Thursday, 17 March 1988 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled- The petition of the undersigned 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 Senator Sheil (from 435 citizens). 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 Honorable 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 Senator Gareth Evans (from 315 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: That we are strongly supportive of proposals for the establishment of electors' initiated referenda for the making of laws and alteration of the Constitution, in a form somewhat similar to that proposed in a Bill presented by Senator Macklin on 23rd September 1987. That electors' initiative proposals have widespread support within our community, and in every major political party, being an established aim of the Democrat Party, fifty five years as endorsed Labor Party policy, recommended by the Queensland branch of the National Party, and raised recently in the Liberal Party's Law and Justice policy. That the evidence of their great value and popularity as a superior development of democratic government, by and for the people, has been amply demonstrated in several advanced democracies overseas. That the proposed legislation would be the greatest Bicentennial gift our Legislature could give to our people, the recognition that we have come of age. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 68 citizens). Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications) —by leave-I present to the Senate the following petition, from 84 citizens, which is not in conformity with the Standing Orders as it is not in the correct form, requesting that the Townsville district be connected with the Special Broadcasting Service: To the Senator Hon. Gareth Evans, Q.C., Minister of Communications & Transport Parliament House, Canberra A.C.T. 2600 We the undersigned residents of Townsville and District respectfully request that early consideration be given to the provision of the S.B.S. Television Service to this Region. The Government's own equalisation program and the needs of our large and cosmopolitan community plus the presence of so many national and international tourists in this area should more than justify the presence of such long awaited service which is known to cover a multitude of interests with emphasis on sport and cultural activities. Petitions received. Senator FOREMAN(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the following matter be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure: The adequacy of international terminal and aircraft handling facilities at Sydney Airport having regard to projected increases in passenger traffic through that airport. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: (1) That, unless otherwise ordered, where a Bill is introduced by a Minister, or is received from the House of Representatives, after 24 May 1988, and a motion is moved for the second reading of the Bill, debate on that motion shall be taken to be adjourned upon the conclusion of the speech of the Senator moving the motion, and the resumption of the debate shall be made an Order of the Day for the first day of sitting in August 1988, without any question being put. (2) That, immediately after debate on a motion for the second reading of a Bill is adjourned in accordance with paragraph (1), or following the giving of notices on a subsequent day, a motion may be moved without notice to refer that Bill to a standing committee for inquiry and report by a day not later than the first day of sitting in August 1988. (3) That this Order cease to have effect at the commencement of the first day of sitting in August 1988. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall withdraw Business of the Senate, Notice of Motion No. 1, standing in my name for the next day of sitting for disallowance of the Export Inspection (Quantity Charge) Regulations (Amendment). I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Senator COLLINS —The Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances wanted to know whether an administrative discretion to exempt a person from an export inspection charge could be challenged by a person who felt unfairly denied the exemption. The drafting of the regulations left this somewhat unclear. The Minister for Resources, Senator Cook, has explained to the Committee's satisfaction that Administrative Appeals Tribunal review rights do exist in this case. However, since the Committee, with the help of a legal adviser, had some difficulty in determining the existence of this appeal right, it may be that companies or individuals could experience similar difficulty. The Committee will be writing to the Minister to ask that the drafting be improved to make it clear that a right of review is available. In accordance with the Committee's usual practice I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the Committee's brief correspondence. Leave granted. The documents read as follows- The Hon. Peter Morris, M.P. Minister for Resources Parliament House Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Minister, At its meeting on 19 November 1987, the Committee considered the Export Inspection (Quantity Charge) Regulations (being Statutory Rules 1987 No. 251, tabled in the Senate on 4 November 1987). The Committee seeks your advice on a difficult legal point concerning the applicability of review rights. New paragraph 4(aa) provides for the exemption from an export inspection charge of dairy products prepared at an establishment which has a departmentally approved quality control system in relation to an export control order. The Committee has examined the provisions for approval of such a system as they appear in the relevant export control orders, from the point of view of the remedies available to a person who claims exemption and is denied that relief. The Committee noted that under Part 20 of the Prescribed Goods (General) Orders (Export Control Order No. 7 of 1986), reconsideration and AAT review rights exist regarding initial decisions `made under an order'. (Order 11) Thus, rights of review would appear to exist in regard to order 23 of the Dairy Produce Orders (Orders No. 4 of 1985) referring to Approved Quality Assurance arrangements. The Committee seeks your advice as to whether the arrangements specified in that order are also the arrangements referred to in new paragraph 4(aa) which refers, not to an Approved Quality Assurance arrangement but to `an arrangement between the Department and the occupier of the establishment in relation to an export control order, being an arrangement with respect to inspection procedures to ensure the quality of products prepared'. If notwithstanding the different descriptions used, the arrangements are the same then it would appear that the approval is reviewable and the exemption is, therefore, an automatic right. On the other hand, if different `arrangements' are contemplated within new paragraph 