanding success. I think all too often we as Australians fail to acknowledge the success of our artists unless somehow they are seen overseas and praised overseas. We do not tend to praise our own people performing in our own country to our own audiences to anywhere near the extent that we should. I think those people who have been involved in the creation, the performance and, indeed, the organisation of this vast and spectacular event deserve to be recognised and accorded the highest praise by people. I hope that many honourable senators who have the opportunity to see this performance will take the chance presented to them, for they will see in Australia something which is the equivalent of anything they would see anywhere in the world. I think it will very much encourage their pride and their respect for the artistic abilities which are inherent in a large number of people in Australia and which deserve far greater public recognition than is usually accorded them. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(10.40) —Unions are forever attacked for having too much power. Critics claim they abuse it to the harm of employers, workers and the community generally. They are pictured as overprivileged groups taking from society much more than they give to it. Opponents call for the greater use of law against them. Those disputing the need for unions say that the bad old days when management exploited the labour force have long since passed. The law now gives workers ample protection against oppression. Employees are better served by bargaining directly with their employers than by relying on unions to negotiate at industry level. Capital is different from the past, understands the needs of labour and is solicitous of them. Events surrounding the liquidation of the Oakleigh Abattoirs Pty Ltd in Melbourne in February 1988 show how wrong this way of thinking is. Oakleigh Abattoirs Pty Ltd went into voluntary liquidation on 29 February 1988. It peremptorily dismissed its workers the same day. It gave them their weekly take-home pay, but not the amount owing for rostered days off, sick leave and accrued holiday pay with a 17.5 per cent loading. This amounts to $248,920. It owes its employees $6,861 taken from their wages for superannuation. These sums are listed in its report as to affairs. Amounts owed to individual workers include figures such as $5,640.65, $4,365, $4,187.72, $4,159.64. A big proportion of the amounts owed falls between $2,000 and $4,000. Well over 100 men are involved. Among them are people with mortgages to meet, with periodic payments to make, with families to feed, house and educate. All have a living standard to maintain. They are hardworking men anxious to ply their trade. Without warning they have been left jobless. Money rightfully theirs has been denied them. They are left facing the dole and debt. The workers were outraged by what was done to them. They had been killing stock that day. They ran whatever carcasses were awaiting dressing on the chain into chillers. This was to preserve them. They then set up a picket. Nothing was to go into or out of the abattoirs until they were paid what was due to them. The workers were employed by Oakleigh Abattoirs Pty Ltd. They had to look to it for their wages. However, the animals that that company had them kill belonged to others. Those other companies were not going to pay those who had processed their stock but they were going to obtain possession of it from them. Metro Meat Ltd, Helvistan Consolidated (Victoria) Pty Ltd and Mohrs Refrigerated Transport Pty Ltd were three companies using the premises of Oakleigh Abattoirs Pty Ltd on the 29 February 1988. They reacted quickly to the situation. On 1 March 1988 Metro Meats wrote a letter to the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union. I seek leave to incorporate that letter in Hansard. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- Mr Wally Curran, Secretary, A.M.I.E.U. 62 Lygon Street, CARLTON. 3053. Dear Wally, Re: Industrial Dispute-Oakleigh Abattoirs Please be advised, Metro Meat Limited, (Mayfair) currently contract kill pigs at the above Abattoir. Yesterday, 29th February, 1988, Oakleigh Abattoirs went into Liquidation. As a result of this the A.M.I.E.U. employees of the Abattoir, were terminated. Metro Meat Limited (Mayfair) has a substantial amount of stock in Chillers at Oakleigh Abattoirs, some of which was killed on Friday 19th February, 1988, which is deteriorating rapidly. There are also 375 pigs, killed Monday 29th February, 1988, which will have to be moved out urgently to avoid spoiling of product. In addition to the above there are approximately 30 live pigs on the premises that are losing condition and will need to be killed in the very near future to save the product. As Metro Meat Limited are not involved in the dispute between the A.M.I.E.U. and Oakleigh Abattoirs, I am seeking your intervention to allow Metro Meat Limited, to cross the picket line that has been set up by A.M.I.E.U. members to remove all of our stock from the premises of Oakleigh Abattoirs, before further deterioration occurs. Should you wish to contact me I will be available by telephoning our Dandenong Office on 792 0504. Yours sincerely, Mike Gallagher (Manager, Domestic Meat) Senator COONEY —On 2 March Cooper Korbl & Co., solicitors acting on behalf of the three companies, wrote two letters to the union. I seek leave to incorporate those two letters in Hansard. Leave granted. The letters read as follows- March 2, 1988 BY HAND The Secretary, Australasian Meat Industry Employees' Union, 62 Lygon Street, Carlton. Dear Sir, RE: OAKLEIGH ABATTOIRS We act on behalf of Metro Meat Ltd, which carries on its business under the name or style `Mayfair Fresh Pork' from premises situated, inter alia, at the Oakleigh Abattoirs in North Road, Huntingdale. As you are aware the Oakleigh Abattoirs are conducted by a company named Oakleigh Abattoirs Pty Ltd. That company provides a killing and processing service for our clients' pigs. At present our client has the following property to which it is entitled to immediate delivery at the Oakleigh Abattoirs premises: (a) 375 pig carcasses situated in the chiller; and (b) 30 live pigs. This property is extremely valuable. The carcasses have an extremely short shelf life. By Friday of this week they will be commercially worthless. In the meantime the property continue to lose value as a result of processes of gradual deterioration. Further the carcasses have been sold under the terms of agreements which required delivery to have been made earlier this week. Your Union currently has a picket line outside the abattoirs. The effect of this picket line is to prevent any property, including our clients property, from leaving the premises. Your Union has physically prevented our clients attempts to remove its property from the premises and has caused them to suffer substantial losses already. These losses will escalate as the hours pass. All of this is well known to you and was the subject of a letter to you from our client yesterday, a copy of which is attached. Whatever dispute your Union may have with the proprietor of the Oakleigh Abattoirs is irrelevant to the position in which our clients presently find themselves. The actions of your Union are causing serious loss and damage and unless those actions cease immediately our clients will have no alternative but to obtain appropriate relief by way of injunction from either the Supreme Court or the Federal Court together with an associated claim for damages. In this connection we would refer you to the judgment of Murphy J. in Dollar Sweets Pty Ltd v. The Federated Confectioners Association of Australia (1986) V.R. 383. Unless we receive your undertaking by 2.15 this afternoon we propose to make an application to the Court for appropriate protective orders. If your Union wishes to be heard in opposition to the grant of any such injunctions then this letter serves as notice of our clients' intentions to make application this afternoon. Yours faithfully, March 2, 1988 The Secretary, Australasian Meat Industry Employees' Union 62 Lygon Street, CARLTON. Dear Sir, RE: OAKLEIGH ABATTOIRS We act on behalf of Helvistan Consolidated (Vic.) Pty Ltd and Mohrs Refrigerated Transport Pty Ltd. Helvistan carries on its business under the name or style ``Mohrs Meat'' from premises situated, inter alia, at the Oakleigh Abattoirs in North Road, Huntingdale. Mohrs Refrigerated Transport Pty Ltd is the owner of, inter alia, meat vans which are used in conjunction with the business of Mohrs Meat. As you are aware the Oakleigh Abattoirs are conducted by a company named Oakleigh Abattoirs Pty Ltd. That company provides a killing and processing service for our clients' cattle. At present our client, Mohrs Meat, has the following property to which it is entitled to immediate delivery at the Oakleigh Abattoirs premises: (a) 281 carcasses of beef situated in the chiller; (b) 33 live cattle; and (c) 280 hides. The hides are worth some $20,000. Furthermore the carcasses of beef and the hides have an extremely short shelf life. By Friday of this week they will be commercially worthless. In the meantime the property continues to lose value as a result of processes of gradual deterioration. Both the meat and the hides have been sold under the terms of agreements which required delivery to have been made earlier this week. Your Union currently has a picket line outside the abattoirs. The effect of this picket line is to prevent any property, including our clients property, from leaving the premises. Your Union has physically prevented our clients attempts to remove its property from the premises and has caused them to suffer substantial losses already. These losses will escalate as the hours pass. So far as Mohrs Refrigerated Transport Pty Ltd is concerned it has four meat vans presently located on the premises. The actions of your Union have prevented those trucks from leaving the premises. Whatever dispute your Union may have with the proprietor of the Oakleigh Abattoirs is irrelevant to the position in which our clients presently find themselves. The actions of your Union are causing serious loss and damage and unless those actions cease immediately our clients will have no alternative but to obtain appropriate relief by way of injunction from either the Supreme Court or the Federal Court together with an associated claim for damages. In this connection we would refer you to the judgment of Murphy J. in Dollar Sweets Pty Ltd v. The Federated Confectioners Association of Australia (1986) V.R. 383. Unless we receive your undertaking by 2.15 this afternoon we propose to make an application to the Court for appropriate protective orders. If your Union wishes to be heard in opposition to the grant of any such injunctions then this letter serves as notice of our clients' intentions to make application this afternoon. Yours faithfully, Senator COONEY —I thank the Senate. The threat of legal action contained in the solicitors' letters had great substance. The law did allow the companies to seek rapid relief by way of injunction. It did afford them an action for damages. The picket line was lifted. Rapid relief afforded the companies by the law is not available to the workers. They will wait a lengthy time for payment of such part of their entitlement as is ultimately paid to them. In the meantime they must meet their commitments as best they can. None of the letters reflect any sympathy for the workers deprived of money and jobs. What wrongs they have suffered is not of concern to those whose stock they had processed. If they are beggared so be it. It is natural for the clients of Cooper Korbl & Co. to be concerned about their stock. However, the tone of the letters does nothing to justify the workers' faith in those who benefited from their labour. True, they were not employed by those companies, but they had slaughtered and dressed and chilled their beasts for sale. Surely that deserves some recognition. The voluntary winding up of Oakleigh Abattoirs Pty Ltd on 29 February 1988 demonstrates some unhappy truths. The workers were treated by various companies in a way which does nothing to dispel the belief that, but for unions and the legislation they have encouraged over the years, employees would still work under nineteenth century conditions. The law provides more rapid relief for companies denied their goods than for workers denied their wages. Unions are much confined by the law. Their ability to take industrial action within the law is non-existent. Capital is still capable of apathy in the face of labour's distress. Unity of labour is the hope of the world. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia)(10.45) —I would like to speak about the need for a debate in this country on alternative security, alternative defence. One characteristic of the defence debate since the release of the report of the Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities and the White Paper has been the renewal of threat perceptions in the minds of the Australian public either for political reasons or to boost defence wish list thinking. Perhaps it is also to get more money for the defence forces and to improve the readiness of the armed forces-a thing which has preoccupied Opposition speakers on this subject for the last year or so and also various journalists representing the same interest. The practice has been either to play on Soviet intentions in the Pacific since the fishing agreement with Kiribati there and then Mikhail Gorbachev's speech in Vladivostok in July 1986 or to stress the implications of the Fiji coup last year in terms of the alleged unreadiness of the Australian Defence Force to intervene should that have been required. More recently there was an alarmist feature article in the Australian by Peter Young-on 29 February-entitled, `Invasion. How we lost to 250'. This was a worst case scenario exercise in which Australia was attacked by forces from a Muslim country called Missouria which resulted in the capture of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. The article ended: Only a worse case scenario perhaps, but it is the stuff around which most of Australia's defence exercises are played out, except that we always win against an obliging enemy who limits his actions to the comforting credible threats that our forces have been scaled down to meet. The only thing that the article did not explain was why anyone would want to capture the Cocos Islands and in fact what would be done with them once they were captured. White Australians have been fed threat scenarios for 200 years. It started with fortifications in our harbours to keep out the French and the Russians in the nineteenth century. Later we worried about the yellow peril to the north. Now we rate Indonesia and the Soviet Union as the greatest threats according to the most recent threat poll carried out by the Australian on 6 November 1987. The same poll recorded that almost two-thirds of Australians believe that our defence forces are inadequate to defend national interests. This is an apparent increase of 7 per cent in voter dissatisfaction since the defence White Paper was released in March last year. However, a Government-Australian Nationwide Opinion Polls Pty Ltd poll in January this year indicated that only 53 per cent of people surveyed still believed that Australia could not defend itself effectively, a fact which apparently disappointed the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley), who said that although it showed that the defence debate had changed significantly since the 1960s and early 1970s he was disappointed that 53 per cent of Australians still believed that Australia was unable to defend itself. Having taken little interest in defence issues for many years some politicians are more inclined simply to rattle on about the Soviet threat as if nothing had changed since the Menzies years and to play on our ignorance of the Pacific by pretending the Soviets are on our doorstep when in fact they are largely confined to the far north-west of the Pacific with only Cam Ranh Bay as a forward base between Vladivostok and the Red Sea. The United States Navy still refers to the Pacific as an American lake and has always used ANZUS to pursue a strategy of denial with regard to the Soviet Union. The islands of the South Pacific are strongly pro-Western and Christian with little interest in close ties to the Soviet Union, let alone the economic model there, while the countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations are positively hostile to the Soviet Union. Soviet standing in Asia has been a disaster for over 20 years since it lost influence in China and Indonesia, got embroiled in Afghanistan and discredited itself in South East Asia by supporting the old warriors in Vietnam after 1975. As for communism, Australia had far more reason to be hysterical 20 or 30 years ago when we were fed the domino theory about insurgencies in Malaysia or the war in Vietnam, even if the problem there was nationalism, not the spread of communism masterminded by the Kremlin. The sooner we start drumming up the spectre of the Cold War and put our minds to the current realities of power in the region, the sooner we can address ourselves to the real issues of security and defence which we usually manage to avoid. The problem is that none of these traditional approaches to Australia's security takes account of three other vital factors-threat perceptions, the nature of modern war, alternative approaches to international conflict resolution. Since the last invasion of Australia in 1788 the new arrivals have always been terrified that someone else would come and take the land that they had already taken from the Aboriginal people. This fear led to the notion of forward defence; that is, in order to have a great and powerful friend to protect us, Australians would have to go and fight their allies' enemies anywhere else in the world. That is why Australians have fought in the Sudan, the Boer War, the Boxer Rebellion, and under the British flag in the Middle East, North Africa and Europe. When Singapore fell in 1942 we turned to the United States, and fought in Korea and Vietnam. It was not until 1952 that we learned that the Japanese had come and checked out Australia in 1942 by going as far as Sydney Harbour in their submarines, and bombing Darwin, Broome and Port Hedland, but had decided that Australia was too difficult to invade. They had to turn away because they were obviously preoccupied with their war effort elsewhere. The myth has been perpetuated, however, that without the United States we would have been occupied by Imperial Japan. However, the Japanese war records show that that was not the case. In the post-Vietnam era we have the doctrine of self-reliance. Unfortunately, it is not true self-reliance because we are still part of a military alliance or, rather, a nuclear alliance-and a potentially offensive one at that. However, in 1951 when the ANZUS Treaty was signed, it was never intended to be a nuclear alliance. However, that is what it has become by stealth and by a whole range of secret agreements. The Government admits that there is no perceivable threat to Australia-and that there has not been for many years. Indeed, in 1986 a retired air marshal observed that if there were not a threat to Australia's defence Australians would invent one. He actually used the term `an invasion paranoia'. That was from someone in a military establishment. The Australian defence forces operate in a vacuum, precisely because there is no threat. As Paul Dibb noted in his review, `Australia is one of the most secure countries in the world'. Later he commented: Australia thus faces no identifiable direct military threat and there is every prospect that our favourable security circumstances will continue. He also observed: Part of the difficulty of defining national security interests rests in the fact that we face no identifiable threat or prospect of threat to focus our concerns. Most wars break out because of threat perceptions. There is a conflict situation and the two sides arm, with both suspecting the other of malevolent intentions. Many military thinkers and many older people still live with the memory of the Second World War, while Air Force strategists have made a great song and dance about air power since the Israeli attack on Egypt in June 1967. What they ignore is that the nature of modern warfare has changed in the last 40 years and that the June war scenario bears no relevance to the Australian situation. Before 1945 most wars were fought in what we call the First World. Countries declared war and invaded another country. There have been about 150 wars fought since 1945, and almost all of them have been in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Few wars are now declared, and many drag on for years, like the forgotten wars of Africa-Eritrea since 1962, or Namibia since 1966. Only 15 per cent of wars since 1945 have been conventional, with the armies of two or more countries fighting each other across borders after having declared war. The other 85 per cent have involved the attempted overthrow of colonial governments, or have come about from tribal, religious or ethnic reasons, frequently of an internal nature. Indeed, as a Singapore commentator, Sinathamby Rajaratnam, once put it, `the Third World War is a cumulation of little wars rather than one big one'. He said: Though the form is new, it is basically a war between the great powers and one fought for the realisation of their ambitions and the promotion of their national interests. However, this is not obvious because in this new world war, the great powers are invisible. These long, drawn-out conflicts can be largely attributed to the fortunes of the international arms trade and the tendency of guerilla warfare outside the colonial environment to be a failure because it lacks an effective end game. Australia is one of the players because we too want our share of the arms trade cake. The Cooksey report, which we have never discussed in this chamber, recommended that Australia double its defence exports-the justification being that we sell very little compared with the big players in the arms bazaar. Such an argument holds little water when all other countries take this line-and who can blame them when the arms trade is now reputed to be the world's second largest trading concern? As the percentage controlled by the United States and the Soviet Union declines, more countries enter the game, Singapore and Indonesia in our own region, or countries such as Brazil, South Korea and particularly China in the last year. Given this situation, it would obviously make more sense if Australia were not only to disentangle itself from bloc thinking and stand on its own two feet, but also to take advantage of its own unique geostrategic position and adopt a posture of defensive defence. If wars often start because of threat perceptions, then countries wishing to reduce threat levels in the world can do so by going for a non-offensive defence strategy, rather like Switzerland, Yugoslavia and Albania. In modern warfare the advantage lies with the defence, around a ratio of 3:1. A country can spend millions of dollars on a new warship but it might get sunk by an Exocet. It can order powerful new tanks but they might be destroyed by the latest anti-tank weapons. New planes cost millions to buy but can be shot down by missiles. If countries would put the emphasis on defensive equipment they would feel more secure, while not threatening their neighbours. On the other hand, suppose we were to indulge the defence wish list of some members of the Opposition and their friends in the military. Australia would spend several billion dollars on an aircraft carrier or a few nuclear submarines. What would our neighbours think or, more importantly, what would they do? Recently we have had the spectacle of India, with a couple of aircraft carriers and a nuclear submarine, likely to get another carrier and six more nuclear submarines. Voices are immediately raised by Indian Ocean neighbours like Australia and Indonesia which want similar weapons even though it is conceded that India is not a threat. India justifies the build-up of its navy because of conflict with China and Pakistan-although it is hard to see why a naval build-up is necessary, and so it goes on. Soon we shall hear mutterings about Japan as it forges ahead with the expansion of its armed forces which, because of its peace constitution, are not officially armed forces. They are allegedly self-defence forces, even if Japan now has the ninth largest defence budget in the world, and before long at the present rate will have the third largest defence budget-even keeping within its constitutional allowance of one per cent of its total budget. If we want to pre-empt conflict situations, we need to promote regional security and understanding. Security in the Asia-Pacific region means economic security for most of the people in the area. The more their governments spend on arms, the less there is for health, education, housing, water, energy and employment. If Australia wants regional security it should spend more on economic aid instead of military aid to our neighbours and do more to promote regional understanding by getting Australians over their cultural hang-up about being an extension of Europe or North America. Instead, we should consider ourselves as part of the Asia-Pacific region. Our overseas aid is now running at 0.36 per cent of the GDP or half what we used to aim for, the figure set by the United Nations many years ago. Australia is getting lower and lower on the list of contributing countries, and is nearer to the mean list, rather than the list of countries that show some social responsibility. We claim to be economically in a mess but we still rate as the eighth wealthiest country in the world-and certainly we are wealthy compared with our neighbours. As we know only too well, the more we spend on weapons, the more insecure we feel. We need a much wider definition of security, one that goes far beyond the purchase of military hardware or toys for the boys. Australia took an active part in the disarmament and development conference in New York last year but we have to translate those perceptions into the Australian consciousness and the reality into funding allocations. The third area we ignore concerns means other than resorting to war for resolving conflicts. We must focus on non-violent conflict resolution. The scenarios always seem to skip over this stage and there is a tendency to jeer at the idea of strengthening international institutions like the World Court or the United Nations (UN). I have referred before to the fact that in 1985 Australia spent only $21,400 on training diplomats in negotiating skills but, as with business, if we could put far more energy into training personnel in negotiating and language skills, it would help a great deal in the long run and would have far reaching ramifications. If we can spend $1 to $2m training one air force pilot, we should be able to spend far more on training our diplomats at a pre-emptive conflict resolution level. We also need to do more to promote cultural understanding in the region, as one of the reasons for the fear in this country is our lack of understanding of our neighbours. That is why I have criticised the merciless budget cuts applied to Radio Australia, which has done so much to promote an understanding of Australia in the Asia-Pacific region. Steps such as promoting Radio Australia are just as valuable as buying military hardware or training defence personnel. In fact, they are probably worth a lot more. Little attention is paid in the community to developing conflict resolution skills beyond the family, neighbourhood or corporate level. Children are taught that wars resolve international conflicts when, in fact, they rarely do. We do not learn about the Sweden-Finland war of 1919 over the Aland Islands or the more recent Argentina-Chile war over the islands in the Beagle Channel off Cape Horn, because they never happened. Both disputes were resolved by negotiation and arbitration-one through the World Court and the other through the services of a third party. In the case of the Argentine-Chile conflict, it was the Pope who came in as a mediator. We take our legal disputes to court to avoid open warfare, so to speak, but we ignore the mechanisms that exist at the international level. It is time we paid much more attention to them. These mechanisms need to be better known and strengthened. The defence forces have given occasional support to international peacekeeping exercises but, if we are to maintain them, I feel we could offer them much more training in peacekeeping, as other nations do, before sending them to Cyprus, the Middle East or wherever the UN has a role. If we do not train them we will end up with a situation like that of Israel today, where troops trained to fight cannot respond to the unrest in Gaza and on the West Bank because no one has taught them how to respond to that kind of agitation other than by shooting and bashing people up. The same goes for the British in Northern Ireland. They have not been taught anything about non-violent resistance. That would be a great help to all of the parties concerned. I note that the 1981 Katter report, Threats to Australia's Security: Their nature and probability, recommended a future inquiry into the diplomatic and other non-military means of avoiding deterioration of Australia's relations with any country to such a level that the country sought to address its grievances by armed force. Perhaps our media, where they bother to employ defence specialists, could consider these possible scenarios before rushing straight into worst case scenarios of terrorism on Australian soil. We need to consider the causes of war in the last part of the twentieth century and ways in which we can avoid war as a result. Economic insecurity is an obvious problem. The continuation of colonialism is another, as we can see so readily in New Caledonia. Post-colonial conflicts to our north would include East Timor and West Papua. Australia could offer its services if we had sufficiently trained personnel to help resolve other regional conflicts if the opportunity were to present itself. Examples might include Burma, Sri Lanka or Indo-China as well as continuing the offer of personnel for a UN force in Namibia when South Africa finally accepts the verdict of history and accepts United Nations Resolution 435. I hope that in future when we discuss defence debates, instead of emotional cold war sabre rattling and claptrap about Libyans in the Pacific or scenarios about Soviet threats to Australia via Cam Ranh Bay and deliberate misrepresentations about the whereabouts and nature of the Soviet forces in the Pacific, we shall hear more reflection on these other areas pertaining to security and conflict resolution. This is why my office has arranged a series of seminars around Australia which we have called `Just Defence' or defence which is just, meaning defence of defence, so that we can raise community interest in these issues and one day extend them to the military, as has been done in Europe and North America. Having just participated in a tour of northern defence establishments by a sub-committee of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, it is very clear that what we can aspire to in defence of our own shores is good intelligence gathering and surveillance operations. Obviously we need to be aware of what is going on in our region. Therefore, we need lots of patrol boats, for example, so that we can check on movements in our coastal areas and move against illegal fishing vessels and, more importantly, drug runners. For the same reasons, we need air patrols. I cannot see why the Royal Australian Air Force is not doing this work instead of the Government paying private contractors to do our defence coastwatch. Could it be that our own Air Force is tailored to meet the strategic needs of our ally rather than to suit our own local security needs? Frequently the defence sub-committee was told how difficult a particular area of Australia's top end would be to defend, but it needs to be pointed out every time that the same area would be much more difficult to attack. Successful invasion of Australia would be extremely difficult. We need to be wary of low and medium level harassments and be prepared to deal with them by negotiation rather than through force. But I believe that the purchase of long-range fighter bombers, with mid-air refuelling for example, is inconsistent with our real security needs and is a misspending of the defence dollar. As I said earlier, I believe that security needs in our region can be much better met by being actively good neighbours-that is, peacemakers rather than potential warmongers. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(11.05) —It had been my intention to sit out the adjournment debate in my office. I started to do so, but in listening to the debate I heard a contribution by Senator Puplick in which he made some remarks about Government senators not speaking on the Conservation Legislation Amendment Bill, which was before the Parliament this evening. I came into the chamber and invited Senator Puplick to remind the Senate that I had spoken for the Government, but he declined to do so or did not hear me. I just wish to inform the Senate that I did speak for the Government. I followed Senator Puplick. Perhaps Senator Puplick was so pleased with his own speech that he did not realise that I followed him. I spoke before and after the dinner break. I think that any further remarks on whether Government senators were due to speak or did not speak should be left to the Whips and the managers and I shall do that, but I advise the Senate that I did speak on that legislation. Senator JONES(Queensland)(11.06) —I want to pass some remarks in relation to the comments made by Senator Puplick about the speakers list. He made certain claims which I say are incorrect. That is my first point. Secondly, if Senator Puplick has some complaint with the arrangements made about the speakers list I would have thought that he would have had enough confidence in his own Whip to take the matter up with the Whip who represents the Opposition side of this House. If there is any complaint from the Whip on the other side, we will certainly discuss it at the Whips meeting in the morning. Senator COOK(Western Australia-Minister for Resources)(11.07) —in reply-I want to make one or two remarks in closing for the Government in view of the observations made in the adjournment debate by the three speakers who spent the longest time on their feet. I think for someone who is married to a former ballet dancer, the remarks Senator Puplick made about Vast, the Graeme Murphy inspired ballet spectacular financed by the Australian Bicentennial Authority, invite some cross chamber approval and agreement. Certainly, I think the oratorical pas de deux of Senator Puplick in praise of Vast is justified. I have not as yet had a chance to view it, but it is on my social calendar and I have read the reviews. However, what was otherwise a very generous and useful contribution was spoilt, I believe, by the somewhat petty and vindictive intrusion at the beginning of Senator Puplick's contribution when he reflected on the contribution of the Whips of this chamber. It is true that the Whips have a practical day to day job of making this chamber work. They are the wheels that grease the debate in here. No party in this chamber has a mortgage on asserting that it is never guilty of using the forms of this chamber best to present its views, and Senator Puplick's remarks that the Government is playing ducks and drakes on the Conservation Legislation Amendment Bill 1988 I think are not justified. Tomorrow we will see, given the notice of motion that Senator Chaney gave today at the beginning of proceedings, that ducks and drakes will be played in this chamber by the Opposition. That will be designed to accord specifically with the fact that the proceedings of the Senate are broadcast on that day. Senator Cooney made some remarks about Oakleigh Abattoirs Pty Ltd, which went into voluntary liquidation. I sympathise with his remarks and observations. I have, like Senator Cooney, been witness on many occasions to a company going into liquidation and all the creditors gathering when the employees of that company are the ones who suffer destitution or