4(aa) (and the Committee doubts that a Product Monitoring System referred to in Order 24 and Schedule 5 Part 2 of the Dairy Produce Orders would be an `arrangement') then the Committee seeks your help in identifying the avenue of appeal should an approval ever be unfairly refused with the consequent loss of exemption from charges. This is a rather complex area of delegated law-making and the Committee would be greatly assisted by your expert guidance. Yours sincerely, BOB COLLINS Chairman Senator Bob Collins Chairman Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances Parliament House Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Senator Collins I refer to your letter to Mr Morris dated 27 November 1987 in which you sought comments on the applicability of review rights in relation to paragraph 4 (aa) of the Export Inspection (Quantity Charge) Regulations Amendments (Statutory Rules 1987 No. 251). The reference in paragraph 4 (aa) of the regulations to ``an arrangement between the Department and the occupier of the establishment in relation to an export control order, being an arrangement with respect to inspection procedures to ensure the quality of products prepared'' does relate to an Approved Quality Assurance arrangement referred to in order 23 of the Dairy Produce Orders (Orders No. 4 of 1985). Consequently, the exemption contained in paragraph 4 (aa) of the Regulations is pursuant to order 23 of the Dairy Produce Orders has been entered into. The Secretary's discretion in order 23 is reviewable in accordance with Part 20 of the Prescribed Goods (General) Orders as amended. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify this matter for the Committee. Yours sincerely Peter Cook 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 document read as follows- 1. Local Employment Initiatives-A Strategic Approach-Report of the National Advisory Group on Local Employment Initiatives-together with the text of a statement relating to the report. 2. Australian Capital Territory-Annual Reports-Consumer Affairs Council-Consumer Affairs Bureau-section 17 of the Consumer Affairs Ordinance 1973 and the Seat of Government Administration Act-Administration of the Credit Ordinance-section 241 of the Credit Ordinance 1985-Administration of the Sale of Motor Vehicles Ordinance-section 90 of the Sale of Motor Vehicles Ordinance 1977. 3. Australian Capital Territory Bush Fire Council Annual Report 1986-87-sub-section 5j (b) of the Careless Use of Fire Ordinance 1936. 4. Australian Capital Territory Bookmakers Licensing Committee-Annual Report 1986-87-section 54 of the Bookmakers Ordinance 1985. 5. Australian Capital Territory Registrar of Co-Operative Societies-Annual Report 1986-87-section 12 of the Co-operative Societies Ordinance 1939. 6. Agents Board of the Australian Capital Territory-Annual Report 1986-87-section 17a of the Agents Ordinance 1968. 7. Australian Capital Territory Racecourse Development Fund Advisory Committee-Annual Report 1986-87-section 35z of the Betting (Totalizator Agency) (Amendment) Ordinance 1986. 8. National Exhibition Centre Trust-Annual Report 1986-87-including the Auditor-General's Report-section 63h of the Audit Act 1901. 9. Department of Education-Annual Report 1986-87-section 25 (8) of the Public Service Act 1922. 10. Remuneration Tribunal-Annual Report 1986-87-sub-section 12aa (2) of the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: (1) That, unless otherwise ordered and notwithstanding anything contained in the Sessional Orders, the days of meeting of the Senate for the remainder of this period of sittings be as follows: Thursday, 17 March and Friday, 18 March; Tuesday, 22 March to Friday, 25 March; Tuesday, 12 April to Friday, 15 April; Monday, 18 April to Thursday, 21 April; Tuesday, 26 April to Friday, 29 April; Tuesday, 17 May to Friday, 20 May; Monday, 23 May to Thursday, 26 May; and Monday, 30 May to Thursday, 2 June. (2) That, unless otherwise ordered- (a) for the remainder of this week and for the weeks commencing Tuesday, 22 March, 12 and 26 April and 17 May, the Sessional Orders relating to the hours of meeting and routine of business for Week 1 apply; (b) for the weeks commencing Monday, 18 April and 23 and 30 May, the hours of meeting and routine of business for Week 2 apply. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(10.06) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill proposes to amend the Customs Tariff (Uranium Concentrate Export Duty) Act 1980, to incorporate into that Act the tariff proposal tabled in the House of Representatives on 15 September 1987. As part of the 1987-88 Budget, the proposal increased the export duty on uranium concentrate produced from the Alligator Rivers Region in the Northern Territory from 80c to $1.02 per kilogram as from 15 September 1987. This export duty, which has been imposed on uranium since 1980, is to partially offset the special costs of environmental monitoring and research activities by the Office of the Supervising Scientist associated with uranium mining operations in the Alligator Rivers Region. The increase in the duty proposed in this Bill will recover about 75 per cent of those costs. The Office of the Supervising Scientist was created in recognition of the special need to protect the environment of the Alligator Rivers Region, an area of great beauty and world-wide environmental significance, from the effects of uranium mining operations both in the short and the long term. To this end, the Office of the Supervising Scientist has, amongst other things, conducted significant research on uranium tailings management, including the conduct of geomorphological studies to provide the information necessary to ensure that radioactive tailings can be contained or isolated from that environment for thousands of years. The Office also monitors the effects of radiation exposure on workers involved with uranium mining, as well as on people living in the Alligator Rivers Region and is developing strategies for the revegetation of decommissioned mine sites, so that the long term rehabilitation of the habitat of surrounding mining areas can be planned. The Government's continued commitment to the Office of the Supervising Scientist will ensure that the Alligator Rivers area, which includes the Kakadu National Park, is fully protected from any possible effects of uranium mining operations. Clause 4 of the Bill provides an exemption from the increased levy in the standard transitional situations where uranium concentrate was loaded on to a vessel, or was part of a consignment, the loading of which commenced prior to the 15 September 1987 commencement of this Bill. Financial Impact Statement The proposed increased duty is expected to raise an additional $0.6m during that part of the 1987-88 financial year to which it applies, and an additional $0.9m in a full year. At the proposed new rate, the total uranium export levy is expected to raise $3.7m in the 1987-88 financial year and $4m in a full year. The proposed levy will now recover approximately 75 per cent of the annual cost of the uranium related monitoring and research activities of the Office of the Supervising Scientist for Alligator Rivers Region. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(10.06) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to provide for a technical amendment to the Commonwealth Borrowing Levy Act 1987 which will be required as a consequence of the passage of the Australian Airlines (Conversion to Public Company) Bill 1987. The amendments provided for in the Bill will ensure that the Commonwealth borrowing levy will continue to apply to Australian Airlines and its wholly owned subsidiaries after the airline is converted from a statutory authority to a public company. The Commonwealth borrowing levy is imposed on borrowing by all Commonwealth semi-government authorities and government-owned companies, other than those engaged in the business and financial intermediation (such as the Commonwealth Banks and Australian Industry Development Corporation). The Bill will ensure that the revenue raised from the levy, estimated at $1.3m in 1987, will be unaffected by the changed legal structure of Australian Airlines. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That, unless otherwise ordered, the order of General Business for consideration this day pursuant to Sessional Order be as follows: (a) consideration of Government Papers; and (b) General Business, Order of the Day No. 56 [Australian Heritage Commission (Notification of Owners) Amendment Bill 1988]. Debate resumed from 16 March, on motion by Senator Richardson: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.07) —The Conservation Legislation Amendment Bill, introduced by the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson), is designed to give the Government greater powers with respect to World Heritage properties. In particular, its purpose is to stop logging in the wet tropical forests of north Queensland. The Bill does not specifically deal with that because regulations have been made to do that. The Bill repeals those regulations and new regulations will be subsequently made to achieve that purpose. But it is quite clear from the policy of the Government, not just that of the Minister, Senator Richardson, but the whole of the Government's policy as explained on numerous occasions over the last 18 months and again in the second reading speech in support of this Bill, that the Government has adopted the policies and views of the extreme environmental lobby. One of the prime objectives of that lobby is the prevention or cessation of logging in forests, whether they be rainforests in the wet tropics, the temperate zones or wherever. Basically, its policies would result in the ending of our forest product industries. I believe that that is the ultimate objective of these extreme environmentalists who have captured this Government, in particular the Minister and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). The Bill makes some other amendments to environmental legislation. In fact, it is misnamed conservation legislation because there is a very real difference between conservation and preservation. This legislation really ought to be called the preservation legislation Bill because its purpose is to preserve and protect the environment in its natural and pristine condition. The result of that would be no economic development or commercial use of resources. Conservation means-this is where some confusion is, no doubt, intended by the Government-the judicious use of natural resources to ensure that society receives the maximum benefits from the use of those resources. So conservation implies a sensible management of the economy to preserve environmental conditions in a way which does not totally exclude economic and social factors. Indeed, that is referred to as multiple land use. Although is some cases that does not exclude some areas from being kept in their pristine state it is certainly not consistent with the total prohibition on logging which seems to be the Government's policy in relation to this vast area that we are debating. The Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans), who is in the chamber, seemed to understand that concept when he was Minister for Resources and Energy and there seemed to be some hope for the Government's understanding. Indeed, I think the Prime Minister also agreed with that view for a time. However, as I have said, it was only when the Government was suddenly captured by the extreme environmentalists that the policy of multiple land use which Senator Evans was endeavouring to develop in the Kakadu National Park area, was suddenly overthrown and, for the last 18 months or two years, the Government has embarked on this infatuation with the extreme environmentalists. The Bill also does one or two other things. It creates a power to appoint inspectors; it greatly widens the application of the World Heritage properties that are the subject of inquiry as to whether they are of World Heritage standards; it excludes the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act applying to any decisions of the Minister in relation to World Heritage matters; and one or two other things. I do not propose to go through those matters as Senator Puplick, who is leading the debate for the Opposition, has dealt very adequately with our objections to them. I want to concentrate my remarks on what I believe is the fundamental issue which faces the Senate in relation to this legislation, that is, the Government's firm commitment to the total abolition of an important economic activity in a very important and growing region of Australia. Of course, in this case, the Act will apply generally but its specific purpose is to prevent logging from taking place in the north Queensland rainforest. This area extends from Townsville to Cooktown. It embraces the actual forest area that was the subject of the Government's preservation policy which covers about 9,000 square kilometres and about 850,000 hectares of rainforest. Including the main centres of Townsville and Cairns it has a population of over 250,000 people. This area is a vibrant and growing part of the Australian economy. However, one of the important industries and resources of that area has traditionally been sawmilling and the use of products from the rainforest. The statistics in relation to these matters, which I propose to cover briefly, have been very adequately dealt with in an excellent report entitled The Analysis of the Socioeconomic Impact of the World Heritage Listing of the Rainforests of North Queensland by Professor Percy Harris, Professor of Economics at James Cook University in north Queensland. This report was submitted in November 1987. He submitted the report in response to the Government's own request originally for comments on its proposal to list this area. The Government also specifically