loss of earnings in a real way, which cripples them. Senator Cooney's comment that all creditors are treated equally is true. One does not diminish the financial blow to companies where they are creditors and a business that owes them money has gone bankrupt or into liquidation. It is a significant blow to those companies. Usually one finds that company creditors have other business activities and are able to survive in some form or other. But employees have an exclusive dependency upon a liquidated or bankrupt company which they are not able to lay off in terms of other business and the damage done to them individually is quite extensive. Senator Cooney's concluding remarks that this once again vindicates the need for unions in Australia to protect just this sort of thing is, I think, valid. Senator Vallentine maintained her speaking quota tonight by giving us 25 minutes of her views on what she started out to call regional security but which, of course, were her views on defence. It turns out that she is holding a series of seminars around Australia and I wish her well in that respect. However, I do not think I can allow tonight's contribution to pass without the observation that Kim Beazley, the Minister for Defence in this Government, has done more for causing an informed, literate and intelligent debate on defence in this country than almost any other Minister since Federation. The doctrine of self-reliance that he has propounded is now spread widely throughout the community. He has created a climate in which Senator Vallentine is able to make here expressions of opinion. If it had not been for the pioneering trailblazing initiatives by Kim Beazley, the Labor Minister for Defence, we would not have had a situation in which Senator Vallentine may have even been considered for election let alone able to make her observations. I think one of the things that have to be answered is her claim that the Government admits there is no threat. I do not think that is true. It is not a situation in which Beazley and this Government have been screwed down and forced to come clean about a fact that they are trying to conceal. That is not the context in which the no threat scenario has been propounded. What has happened is that, in setting down a logical list of strategic interests, the non-existence of an immediate threat has been identified. Our strategic concerns have been developed with that in mind, along with a series of other considerations. I think that is something that Senator Vallentine ought to take into consideration. I notice that, other than a series of rhetorical flourishes, she has not called upon this Government to follow a specific program. I do not think any further remarks are necessary from me in that regard. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 11.13 p.m. The following papers were tabled. Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act-Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 24. Australian Horticultural Corporation Act- Orders 1988- No. 1-Australian Horticultural Corporation (Nomination of members of selection committee), dated 17 February 1988. No. 2-Australian Horticultural Corporation (Appointment of members), dated 17 February 1988. Bankruptcy Act-Rules-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 19. Commonwealth Teaching Service Act-Determination 1988 No. 1. Defence Act- By-law-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 13. Defence Orders 1988- Rifle Clubs (Firearms). Rifle Clubs (Firearms) (Amendment). Determinations 1988- No. 4-Overseas Living Allowance and others. No. 5-Travelling Allowance and others. No. 6-Travelling Allowance and others. No. 7-Vehicle Allowance and others. No. 8-Overseas Living Allowance and others. No. 9-Extra Tuition Allowance. No. 10-Reunion Travel. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 Nos 17, 18. Export Inspection Charges Collection Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 Nos 23. Family Law Act-Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1988 Nos 15, 16. Federal Court of Australia Act-Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 14. Fisheries Act- Fisheries Notice-No. 203-Maximum Headrope Lengths in Northern Prawn Fishery, dated 15 February 1988. Plan of Management-No. 13-Northern Prawn Fishery Management Plan (Amendment). Horticultural Research and Development Corporation Act-Orders 1988- No. 1-Horticultural Research and Development Corporation (Nomination of members of selection committee), dated 17 February 1988. No. 2-Horticultural Research and Development Corporation (Appointment of members), dated 17 February 1988. Lands Acquisition Act-Statements (2) by the Minister describing lands acquired by agreement under sub-section 7 (1). Live-stock Export Charge Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 21. Live-stock Slaughter Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 20. Petroleum Excise (Prices) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 22. Public Service Act-Determinations 1988 Nos 13, 15, 18-22, 24-27, 29. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Approvals (5) of Rental Housing Assistance Programs under the Housing Assistance Ordinance 1987, dated 16 December 1987. Determinations made under the following Ordinances- ACT Institute of Technical and Further Education, dated 2 February 1988. Public Trustee, dated 4 February 1988. Schools Authority, dated 16 February 1988. Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act-Declarations (2) under sub-section 9 (1), dated 23 February 1988 and 25 February 1988. GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S PROCLAMATIONS-COMMENCEMENT OF ACTS: Proclamations by His Excellency the Governor-General were tabled, notifying that His Excellency had proclaimed the following Acts and sections of Acts to come into operation on the dates specified: Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Legislation Amendment Act 1987-Sections 11-15, 31-35-1 March 1988 (Gazette No. S 54, 25 February 1988) Bankruptcy Amendment Act 1987-Sections 14, 42, 43, 44 and 51-1 March 1988 (Gazette No. S 49, 23 February 1988) Community Services and Health Legislation Amendment Act 1987-Sections 23-30 and 32-1 March 1988 (Gazette No. S 58, 26 February 1988) Export Inspection Charges Collection Act 1985-Amendments made by the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1987-1 March 1988 (Gazette No. S 59, 26 February 1988) Live-stock Export Charge Amendment Act 1985-Subsection 9 (2)-1 March 1988 (Gazette No. S 59, 26 February 1988) Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Act 1985-Subsection 11 (2)-1 March 1988 (Gazette No. S 59, 26 February 1988) National Health Amendment Act (No. 2) 1987-All provisions other than sections 1 and 2-1 March 1988 (Gazette No. S 54, 25 February 1988) Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1987-See-Export Inspection Charges Collection Act 1985 The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 34) Senator Jones asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 15 September 1987: (1) What percentage of money in view of a statement by the Premier of Queensland, Sir Johannes Bjelke-Petersen that Brisbane will boast the world's largest building through the activities of an Australian-Korean consortium before the end of 1990 for the project is expected to come from overseas sources. (2) Do the financial arrangements for the building come within the Australian Government's foreign investment guidelines. (3) Who are the directors of Mainsel Investments. (4) Who are the directors of Youngchange Constructions. (5) In view of the fact that further office space is scheduled for the building, what effect will this further proliferation have in the already overdeveloped office market area on: (a) the building industry, and small contractors already engaged on office building enterprises suspect in their viability; and (b) small business in the retail and commercial areas already located in the Central Brisbane shopping district. (6) In view of fears expressed by environmentalists that the building will cause huge shadows to be cast over much of central Brisbane for much of each and every day, what powers are enjoyed by the Commonwealth to monitor and control such major schemes in capital cities. Senator Button —The answer to the honour- able senator's question is as follows: (1) As there are no specific foreign investment policy guidelines relating to the source of funding for foreign investment proposals, information on the funding of the proposal was not sought by Foreign Investment Review Board officials from the consortium. (2) Financial arrangements relating to foreign investment proposals are not normally a matter for consideration under the government's foreign investment policy. (3) I understand, on the basis of information provided by the parties that the current directors of Mainsel Investment are Enzo John Minuzzo Elvin Anthony Nevins Israel Herzog Michael Lasky, and (4) the directors of Youchang (not Youngchange) Construction are Lee Hui Moon Choy Ye Hyung Shin In Mook (5) It is not clear that the Brisbane retail market is overcrowded. Brisbane retail industry representatives do not consider the market for retail space to be oversupplied. Ultimately the inclusion of retail space in the Brisbane Central Place proposal is a commercial decision. It would follow a successful trend occurring in major Australian and overseas cities to locate retail space amongst office and hotel accommodation close to a major transport terminal. The effect on the Australian economy is likely to be a substantial positive one, particularly for the construction industry. (6) Vacancy rates for both prime and secondary office space in Brisbane are reported to be extremely low. Construction of any additional space will tend to reduce the rate of office space price increases. It will stimulate the building and associated supply industries at a time when activity was otherwise expected to decline slightly. By providing additional office accommodation the development could well improve the viability of existing retail outlets. The overall impact on small businesses located in the Central Brisbane shopping district and providing retail and commercial facilities is difficult to assess. While some dislocation in trading patterns might occur many small businesses will benefit substantially from the additional inflow of demand generated by such a large hotel, office and retail facility. (7) The Commonwealth's power to control such major schemes in state capital cities is limited. Where a development proposal comes within the scope of the Foreign Takeovers Act, the Government may have powers under the Act's provisions; if so the provisions of the Commonwealth's Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act might also be involved. The Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act may also apply to `major schemes in capital cities' should such schemes require approval under the Commonwealth's foreign investment policy. (Question No. 118) Senator Puplick asked the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 5 November 1987: What was the function or functions, or the other commitments, which the Minister had which prevented him/her from attending the official presentation of the Address-in-Reply to His Excellency the Governor-General on 5 November 1987. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: I was unable to attend the official presentation of the Address-in Reply to His Excellency the Governor-General on 5 November 1987 due to prior commitments relevant to my portfolio and Government responsibilities. (Question No. 137) Senator Archer asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 7 December 1987: (i) Does the Minister's Department's Annual Report 1986-87 state, at page 57 ``The major business tax reforms arising out of the Tax Summit-imputation company tax system, capital gains tax, fringe benefits tax, and the foreign tax credits system-are now in place. In a number of cases, the Department was able to bring about changes to their final design in the interests of industry development''. (ii) What specific changes did the Department ``bring about'' for each of the above taxation changes. Senator Button —The answer to the honour- able senator's question is as follows: (i) Yes. (ii) The consultative process that occurred at the departmental level during the development of the tax reform package involved detailed and extensive communication with the Treasury on a wide range of tax issues insofar as they impacted on industry. While Treasury of course had the prime carriage for the formulation of the tax package, my Department provided comments on a number of issues of relevance to its responsibilities, particularly in relation to the impact of any changes to the tax system on business costs, efficiency and investment. The Department had some influence in the development of reforms such as removal of the double taxation of dividend income, taxation of both real capital gains and non-pecuniary benefits and the introduction of a Foreign Tax Credit system. (Question No. 139) Senator McLean asked the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 26 November 1987: (1) When is it likely that a national policy in respect of occupational noise control will have been developed (see Answer to Question No. 1628, Senate Hansard, 26 May 1987, p. 2959). (2) When is it likely that the Minister will be able to report to Parliament on the feasibility of incorporating the diversity of noise types and sources, of abatement strategies and of responsible jurisdictions within a single national policy on noise. Senator Cook —The Minister for Community Services and Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Occupational noise control lies essentially within the jurisdiction of the Minister for Industrial Relations, who is responsible for the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission. I understand that noise induced hearing loss is a priority issue for the National Commission and that a proposal for a national strategy on noise is being prepared. This strategy will comprise elements of assessment and prevention. A national information strategy is also being developed. The Australian Deafness Council is administering a Noise Induced Hearing Loss Campaign which is being jointly funded by my Department and the National Commission. The Campaign aims to increase knowledge, alter attitudes and give skills by which knowledge is acquired by employers and employees. This will be done by: Information dissemination-video, audio and written material to target groups specified; problem identification-workplace visits and consultations, informal noise testing and assistance with problem solving. (2) Officers of the National Acoustic Laboratories are preparing the material needed to examine the feasibility of developing a national policy on any or all of the following: occupational noise; traffic noise; aircraft noise; noise levels in dwellings; noise in entertainment; and noise levels in schools. This involves analysing the scientific justification for recommendations on noise levels and the compilation and analysis of a comprehensive set of the relevant State regulations and national and international standards. The task is very complex because the material is extensive and needs to be obtained from many sources. At this early stage, it is difficult to estimate how much work is involved or what delays will be encountered in obtaining material. It is likely to be at least one year before a report and set of recommendations will be completed. (Question No. 142) Senator Parer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 8 December 1987: (1) When does the Government intend to rectify the most unfair situation which exists in the Defence Services where a single member of the forces is on the prescribed list of persons who are exempt from the Medicare levy, but as soon as he or she marries, the member of the Services loses that benefit and has to pay half the levy. (2) Is this state of affairs doubly iniquitous in view of the fact that the Service person's working spouse pays the normal full levy also. (3) Is it a fact that injustices like this have been a contributing factor to the disastrously high level of resignations we are witnessing from our armed forces during the lifetime of this Labor Government. Senator Robert Ray —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Any Government decision to amend the provisions of the Medicare levy legislation is a matter for decision by the Treasurer and I suggest your question be directed to him. (2) This aspect was considered by the Treasurer when the original legislation was presented to the House and there is provision to claim an exemption from the half levy if the member can demonstrate that the spouse was not a dependant. However, I suggest you redirect your question to the Treasurer as the matter of establishing whether a spouse is dependent rests with the Commissioners of Taxation who come within the Treasurer's area of responsibility. (3) I am unaware that the present Medicare levy is an injustice, nor do I agree that the resignation rate is at a disastrously high level. (Question No. 143) Senator Reid asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 7 December 1987: (1) Who are the advertising agents engaged by the Government to promote: (a) the Bicentenary; and (b) proposed constitutional changes, including a 4 year Parliamentary term? (2) What will the agent be paid for the conduct of each of these promotional campaigns? Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: 1 (a) I am advised that the Australian Bicentennial Authority (ABA) has appointed Mojo MDA as its advertising agent for its national corporate advertising program to promote the Bicentenary. (2) The ABA has advised that agency fees payable to Mojo MDA for creative, media, production and account service time spent on ABA projects are estimated to be $900,000 over the period 1 January 1986 to 31 December 1989. In addition the ABA has budgeted to pay through Mojo MDA $1.5 million for production of advertising and promotional materials including: television and radio commercials, a corporate sponsorship video, outdoor billboards, bus and tram sides, a cinema film and miscellaneous print material. 1 (b) and 2 The Government, including the Constitutional Commission, has not engaged any advertising agents to promote proposed constitutional changes. The Constitutional Commission has advised, however, that it used the services of a number of public relations and media consultants since its establishment: Scribe Pty Ltd during the period 16 January 1986 to 31 August 1986 to formulate and advise the Commission on media policy and media budget and to liaise with the media and promote the Commission's activities at a cost of $20,500; Henning International during September and October 1986 to promote the Commission's activities and the public hearings of its five Advisory Committees at a cost of $14,000; Markson Sparks was initially engaged in June 1986 to assist in the launch of the Individual and Democratic Rights Advisory Committee issues paper at a cost of $9,772. It was also engaged by the Commission during the period 1 November 1986-30 April 1987 to promote the Commission's activities at a cost of $50,072; Ms Denise Officer-Brewster has been retained by the Commission to publicize the report of the Individual and Democratic Rights Advisory Committee in university and youth magazines and electronic media focused on the 18-35 age group. Expenditure to 30 November 1987 has been $6,328 with a total cost ceiling of $12,150; Bosdell Pty Ltd was engaged to prepare discussion leaders' notes on the booklet `Australia's Constitution-Time to Update' summarising the five Advisory Committee Reports at a total cost of $1,050; Hill and Knowlton have been retained by the Commission since 3 April 1987 to promote the Commission's activities until presentation of its final report. The Commission has budgeted $218,250 for this consultancy in the 1987-88 financial year. Hill and Knowlton have rendered accounts totalling $208,800 for services rendered and expenses during the period 3 April 1987 to 21 October 1987; A journalist was engaged to prepare a Bulletin and other articles at a total cost of $1,603 in the 1986-87 financial year. The Commission's budget for 1987-88 makes provision for $3,000 for journalist services in the 1987-88 financial year; but no expenditure has been incurred to date. (Question No. 152) Senator Panizza asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business, upon notice, on 15 December 1987: (1) When the increase in tariffs under harmonized tariff were announced, were affected importers advised that they would have to re-apply to remain in the 2 percent bracket. (2) How any applications have been received. (3) How many of these applications have been processed to date (14 December 1987). (4) How long will it take to clear the balance and is extra staff being used to clear all the applications that have been received to date before 31 December 1987. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: At the completion of the normal public enquiry process, the report of the IAC into the Harmonized System was released on 16 July 1986. It contained two options and detailed the duty rates applicable under each. The Government announced the adoption of option two on 23 September 1986. As a consequence importers and professional advisers of importers on Customs matters had available to them details of rate changes at that time. Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No.2) 1987 which passed through the Senate on 15 December 1987 incorporated 8 changes as a result of established compelling industry cases. In anticipation of industry's concerns about duty increases under the Harmonized Tariff importers were advised by a Customs Notice on 26 May 1987 that Tariff Concession applications would be considered, and prompted early lodgment in order that any resulting concessions might be in place by 1.1.88. The specific questions however, appear to relate primarily to continuation of Tariff Concession Orders and in answer to those questions. (1) The only legal basis for removing levels of Industries Assistance, enacted by Parliament, is through the legal provisions contained in Part XVA of the Customs Act for granting Tariff Concession Orders. The importing and local manufacturing communities are well aware of these provisions. In June 1987 importers were advised that most current Tariff Concessions would be translated across into the Harmonized system substantially unchanged. Some references would not be converted due to non-usage, lack of information to reclassify or because the substantive rate was now 2 percent or lower. Some other references would undergo rewording. Any importers affected by the changes and requiring continuation of concessional entry were urged to reapply as soon as possible so that any resulting concessions might be in place by 1.1.88. (2) It is not possible to differentiate between normal applications for Tariff Concession Orders and those arising from increases due to introduction of the Harmonized Tariff or other tariff changes. Overall applications in 1987 totalled some 2,885 (6 per cent higher than in 1986). (3) This information is not available. However as at 31 December 1987 there were 1935 applications with an average time since receival of 26 weeks. There is no indication that consideration of applications has been delayed by the introduction of the Harmonized Tariff. (4) It is not possible to predict. The processing time of Tariff Concession applications is largely dependent on the quality of the submission. All Tariff Concession workload is being managed within existing staff levels. (Question No. 155) Senator Teague asked the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 15 December 1987: (1) What plans does the Federal Government have to re-develop land it owns on the west side of Tapley's Hill Road, adjacent to Adelaide Airport. (2) Will the land temporarily be for sporting use; if so, which particular sports are being considered. (3) Will the land be sold to the private sector or retained in government ownership. (4) Will competitive tenders be called for any work to be carried out at the site. (5) What consultations have been held with the State and Local Government or with residents of the area as to the impact of such a development in the area. (6) When will the Government make a firm announcement of its plans; will it be this month (December 1987), as stated by the director of Adelaide Airport in the Adelaide Advertiser of 15 December 1987. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) to (4) 16 hectares of the land on the west side of Tapley's Hill Road, adjacent to Adelaide Airport is leased to the West Beach Trust for development of a low par golf course. The balance of 35 hectares is currently utilised for horse agistment and outdoor advertising. The Master Plan for Adelaide Airport requires that all of this land be retained by the Commonwealth for a parallel runway, if required. As from 1 January 1988, responsibility for the operation of Adelaide Airport and development of any future business activities there, was transferred to the Federal Airports Corporation. Any proposal to utilise this land in the interim is now therefore a matter for consideration by the FAC. The 35 hectares was recently the subject of public tender by the Department of Transport and Communications, inviting expressions of public interest for developing the land as a Sporting and Recreational Reserve for a 20 (twenty) year term. A proposal for a Cable Water Ski Park was selected by this process and was announced in the Commonwealth Gazette of 9 December 1987. This proposal has since been rejected by the Department however, on the grounds that the development could jeopardize the safety of aircraft at Adelaide Airport, by attracting birdlife. I understand that further specialist advice on the potential bird hazard is being sought. I can assure the Senate that the Department will not permit any development which would jeopardize the safety of the public. (5) The proposed development and tender process were the subject of agenda items at the June, August and November meetings of the Adelaide Airport Consultative Committee on which State and Local Government had representation. Additionally, a major pre-requisite of the tender was that any proposal must satisfy the development and environmental constraints as detailed in the study of the area conducted by Kinhill Stearns and published in May 1985 for the West Beach Trust. (6) The FAC will make a firm announcement of its plans only when the Department is fully satisfied that any proposed development will not jeopardize public safety. (Question No. 169) Senator Sanders asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, upon notice, on 18 December 1987: (1) Are claims made in the article in `New Scientist' of 10 January 1985, entitled `Australia's Chemical War Tests', correct; if so, (a) what is the date, place, and type of each chemical weapons test carried out in Australia; and (b) which country or countries carried out each test. (2) Did Australia join with Britain, the United States and Canada in a formal agreement to co-operate in the research, development and testing of chemical and biological weapons; if so, what is the full text of that agreement. (3) As a result of defoliant testing, did Australia produce a report entitled `Defoliation of Tropical Rain Forest' in the 1960s; if so, (a) what were the findings of that report; and (b) in what ways were those findings applied in the Vietnam War. (4) Was chemical and/or biological weapons research, development and testing taking place in Australia at the time the `New Scientist' article was written; if so, what were the details of any such programs, where did they take place, and which parties were involved, Australian and foreign. (5) Are programs referred to in (4) above taking place at present; if so, what are the details of any such programs, where are they taking place, and which parties are involved, Australian and foreign. Senator Robert Ray —The Minister for Defence Science and Personnel has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Reference has been made to the subject article in the past. I refer the honourable senator to the answer to House of Representatives question No. 331, published in Hansard of 10 September 1985, page 376. (2) It would appear that the article is alluding to the Basic Standardisation Agreement to which the Australian Army became a signatory in 1963. The armies of the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada are the other signatories. One of the many articles covered by the agreement is consideration of the standardisation between member armies in the field of defence against biological and chemical weapons. Australian Government policy does not permit activity to develop an offensive capability in biological or chemical warfare. I am willing to provide the honourable senator with a copy of the text of the agreement. (3) Defoliation experiments on jungle vegetation in Tropical Lowland Evergreen Forests were carried out near Innisfail, in Northern Queensland in 1966 by the Australian Defence Scientific Service. The defoliating effects of `Diquat' and `Tordon', singly, in admixture and in conjunction with dimethyl-sulphoxide (DMSO) were investigated. It was found that DMSO increased the rate of action in all cases, and acceptable defoliation was obtained from some ternary mixtures within one month. The presence of `Tordon' minimised regrowth at least over six months. The findings were published in May 1967 in a report entitled `The Defoliation of Tropi-cal Rainforest in the Innisfail Area, Northern Australia, During 1966'. A copy of the report has been placed in the Parliamentary Library. The findings contributed to the clearing of the defensive perimeter of the Australian Task Force at Nui Dat. (4) and (5) No. See answer to (2) above. (Question No. 175) Senator Vallentine asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 18 December 1987: In respect of the United States Navy submarines and warships which visited Australia between 1 January and 31 December 1987, what were (a) the vessels' names; (b) the type and class designation; (c) the details of whether or not the vessel was nuclear powered; (d) the port visited; (e) the dates and length of the visits. Senator Robert Ray —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The information sought is shown in the following table, which also includes details of visits by US naval auxiliary ships manned primarily by civilians and by US Coast Guard ships. US Ship Visits to Australia-1987 Ship Type Class Port From To USS Anchorage Dock Landing LSD Hobart 7-6-1987 13-6-1987 USS Barbour County Amphibious Landing LST Brisbane 21-12-1987 28-12-1987 Sydney 30-12-1987 6-1-1988 USS Belleau Wood Amphibious Assault LHA Sydney 5-6-1987 14-6-1987 USS Bunker Hill Frigate CG-AE Fremantle 9-12-1987 16-12-1987 Sydney 22-12-1987 29-12-1987 USS Camden Oiler AOE Fremantle 7-9-1987 14-9-1987 USS Cayuga Tank Landing LST Gladstone 3-6-1987 8-6-1987 Sydney 10-6-1987 15-6-1987 USS Constellation Aircraft Carrier CV Fremantle 7-9-1987 14-9-1987 USS Cook Destroyer FF Bunbury 7-9-1987 14-9-1987 USS Crommelin Frigate FFG Fremantle 17-9-1987 14-9-1987 USS Curts Frigate FFG Brisbane 23-12-1987 30-12-1987 Fremantle 9-12-1987 16-12-1987 USS Duluth Amphibious Trnspt LPD Fremantle 17-9-1987 23-9-1987 Fremantle (Anchor) 8-9-1987 11-9-1987 USS Durham Amphibious Cargo LKA Fremantle 17-9-1987 23-9-1987 Fremantle (Anchor) 8-9-1987 11-9-1987 USS Elliot Destroyer DD Newcastle 5-6-1987 11-6-1987 Sydney 11-6-1987 15-6-1987 USS Fox Cruiser CG Fremantle 7-9-1987 14-9-1987 USS Frederick Amphibious Landing LST Fremantle 17-9-1987 23-9-1987 Fremantle (Anchor) 8-9-1987 11-9-1987 USS Germantown Dock Landing Ship LSD Fremantle 17-9-1987 23-9-1987 Fremantle (Anchor) 8-9-1987 11-9-1987 USS Goldsborough Destroyer DDG Brisbane 11-2-1987 16-2-1987 Darwin 27-1-1987 31-1-1987 Townsville 4-2-1987 9-2-1987 USS Hoel Destroyer DDG Brisbane 23-12-1987 30-12-1987 Fremantle 9-12-1987 16-12-1987 USS Kansas City Replenishment Ship AOR Fremantle 9-12-1987 16-12-1987 Fremantle 22-12-1987 29-12-1987 USS Kirk Frigate FF Fremantle (Anchor) 8-9-1987 11-9-1987 Geraldton 17-9-1987 22-9-1987 USS Leftwich Destroyer DD Fremantle 9-12-1987 16-12-1987 Fremantle 22-12-1987 29-12-1987 USS Long Beach* Cruiser CGN Hobart 23-12-1987 30-12-1987 Stirling 12-12-1987 19-12-1987 USS Meyerkord Frigate FF Albany 18-9-1987 23-9-1987 Darwin 30-9-1987 3-10-1987 Fremantle (Anchor) 8-9-1987 11-9-1987 USS Midway Aircraft Carrier CV Sydney 5-6-1987 16-6-1987 USS Missouri Battleship BB Fremantle 9-12-1987 16-12-1987 Sydney 22-12-1987 29-12-1987 USS Niagara Falls Combat Stores Ship AFS Fremantle 7-9-1987 14-9-1987 USS Ogden Amphibious Trnspt AGF Hobart 7-6-1987 13-6-1987 USS Passumpsic Oiler AO Fremantle 17-9-1987 23-9-1987 Fremantle (Anchor) 8-9-1987 11-9-1987 Geelong 6-6-1987 7-6-1987 Sydney 9-6-1987 14-6-1987 USS Ponchatoula Oiler AO Fremantle 7-9-1987 14-9-1987 USS Ramsey Frigate FFG Brisbane 9-6-1987 13-6-1987 Cairns 31-5-1987 6-6-1987 USS Robinson Destroyer DDG Brisbane 11-2-1987 16-2-1987 Mackay 5-2-1987 9-2-1987 Darwin 27-1-1987 31-1-1987 USS Sterett Cruiser CG Melbourne 10-6-1987 15-6-1987 Sydney 3-6-1987 8-6-1987 USS Tripoli Assault Carrier LPH Fremantle 17-9-1987 23-9-1987 Fremantle (Anchor) 8-9-1987 11-9-1987 USS Valley Forge Cruiser CG-AE Fremantle 7-9-1987 14-9-1987 USS Wilson Destroyer DDG Brisbane 12-2-1987 16-2-1987 Cairns 4-2-1987 9-2-1987 Darwin 27-1-1987 31-1-1987 USS Worden Cruiser (CG) CG Fremantle 7-9-1987 14-9-1987 USCGC Eagle Barque Brisbane 30-12-1987 2-1-1988 Newcastle 20-12-1987 26-12-1987 USCGC Glacier Icebreaker WAGB Hobart 1-3-1987 5-3-1987 Sydney 7-3-1987 13-3-1987 USCGC Polar Sea Icebreaker WAGB Sydney 27-2-1987 4-3-1987 Sydney 29-12-1987 4-1-1988 USNS Chauvenet Survey AGS Darwin 20-4-1987 25-4-1987 USNS Harkness Oceanographic/Surv T-AGS Darwin 21-10-1987 22-10-1987 USNS Spica Combat Store Ship TAFS Sydney 5-6-1987 14-6-1987 * denotes nuclear powered ship Senator Button —On 24 February 1988 (Hansard, page 555), Senator Watson asked me as the Minister representing the Prime Minister a question without notice concerning the opening ceremony for the new Parliament House. I undertook to speak to the Prime Minister and provide the senator with an answer. The Prime Minister has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator's question: I announced on 8 December last year that the religious observance that will be held in connection with the opening of the new Parliament House on 9 May 1988 will take into account the wide range of religious beliefs held in contemporary multicultural Australian society. The form of observance is being considered but has not yet been decided. The honourable senator's views have been noted and will be taken into account. (Question No. 144) Senator Reid asked the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 16 February 1988: Can the Minister advise whether, in the lead up to, or during, the Bicentennial year, he or the Federal Government will propose, foreshadow, recommend, authorise or purport to authorise, the use of any flag, as the National Flag, other than the present Australian Flag. Senator Robert Ray —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The Government has no plans to change Australia's national flag. (Question No. 148) Senator Vallentine asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 9 December 1987: (1) Is the Solar Observatory at Learmonth a classified facility in any respect; if so, in what specific respects is the facility classified. (2) How many: (a) Australian (i) scientists, (ii) Australian Defence Force personnel by rank and Service, (iii) administrative staff; and (b) United States (i) scientists, (ii) military personnel by rank and Service, (iii) civilians by employment type, worked at this facility in each full or part year (calendar or financial) since its opening. (3) What instruments, by manufacturer and type, are in use for: (a) solar observation; (b) other purposes, at the facility. (4) Does the facility have any means of external communication: (a) within Australia; or (b) overseas other than the normal Telecom or O.T.C. links; if so, (i) what is each specific other telecommunications link, and (ii) to what country, agency and section of an agency is each such link connected. (5) What has been the