commissioned some socioeconomic studies to find out what are the facts about this area. But of course, we know that that is total eyewash on the part of Senator Richardson and the Government, because clearly they had decided to seek to include the whole of this area on the World Heritage List, and to stop logging throughout the whole of this area, regardless of what the socioeconomic consequences of those actions would be. That is the price that the Government has already paid to the extreme environmentalists, who have been seeking exactly that purpose for some time. Senator Sheil —Without consultation. Senator DURACK —As Senator Sheil says, without adequate consultation. The extraordinary thing is that the Government itself commissioned these socioeconomic studies. It has now received the reports. I have been asking Senator Richardson's office when those reports will be made available. The answer has been that the Government is still studying the reports and will not table them until it has studied them. It is clear that the reports will not be made available to this Parliament for the purposes of this debate. Here we have a government bringing in legislation to enable it to absolutely ban any logging activities, any commercial sawmilling activities, in this area, regardless of the socioeconomic consequences of that action. Quite clearly, the Government made that decision before it ever sought the socioeconomic studies. So, it is total window-dressing for the Government to suggest that somehow it is concerned about these matters. Clearly the Government is not concerned about the socioeconomic effects of what it is doing to this region of Australia. If it were, it would not have made these decisions until the reports had been received and a study of them had been completed. That is not the case, because Senator Richardson will not table them as, he says, the Government has not finished studying them. We are very fortunate that we have a report from the Professor of Economics at James Cook University. It is a detailed report, from which I have drawn a good deal for my speech to the Senate this morning. I want to read what might be called the vital statistics of this region, as found by Professor Harris. I might say that these statistics were first provided by the Queensland Government and the forest industries of the region some months ago when I visited there. Professor Harris has given the authority of an independent academic study to statistics which were clearly substantially correct as provided by the industry and the Government of Queensland, of which, of course, the Federal Government would not take any notice. Professor Harris said that to stop the supply of timber from the rainforests would mean the closure of at least half of the mills in this area, that is, four-fifths of the production. Nine hundred people are directly dependent on the log processing industry. Four-fifths of them are dependent on logs from the proposed World Heritage area. Professor Harris considered Townsville and Cairns separately from the study area as he did not think that the cessation of logging would have much socioeconomic effect on those two major towns. However, he pointed out that in the seven remaining local authority areas the unemployment rate is already 15 per cent. The initial effect of stopping logging would be a loss of 1,092 jobs. However, from multiplier effects in the region, 1,994 jobs, almost 2,000 jobs, would be lost as a result of the Government's decision to stop logging. The unemployment rate in the seven local authority areas will increase to 18 per cent as a result of the cessation of logging. In the Herberton Shire alone the resulting unemployment rate will be 43 per cent. The Government has said that it will create 640 jobs in the area. But, as Professor Harris points out, even if it does achieve that-and he has very great doubts, for the reasons he sets out, that it will be able to create 640 permanent jobs-there will still be a direct loss of 1,092 jobs and an indirect loss of 2,000 jobs. So the Government's proposal to create new jobs in the area is really just eyewash. Professor Harris points out that most of the timber workers are older people who have not completed year 12 education, have few outside qualifications and have a very low occupational mobility. These people have been longstanding, traditional timber workers. In fact, 22 per cent of them have been in the industry for over 20 years. In his opinion, their occupational mobility is zero. Professor Harris casts grave doubts on the 250 plantation jobs that the Government says it will create. He says that the new plantation jobs will not be sustainable in the long term, even though they might offer some temporary employment at that level. But, essentially, the point is that the Government's own proposed compensation, so to speak, does not come within cooee of replacing the jobs that will be lost as a result of its decision. The other day my colleague Senator Boswell made an impassioned plea in the Senate in relation to those job losses. I simply add my support to the grave concern expressed by him as a senator from Queensland. This is a loss for Australia as a whole. The Government has a total indifference to a loss of jobs of this magnitude in this area of Australia. People in other parts of Australia whose jobs depend on sawmilling face a gloomy future. The threat presented by the Government will have dire consequences for Tasmania, southern New South Wales and the south-west of Western Australia. As I have said, the Government is now on course to cave in completely to the extreme greenies who are determined virtually to close down the forest industries of Australia, with the connivance and active support of the Hawke Government and one of its Ministers, Senator Richardson. The Government justifies all this on the grounds that this area is of such great environmental significance that it should be preserved in its natural, pristine state and that it should be nominated for World Heritage listing. I acknow-ledge-and I have ever since I took an interest in this matter-that the rainforest in north Queensland is an area of great environmental value. This forest area covers 850,000 hectares. I understand that experts indicate that originally there were just over one million hectares of rainforest. The development that has occurred in this area with cane growing, dairy farming and other activities has reduced the rainforest to 850,000 hectares. This is not a great reduction from the original rainforest area. Where accessible, that area of rainforest has been subject over 100 years to logging operations. In recent years, under very strict policies of the Queensland Government, the industry has been following a practice of sustainable yield logging which the Senate Select Committee on National Resources found in 1981 was a perfectly proper way of preserving forests. Indeed, the industry has clearly preserved them because, despite