annual operating cost to Australia of the facility in each full year or part financial year since its establishment. (6) To which scientific publications or databases should one refer to obtain the output of the Observatory's solar studies. (7) Are any of the facility's results or observations sent overseas; if so: (a) how (b) is data in (ba) real time, (bb) inside one hour, (bc) inside 3 hours, (bd) inside 8 hours, (be) inside 12 hours, (bf) inside 24 hours, (bg) inside 7 days, (bh) inside one month, (bi) inside 6 months, (bj) inside one year. (8) For each time period specified in part (6) (ba) to (bj), inclusive, what proportion of information transmitted overseas was sent in that period. (9) What specific overseas agencies, including sub-agencies of the U.S.A.F., receive output from the Observatory and in each case for what purpose is the output required. (10) Is it a fact that the earth's atmosphere expands when struck by high energy particles and electromagnetic radiation from solar flares. (11) Is the height and density of the atmosphere at any given time critical for (a) the initial launch trajectory; or (b) the re-entry vehicle trajectory, of an inter-continental missile or R.V., respectively; if not, why not. (12) Is real-time data on solar behaviour and its effect on the atmosphere essential to the accurate delivery of I.C.B.M. and S.L.B.M. warheads to their targets; if not, why not. Senator Robert Ray —The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) No. (2) Staff: (a) Australian staff: (i) 2 scientists; (ii) no ADF personnel; (iii) 1 administrative staff employed by USAF; (iv) no others. (b) U.S. staff: (i) no scientists; (ii) 1 Major (USAF), 1 Captain (USAF), 1 Master Sergeant (USAF), 2 Technical Sergeants (USAF), 5 Staff Sergeants (USAF), 1 Sergeant (USAF), 1 Lieutenant from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; (iii) no civilians. Until April 1982 there was a Technical Sergeant (USAF) working as an administration clerk. After April 1982 the administration position has been filled by an Australian civilian (see 2 (a) (iii) above). (3) (a) (1) Solar Optical telescope in the near ultra- violet to near infrared spectrum (3650A to 1100A). The equipment was designed and manufactured in the USA for the USAF. (2) Eight fixed frequency solar radio telescopes (245, 410, 610, 1415, 2695, 4995, 8800 and 15400 MHz) and a swept frequency (30 to 80 MHz) solar radio telescope. Equipment designed and manufactured in the USA for the USAF. (b) (1) A three component magnetic variometer operated by the Department of Administrative Services in co-operation with BMR (Department of Primary Industries and Energy). (2) A pyrheliometer to measure solar irradiance as part of a site survey to establish suitable sites to measure waves which penetrate through the sun's visible interior. Equipment installed by NOAO (National Optical Astronomy Observatories) USA. Equipment constructed in USA by NOAO. (3) Computer equipment and modem to collect and transmit images of the sun to the Space Environment Services Center (SESC), Boulder, Colorado, (a branch of NOAA). Equipment constructed in the USA. (4) (a) Normal Telecom telephone, telex and fax facilities within Australia. (b) (1) Data go to US/RAN HE Holt Naval Communication Base Exmouth via dedicated Telecom telephone land line and then by three satellite links (2 military, one civilian) to the US. Data from 3 (b) (3) are sent via Telecom telephone line and OTC to Boulder, Colorado, USA. Data from 3 (b) (2) in the form of magnetic tapes are sent via Australian post to NOAO USA. (b) (2) The data are sent to the Air Force Global Weather Center (AFGWC) at Omaha, Nebraska, USA via the link described in 4 (b) (1). The data are relayed by AFGWC to the Forecast branch of the Space Environment Services Centre (SESC) for the purpose of issuing forecasts of solar activity, ionospheric and space environment conditions to non-military organisations. The AFGWC issues similar forecasts to military organisations. (5) AUS $110,000. (6) IPS Weekly Reports of Solar Geophysical Conditions, Department of Administrative Services, Sydney; IPS Daily Recorded Telephone Report of Solar-Geophysical Conditions, Department of Administrative Services, Sydney; Preliminary Report and Forecast of Solar Geophysical Data published by the NOAA-USAF Space Environment Services Centre, Boulder, Colorado; Solar-Geophysical Data Prompt Reports published by NOAA Environmental Data and Information Services, Boulder, Colorado, USA; Solar-Geophysical Data Comprehensive Reports, published by NOAA Environmental Data and Information Services, Boulder, Colorado, USA. (7) Data are sent overseas. (a) Ref 4 (b) (1) above. Archival data are sent to NOAA Boulder, Colorado via the US Mail service. A US post office is located on the US/RAN naval base at Exmouth. (b) (ba) in real time, yes; (bb) 0 to 1 hour, yes; (bc) 1 to 3 hours, yes; (bd) 3 to 8 hours, no; (be) 8 to 12 hours, no; (bf) 12 to 24 hours, no; (bg) 1 to 7 days, no; (bh) 7 days to 1 month, no; (bi) 1 to 6 months, yes; (bj) 6 months to 1 year, yes. (8) All messages describing solar activity are sent in real time 7 (ba). The quantity of data sent is dependent on the solar activity at that particular time. So it could vary from less than 1% to greater than 80% of total data sent out during a day. Data sent as 7 (bb) and 7 (bc) are routine messages describing the solar activity or lack of activity and would total about 40 messages per day. Data sent as 7 (bi) and 7 (bj) are data sent to archives at the Data Archive section of the Space Environment Labs NOAA, Boulder, Colorado, USA. These are all the optical and radio data collected at the observatory. These data are a matter of public record. (9) Same answer as 4 (b) (2). (10) Yes, there is a small effect on atmospheric density, comparable with day/night variation in magnitude. (11) (a) No. Effects are generally small and can be offset by mid-course correction. (b) No. Atmospheric density is just one of many small perturbing influences. (12) No. The effect of normal variations in atmospheric density on the accuracy of delivery is not substantial. (Question No. 163) Senator Coates asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, upon notice, on 16 December 1987: (1) Do agreements under the Australian Traineeship System provide for any component in which trainees could have the importance of trade unionism explained to them; if not, will the Minister consider ensuring that agreements so provide. (2) Are trainees generally encouraged to join the appropriate union. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Employment, Education and Training has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The parties to the Australian Traineeship System (including industry, unions, training providers, State and Commonwealth governments) have agreed that training in industrial relations is an essential element of all traineeships. Provision is generally made, during the course of training, for trainees to gain an awareness of the rights and responsibilities of employers and employees, including awareness of trade unions. (2) Industrial arrangements generally provide for union access to trainees for the purpose of explaining the role and functions of the union. (Question No. 196) Senator Macklin asked the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 17 February 1988: (1) Does the Minister agree that as a result of section 73a of the Superannuation Act 1976, people whose sole source of income is a Commonwealth Superannuation Invalidity Pension deciding to stand for local government election face a financial disincentive if elected; if not, why not; if so, what action will be taken to rectify the situation. (2) Does the Minister accept that people living on a Commonwealth Superannuation Invalidity Pension should have money deducted from their pension on a dollar for dollar basis where the amount of earnings derived from personal exertion (in this case fees and allowances received as a member of a local council) exceeds the prescribed limit as set out in the Act; if so, why. (3) Does the Minister agree that, in effect, such pensioners are financially disadvantaged by the provisions of the Act as it now stands; if not, why not; if so, what action is being taken to address this matter. (4) Does the Minister believe that there should be this financial disincentive which effectively discourages invalid pensioners from contesting local government elections because their pensions are reduced as a result of fees and allowances earned as local councillors; if so, why; if not, how and when will he have the relevant section of the Superannuation Act 1976 amended. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) No, I do not agree that retired Commonwealth employees whose sole source of income is a Commonwealth Superannuation Invalidity Pension payable under the Superannuation Act 1976 face a financial disincentive if elected at local government elections. If paid any fees and/or allowances, they will have an increase in their income. (2) I accept that persons living on Commonwealth Superannuation Invalidity Pensions have money deducted from their pensions on a dollar for dollar basis where the amount of earnings derived from personal exertion plus invalidity benefits exceeds the prescribed limit. Invalidity pensions payable under the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme have always been based on the premise that the recipient is unfit for work. Therefore, the Scheme should not, in principle, provide invalidity benefits to invalidity retirees who are able to gain paid employment. Nevertheless it was recognised that it may be unreasonable and counter-productive not to permit some paid employment without pensions being affected; for example, employment as part of a rehabilitation program. The government considered that the limit specified in the legislation would protect persons in receipt of low levels of invalidity pension and allow all invalidity pensioners to earn a small amount of additional income without affecting their pension payments. The limit is the greater of 75 per cent of updated pre-retirement salary and a dollar amount which currently is $20,669 per annum and is increased each July in line with movements in the Consumer Price Index. Invalidity pensions would only be reduced when the limit was exceeded by the total of earnings from personal exertion, the invalidity pension payable and, if applicable, the additional pension that would have been payable had a member not chosen to receive a lump sum of contributions plus interest. (3) and (4) I do not agree that such pensioners are financially disadvantaged or subject to financial disincentive by the provision of the Act as it now stands for reasons given in 1 above. It would be inappropriate for the invalidity retirement provisions of the Superannuation Act 1976 to provide an unrestricted taxpayer-financed supplement to those persons who undertake paid employment, whether those persons are elected to local government or have other employment. If the rate of remuneration for such persons is small, as would normally be commensurate with the duties that could be undertaken by invalidity retirees, the reduction in pension, if any, will also be small. However, some full-time local government councillors have onerous duties and are paid accordingly. I understand Brisbane City Council pays its full-time aldermen $42,000 per annum. If invalidity retirees were earning such sums, I consider that it is only right and proper that their invalidity pensions be reduced accordingly or even cancelled altogether. (Question No. 201) Senator Lewis asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 17 February 1988: What were the: (a) number of prosecutions for Customs offences against Customs Agents under section 183 of the Customs Act during 1987 and their outcome; (b) number of Customs Agents Licences-(i) suspended; (ii) revoked and/or; (iii) not renewed during 1987 and the reason for such action; (c) number of offences by Customs Agents detected by the Australian Customs Service in which the Comptroller decided not to take action to suspend, revoke or not renew a Custom Agent's Licence under section 183 of the Customs Act; and (d) the alternate action, if any taken; and the estimated loss of revenue detected in (c) above. Senator Button —The answer to the honour- able senator's question is as follows: (a) Section 183 of the Customs Act does not provide for prosecution action for breaches of the Customs Act. One Customs Agent was prosecuted in 1987 by the Collector of Customs, Victoria under Section 234 (1) (a), the charge being dismissed in the Magistrate's Court. See also answer to (d). (b) (i) Interim suspension of licence by Collector of Customs NSW. See also answer to (d). (ii) Nil. (iii) 50. Renewals not sought by licensees. (c) Nil. (d) Collectors of Customs referred 2 matters to the National Customs Agents Licensing Advisory Committee for inquiry and report in terms of Section 183cq (5) of the Customs Act. The first matter is referred to in (a) above. Duty of $4,889.18 involved has been recovered. The second, referred to in b (i) above, relates to possible misappropriation of client's moneys and is the subject of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. No revenue loss involved. (Question No. 223) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 22 February 1988: (1) How many apprentices has the Department employed since 1 January 1988. (2) How many apprentices have been employed by Statutory Authorities for which the Minister is responsible since 1 January 1988. (3) Can the Minister provide a breakdown of the number of these apprentices in their respective trades. (4) Can the Minister also provide a further breakdown showing in which State or Territory the apprentices have been employed. Senator Bolkus —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) None. (3) and (4) Not applicable. Senator Cook —On 16 September 1987 (Hansard, page 147), Senator Watson asked Senator Walsh a question without notice in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry and Energy in the Senate. His question concerned the appointment of the Plant Variety Rights Advisory Committee. The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The appointment of the Plant Variety Rights Advisory Committee was announced by the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy on 21 September 1987. The Registrar, who also chairs the Committee, took up appointment on 21 September 1987. The membership of the Advisory Committee is attached and includes breeder, grower and consumer representatives as well as two members with special qualifications. The appointment of the Registrar and the Advisory Committee were the first steps in the implementation of the PVR legislation. The Committee sought public comment on the genera and species to be covered by the regulations and as a result I have approved a 2 year program leading to the inclusion of virtually all plants in the Scheme by 1990. Eight genera/species will be included initially (apple, bean, macadamia, brassica, kangaroo paw, cotton, phalaris and rose) and applications for these will be accepted from 31 March 1988. Additional plants will be included in July 1988, January 1989, July 1989 and March 1990. The Registrar will be liaising closely with relevant organisations to ensure that their needs are being met and to modify the program if required. MEMBERS OF THE PVR ADVISORY COMMITTEE Mrs Kathy Adams-Chairperson The Department has confirmed the appointment of Mrs Kathy Adams as Registrar and she will commence duty on 21 September 1987. She has an honours degree in Agricultural Science from Sydney University, aMasters Degree in Business and has worked with theN.S.W. Department of Agriculture, CSIRO and theNational Standards Commission. Professor Donald Marshall-Public Breeder Representative Currently, Waite professor of Agronomy, Waite Agricultural Research Institute, the University of Adelaide, South Australia. Previously, he was Director of the 1A Watson Wheat Research Centre of the University of Sydney at Narrabri, New South Wales. He is also Trustee of the International Board of Plant Genetic Resources. Professor Marshall has had a wide involvement in plant breeding, including genetic studies to determine the optimum structure of crop plant populations, and to define efficient strategies in plant breeding, genetic conservation and biological control programs. Mr Peter Wilson-Private Breeder Representative Currently, Manager of Wheat Research with Cargill Seeds. Before joining Cargill Seeds, Mr Wilson was Project Coordinator for Research Activities with Dekalb Shand. He is a member of the New South Wales Wheat Improvement Committee. Mr Wilson has had experience with plant breeding, most notably with the development of hybrid wheats, and also with hybrid sorghum and currently in developing hybrid rice varieties. Mr Rodney Field-Industry Representative Mr Field runs a mixed sheep and cropping farm with his brother at Cascades, near Esperance in Western Australia. They are producers of certified crop and pasture seeds. He is active in a number of industry groups in the agricultural sector, including Executive Membership of the Australian Seed Producers' Federation, member of the Herbage Plant Liaison Committee of Western Australia, Chairman of the Clover Seed Trust Fund of Western Australia and member of the Grain Legumes Research Council. Mr Richard John Arthur-Consumer Representative Mr Arthur is a Barrister and Solicitor and a partner of Mallesons Stephens Jaques in Canberra. He has experience in commercial, administrative, planning and environmental law. He has a strong interest in consumer law, and is a member of the National Executive of the National Environmental Law Association and Secretary of the ACT Environmental Law Association. Mr Edgar Norman Swane-Member with Special Qualifications Mr Swane is a Director of Swane Brothers P/L at Dural and Narromine, New South Wales, which is a major production and retail plant nursery. The Company produces a wide range of plants, including fruit trees and fruit plants, as well as ornamentals of many kinds. It specialises in rose production. Mr Swane has been active in many industry organisations, including, since 1986, the Presidency of the Australian Nurseryman's Association, having previously been a Director. He is a Councillor of the Royal Agricultural Society of New South Wales since 1980 and Past President of the Australian Region of the International Plant Propagators Society. Dr John Kenneth Leslie-Member With Special Qualifications Dr Leslie is Director of the Division of Plant Industry in the Queensland Department of Primary Industries. He has previously been Director of the Wheat Research Institute at Toowoomba in Queensland and Director of Agriculture in the Queensland Department. He is a member of the Oilseeds Research Council, a member of the Queensland Wheat and Barley Research Committees and Chairman of the Plant Production Committee of Standing Committee on Agriculture. Dr Leslie has been involved in plant improvement programs, particularly for herbage plants for the sub-tropics, and in wheat research. Senator Walsh —On 26 October 1987 (Hansard, page 1200), Senator Chaney asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, the following question without notice regarding Rothwells Ltd: (i) Have any Commonwealth Ministers, Departmental officials or officials of any Commonwealth Statutory Authorities been involved in discussions concerning the package put together to support Rothwells Merchant Bank? (ii) Can the Minister advise the Senate what part the State Government of Western Australia is playing in the arrangements and what obligations have been entered into by the State Government and its instrumentalities? (iii) What role, if any, is being played by the Commonwealth or any of its instrumentalities? (iv) Is the Commonwealth in any way directly or indirectly assuming any responsibility or liability? The Treasurer has provided the following answer in response to the honourable senator's question: (i) As far as I am aware no Commonwealth Ministers or officials of Departmental or Statutory Authorities were involved in the organisation of the package put together by parties in Western Australia to support Rothwells. There have been, however, some communications between certain of the parties involved in the package and the Commonwealth aimed at informing the latter of developments; in particular, the Reserve Bank of Australia has been informed on a regular basis on banking aspects of the arrangements. (ii) I understand that the Western Australian Government has undertaken to enter into a commitment of up to a maximum of $150 million in the next 12 months to indemnify the National Australia Bank against liabilities incurred in respect of bills of exchange issued by Rothwells Ltd and accepted by the Bank. The commitment reduces to $75 million at the end of 12 months and is to be fully cleared after two years. (iii) None, other than that referred to in answer to (i). (iv) No. Senator Walsh —On 8 December 1987 (Hansard, page 2652), Senator Parer asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, a question without notice concerning the taxation aspects of a proposed joint venture in the Soviet Union for an alumina refinery. The Treasurer has provided the following information in answer to the honourable senator's question: The proposed joint venture referred to by Senator Parer involves the staged construction of a 1 million tonne alumina refinery and a half-million tonne aluminium smelter in the Soviet Far East. The Australian company concerned is currently conducting a feasibility study of the proposal which will determine if the project proceeds and in what form. Under Soviet legislation dealing with the establishment and operation of joint ventures in the USSR with participation of Soviet bodies, joint ventures are exempt from Soviet tax on profit for two years from the date the joint venture begins making a profit. After the initial two years of profit making, joint ventures pay Soviet taxes at the rate of 30 per cent on their profit, net of any reinvested funds. Any profits repatriated to Australia by the Australian partner would face a further 20 per cent withholding tax. The Australian participant company will have to pay Soviet tax on profits earned in this joint venture after a two-year tax holiday and on any remitted profits will also pay Australian tax under the foreign tax credit system. The Soviet Union is not being given special consideration in tax matters compared with the rest of the world. Any advantages to the Australian participating company would be purely commercial advantages, and not taxation advantages granted by Australia. (Question No. 119) Senator Puplick asked the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 5 November 1987: What was the function or functions, or the other commitments, which the Minister had which prevented him/her from attending the official presentation of the Address-in-Reply to His Excellency the Governor-General on 5 November 1987. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: I decided not to attend the official presentation of the Address-in-Reply to His Excellency the Governor-General on 5 November 1987 due to more important commitments relevant to my portfolio and Government responsibilities. (Question No. 200) Senator Lewis asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 17 February 1988: (1) How much revenue was raised under the New Harmonised Tariff during the month of January 1988 (2) What were the revenue figures under the old tariff regime for January 1985, 1986 and 1987 Senator Button —The answer to the honourable question is as follows: (1) The Australian Customs Service collected $299,151,385 Customs duty during the month of January 1988. A proportion of this revenue related to goods which had been entered prior to 1 January 1988. To separately identify use of the Harmonised Tariff would necessitate examination of in excess of 80,000 entries. (2) Customs duty collections for the month of January in the three previous years were: January 1985-$232,908,323; January 1986-$349,751,357; January 1987-$289,500,345. The figures above are gross receipts, excluding refunds, etc Source: An extract from the Central Ledger maintained by Department of Finance