the fact that logging has gone on for 100 years, the rainforest is still of sufficient value for the Federal Government to propose listing the area for World Heritage purposes. Obviously the logging policies have not, by the Government's own admission, despoiled or damaged the World Heritage value of this area. Even if one thought that logging was inconsistent with World Heritage listing-I do not agree with that, but let us assume that one does-the fact is that only 20 per cent of this area is subject to a logging policy at all. Large parts of it are inaccessible and will never be able to be logged. Also it is the policy of the Queensland Government that only 20 per cent of this area will ever be logged. Therefore, if this Government were genuinely interested in coming to reasonable conclusions and rational decisions, it only has to nominate 80 per cent of the area for World Heritage listing. If it did that, the desire of most people to preserve a substantial area of this forest in its pristine state would be satisfied, the economic and social damage would not be done and interests would be preserved. It is beyond belief that the Government would be so irrational and uncaring of people's interests that it could go ahead with this legislation and the subsequent regulations to achieve a purpose which could be just as easily achieved by a different policy which preserved those important interests. We are talking about an area of more than 70,000 people. The whole region will be affected in some way by the decision to stop logging. Two thousand jobs will be lost and in a population of 70,000 that will have a huge impact on the region. As Professor Harris said, it may not affect Townsville and Cairns, but it will affect all those other towns in this region of 70,000 people. Indeed, there will be a great community loss because of loss of income. More than $30m a year will be lost in income, not just to the people affected but also to Australia as a whole. These matters have been totally ignored by the Government. We know that the Government is doing this because it has been captured by the extreme environmentalists. Senator Richardson was converted only because he thought that the Government might lose the last election and that it needed every vote it could get. That was the only reason why the Government adopted this policy and, incidentally, left the then Minister for Resources and Energy high and dry with his multiple land use policies at the same time. That does not seem to worry him. He seems to have survived that and is happy to remain a member of a government which has totally rejected the rational and sane policies of multiple land use which he supported. The Government dresses up this naked piece of political vote buying with claims that it has the highest motives of the World Heritage listing and is observing its duties under the World Heritage Convention. It wants these powers because it says that it may not have sufficient powers under the existing Act. That argument has been completely demolished by Senator Puplick who pointed out that last week in the case known as the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests inquiry the High Court said that the Government had these powers under the existing legislation. That is by the way. The important point is that we have a government which has been prepared since the advent of the World Heritage properties conservation legislation to pursue policies of total preservation, regardless of the economic consequences. It has done it in Tasmania and in the Kakadu area and is going to do it again in north Queensland. What will it do next? I was going to spend a little time in my speech today analysing the World Heritage Convention, and to point out that decisions under that Convention are the responsibility of what is called the national state party to the Convention, which is the Commonwealth Government; the word `state' is not used in the sense of the Australian States. The Commonwealth Government has responsibility to give effect to such conventions. The Convention does not state that one cannot log in a World Heritage area; nor does it state that one cannot mine there. In fact, one of the ironies of this policy of the Government is that it will allow some mining to take place in the World Heritage area in the north Queensland rainforests. Last week in the Lemonthyme case the High Court emphasised the fact that discretion is with the government and the parliament of a country that is a party to the Convention. That has always been the position, but the constitutional law position has been misunderstood. The majority view of the High Court in the Tasmanian dam case stated: . . . when Parliament exercises the external affairs power so as to carry into effect or give effect to such a treaty, it is for Parliament to choose the means by which this is to be achieved, provided at any rate that the means chosen are capable of being reasonably considered appropriate and adapted to that end. So, of course, the High Court can still say, `No, Parliament cannot do that because it is not consistent with the Convention; you are going too far'. But it emphasises that it is for the Parliament to decide how to give effect to the duties under the Convention. The High Court made it even more clear subsequently in its decision last week when it said: The terms of Art. 3- that is, of the Convention- together with the second sentence of Art. 4 and the qualifications in the opening words of Art. 5 are entirely consistent with the acknowledgement of State sovereignty in Art. 6 and with the recognition that each State, in giving effect to the obligations imposed by the Convention, with respect to the heritage situated on its territory will naturally have to take account of competing considerations, economic and otherwise. Thus though each State has a duty to identify and delineate the heritage in its territory, the performance of this duty will depend in many respects on the judgment of that State. So it is for the judgment of this Government, of this Parliament, to decide these competing considerations between the preservation of World Heritage values and the economic and social interests of the people who would be affected by a rigid application of the Convention. To make it perfectly clear, the High Court last week said: This is not to say that a failure on the part of a State to protect land, which is ultimately identified as part of the heritage, pending that identification is a breach of duty capable of enforcement. The High Court recognises that there is no internal duty or obligation capable of enforcement under international law. That is the reality. I suppose the best one can say about members of the Government is that the poor things do not understand the law. They are not being very well advised by Senator Evans, a former Attorney-General, who does understand these things. They are certainly not very well advised by the present Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) or the Minister for Justice, Senator Tate. They do not understand the elements of the obligation that is imposed upon them under this World Heritage Convention to which they are so subservient. I conclude with a further quotation from the High Court: It is for each State to determine what it will do by way of protecting a particular property pending resolution of its status as part of the heritage. As the High Court said, it is for the state, that is the nation, concerned-its government, its parliament-to decide how to give effect to the convention. There is no reason why, under the World Heritage Convention or as a result of a High Court decision this Government has any sort of legal obligation to ban completely logging or mining. That is a total misunderstanding of the situation. I have referred to the details of the report of Professor Harris. The Government's policy flies in the face of the Senate committee report and it flies in the face of its own working group which was established by the former Minister, Barry Cohen, to provide advice on rainforest conservation, because that group pointed out that there are competing interests and they have to be accommodated. The sad thing about all this is very well summarised by Professor Harris in his report when he says: The social costs of Heritage Listing are heavily concentrated in a small part of Australia and on the inhabitants of communities in that area. For many of these people the outcome will be a total disruption of their current lives and their future expectations. The unquantifiable social benefits are spread widely throughout Australia- that is, among those concerned, particularly the greenies- and even the world, although there is not evidence as to what proportion of the people in Australia as a whole really care about the Heritage Listing. In particular, even if they support such a proposal, they have no idea of the social costs that will be imposed on some North Queensland communities, nor will ardent supporters be forced to place a monetary value on their support by making financial contributions to offset the costs they have imposed on others. That is being done with the active support of this Government-a denial by this Government of all its social policy rhetoric. It is destroying needlessly the jobs of at least 2,000 people. It is damaging needlessly the economic interests of a large number of people in the north of Australia. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Morris) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator BLACK(Queensland (10.37) —I have just come into the chamber, having chaired a meeting of the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts which has been discussing the international implications of aid for the environment. That brought home to me the global responsibilities this country has to its place in the world's heritage and that we are not simply considering State functions, or even national functions, in that regard, but total global considerations. I think that the time has come to put parochial interests to one side and to take our place in the world. That is what the Government is seeking to do. A great deal has been said already in this place in support of World Heritage listing of the north Queensland rainforests. The Government's unfailing support for the conservation of our natural heritage cannot be disputed and our determination to protect the outstanding values of the wet tropics of north Queensland is demonstrative of our continuing commitment. The Queensland Government has attempted to surround the wet tropics nomination with controversy and misinformation and has steadfastly maintained its opposition to the World Heritage listing of this area. However, the Federal Government has maintained a cooperative and rational approach to negotiations with the Queensland Government over the issue of protection. Yet, the Queensland Government has refused to drop its assertion that logging the area should continue. It is the Queensland Government that has forced the presentation of the Conservation Legislation Amendment Bill. That the north Queensland rainforest must be protected is an indisputable fact. The Federal Government is convinced that the natural values of the area satisfy the definition of `world heritage' specified in article 2 of the World Heritage Convention. Indeed, the broader evidence suggests that these rainforests comply with all four criteria, establishing outstanding universal value. Within the north Queensland rainforests there lives a diverse range of animal life. Some of these are threatened species, including, from time to time, apparently, Senator Boswell and some of his colleagues. The rainforests contain one of the world's largest collections of primitive flowering plant families and an enormous range of features of incredible natural beauty. There is also evidence on cultural grounds alone that the rainforests deserve World Heritage listing. The final judgment will be made not by us but by the World Heritage Committee in December this year. The fact is that the Queensland Government cannot justify its irrational opposition to World Heritage listing of this area. The events of the past week should have left the Queensland Premier and his Ministers facing the hard fact that they were misguided in their belief that they could effectively oppose the nomination. Apart from this probably short-lived attempt to prevent World Heritage nomination through the High Court of Australia, one of the Queensland Government's most concerted attempts to oppose the listing was the establishment of the Northern Rainforest Management Agency, known as NORMA, in September last year. The Queensland Government claimed that the agency was established to receive submissions on the World Heritage nomination. In fact, the Queensland Government believed that this agency could, if it provided a watertight case opposing the need for World Heritage listing, legitimise its own rainforest management practices. The Queensland Government is now facing a situation in which not one of the credible scientists attached to NORMA is prepared to deny the heritage significance of the north Queensland rainforests. When NORMA was established both the Queensland Government and the scientists attached to the agency were emphatic that the agency would be an apolitical body-that is, a body formed purely to collect and independently assess data. Certainly I am aware that many people attached to the agency, particularly those academics who were attached to it, joined NORMA in the belief that their knowledge could further the sound conservation of the northern rainforests. I am aware that one scientist, Dr John Winter, wants to pull out of active consideration and has asked to be demoted to observer status. The behaviour, in particular, of a key member of the agency-the chairman of its scientific committee, Dr Ross Hynes-has established beyond any doubt that NORMA is not an impartial body. As I will establish later, while Dr Hynes's activities have confirmed on several occasions his support for the Queensland Government's campaign against the listing, even he at times has admitted the environmental value of the wet tropics. At a public meeting held in Innisfail earlier this year, Dr Hynes endorsed a 1984 report by the president of the Rainforest Conservation Society of Queensland, Dr Aila Keto, arguing for the need to conserve the region. While Dr Hynes criticised the report for technical inaccuracies, he admitted that the northern development rainforests had environmental values and that some areas should never have been logged. He has also agreed with his committee colleagues that there should be no further logging of virgin rainforests-something which would virtually close the industry down overnight. In fact, the NORMA scientific committee has already endorsed the Federal Government's decision to protect the north Queensland rainforests. Through a report leaked to the media some days ago-from which the Queensland Government has since tried to distance itself by claiming that it was only a preliminary report-this group has clearly established the environmental significance of the area. The report found that of the 167,000 hectares allocated for logging by the Queensland Forestry Department, around three-quarters, or 126,000 hectares, should not be logged. On the basis of this recommendation, the timber industry would be reduced to about 30 per cent of its 1987 levels. The report found that only 2.5 per cent of the total area nominated for the World Heritage listing should be considered a low priority for conservation. The report further found that some 84,000 hectares of rainforest that are not included within the World Heritage boundaries should also be considered of high conservation value. Four different scenarios were outlined in the report. Each scenario involved a significant logging reduction. Even the scenario that would be seen to most benefit the Queensland timber required that the logging allocation of the Queensland Forestry Department be reduced by half. I point out that the report was based on inad-equate data. Information relating to flora was mostly restricted to one family-the proteaceae. A large volume of relevant information compiled by the Queensland Herbarium was not included. In contrast, that data was included in the Fede-ral Government's assessment of the area. The Queensland Government's consternation at the report can be judged by various claims made by the Queensland Premier, Mike Ahern, and the Minister for Tourism, National Parks and Sport, Geoff Muntz, to the effect that the report was stolen, was labelled an internal working document, or was not endorsed by the NORMA scientific committee. In fact, the NORMA secretary, Clive Hughes, claimed that the findings constituted an interim report and said that final results would not be available until the end of April. I understand from media reports that another scientific committee representative claimed that the report's findings were even the result of a computer malfunction. I note also that various honourable senators who have taken part in the debate have tried to dismiss the findings and the significance of this report. This is a distortion as fraudulent as the Queensland Government's claims to good management of the rainforests. Many credible rainforest scientists did participate and provide data for the report. These scientists discussed the report at a meeting of the scientific committee on Tuesday, 23 February. Indicative of their strong support for both the report and its pro-heritage findings, the committee gave quite clear instructions to its chairman, Dr Ross Hynes, that he was not to indicate that any of the scientists were opposed to World Heritage listing. The worst fears of the scientists, that both NORMA and the State Government would either disown or manipulate their work, seem about to be realised. The behaviour of Dr Hynes has made a mockery of any claim that the Agency and the committee were established as an independent body. Despite his initial endorsement of Dr Keto's assessment of the north Queensland rainforest, Dr Hynes has consistently maintained that effective management and conservation of the region could be maintained without the World Heritage listing. Dr Hynes chooses to ignore the fact that had the Federal Government not moved to nominate the area, the State Government would have maintained its singularly inactive approach to responsible management of the area. I understand that it was claimed at a meeting of the area. I understand that it was claimed at a meeting of the NORMA scientific committee that had planning mechanisms then considered been implemented only two years ago the Federal Government may have seen little need for World Heritage nomination. Dr Hynes at that meeting did not oppose that claim. Dr Hynes advocates that an effective management plan incorporating the establishment of biosphere reserves could be used more effectively than World Heritage listing in management of the region. Dr Hynes obviously chooses to forget the Queensland Government's rejection last decade of biosphere reserve proposals for the Downey Creek, Johnstone River and Palmerston regions. There is no doubt that the Queensland Government, as it has ably demonstrated in the past, could not be trusted with the responsible management of this region. Yet, as an indication of Dr Hynes's stand as an advocate of the Queensland Government, I refer to an advertisement for public meetings held by NORMA in the north Queensland centres of Innisfail and Malanda. I have a copy of the advertisement here. It reads: Come and hear the latest report on the vital work of NORMA's Scientific Committee opposed to world heritage listing of our rainforest. I repeat it: Come and hear the latest report on the vital work of NORMA's Scientific Committee opposed to world heritage listing of our rainforest. I understand that since then Dr Hynes has claimed that the use of the word `opposed' was a clerical error. Yet, when called on by members of the scientific committee to repudiate the advertisement and dissociate the committee from its comments, Dr Hynes did nothing. Some of the most damning indictments of Dr Hynes's activities as chairman of the NORMA scientific committee are contained in a letter written to Dr Hynes by Dr Graham Harrington, Director of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) tropical forest research centre in Atherton. Incidentally, Dr Harrington refused an invitation to join NORMA but attended meetings of the scientific committee as an observer. Dr Harrington asserts, despite Dr Hynes's claims that he and NORMA are apolitical, that the direction that the committee had taken made it impossible for the tropical forest research centre to cooperate with the Agency. In his letter dated 26 February, Dr Harrington expressed profound unease-the words `profound unease' are his-about the public meeting addressed by Dr Hynes in Malanda in February. Dr Harrington maintains that the entire flavour of the Malanda meeting-and I quote from his letter-`was politically slanted in favour of the State Government, taking swipes at Canberra and anti-World Heritage'. Senator Parer —There are a lot of AWU workers up there, too. Senator BLACK —I will deal with the Australian Workers Union (AWU) workers soon. Dr Harrington also quotes in his letter an alarming statement made at the meeting by Dr Hynes. Dr Hynes said: Unfortunately, parts of the rainforest are of such high conservation value, we have to live with that. He was lamenting the fact that they were of such high value. Dr Harrington attacks what he describes as clear statements made at the meeting that the World Heritage listing was an attempt by the Federal Government to gain control over land constitutionally administered by the State. Statements such as this emerge as even more contemptuous when one considers another claim made by Dr Harrington, namely, that NORMA has failed to admit that it cannot produce a case for opposition to the World Heritage nomination. It is still seeking to do that and it is still unable to do so. Dr Harrington in his letter is clearly justifiably concerned that Dr Hynes's behaviour reflects on the genuinely impartial members of the scientific committee. Dr Harrington maintains in his letter: A true representative of the scientific committee position has been that they supported and were undertaking an objective examination of future rainforest management in north Queensland. Dr Harrington claims that members of the scientific committee, and those who refused to join it, had feared that the objective workings of the committee would be misused by NORMA for `a preconceived political objective'. Dr Harrington maintains that these claims were justified at the Malanda meeting. The deceitful campaign waged by the Queensland Government over the supposed objectivity of NORMA does not constitute its only attempt to mislead us on this issue. Earlier this month my colleague Senator Richardson exposed a deliberate distortion by the Queensland Government of the amount of logging that has already taken place in the northern rainforests. The deceit only serves to reinforce further the Federal Government's decision to provide interim protection of the area that has been nominated. An independent and expert analysis of Queensland Forestry Department maps has revealed the true extent of logging in the region and shows just how little virgin rainforest remains in the area. In its attempts to establish credibility as a responsible manager of the north Queensland rainforest, the Queensland Government has repeatedly argued that around 75 per cent of the north Queensland rainforest is already protected and would never be logged. This claim, the analysis shows, relates to all rainforests north of Townsville. The analysis commissioned by the Federal Government from the CSIRO rainforest scientists estimates that some 45 per cent of the remaining rainforest between Townsville and Cooktown, where the wet tropical rainforest is located, had been logged. Much of the remainder of the rainforest, the analysis shows, has not been logged only because the forest was inaccessible or because it did not contain enough commercial timber. Yet the Queensland Government has grandstanded on a completely false claim that only 25 per cent of the forest has ever been logged. In the wet tropics the estimate would be more like 55 per cent. The analysis shows that logging has targeted certain types of rainforest-those containing suitable types and species of trees. Those areas that have not been logged appear to have remained untouched because they contain unsuitable types of trees. The Queensland Government clearly bases it management of this important region on the needs only of the timber industry, yet it expects to be considered as a responsible and effective manager of this area. NORMA was an attempt by the State Government to justify more than a century of mining of these forests for timber. NORMA now stands exposed as a political sham. The Federal Government's decision to nominate the north Queensland rainforests for World Heritage listing has received a string of endorsements from prominent scientists worldwide. I shall list a few of those. Professor of Botany at Harvard University, Professor Peter Ashton, describes the northern rainforests as `unique' and `the last refuge of a quite extraordinary number of specialised plants and animals'. Ghillean France, Director of the Institute of Economic Botany at the New York Botanical Garden, endorses the nomination of a `unique and important area of the world's rainforest' and `an area of great biological importance'. Three scientists from Marlboro College in Vermont, United States of America, say that they `keenly appreciate the biological wealth that these forests represent to Australia and to the rest of the world'. Professor E. J. H. Corner, from the University of Cambridge, has described the area as unique, `with many endemic plants, as the relic of the tertiary rainforest that covered much of Australia'. He says: If that forest is exploited and ruined, biology will suffer an irreplaceable loss and travellers will despair. Its full significance for the history of Australia is far from known, and it will require years of investigation. Professor Paul Richards, from Oxford University, says that the north Queensland rainforests: Have a special claim to protection. Like all the natural ecosystems of Australia, they are unique and unlike those of other continents, and they are already fragmented and seriously endangered. As the Queensland Government now fights to maintain its program of barely controlled clearing of this valuable forest, it courts arguments from the timber and other industry representatives that logging should not only continue but also be extended further as the timber industry declines, because that is the only way in which employment levels can be maintained. I noted that Senator Boswell, in his earlier speech, expressed some concern about the loss of what he claimed were 2,000 to 3,000 jobs. He went on to say: I want every Labor and Democrat senator, 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 . . . I sat through a number of debates at the time of the South East Queensland Electricity Board (SEQEB) dispute in Queensland. I can clearly recall Senator Boswell being quite dismissive about the claims that the 1,002 SEQEB employees had to either a wage or any concerns for their families or superannuation, In fact, Senator Boswell said: The 800 people- the number had dropped down to 800, which is fairly illustrative of Senator Boswell's liberal use of statistics- will not get back their jobs because there are no jobs for them there; those jobs have been taken up by other people. One can not create another 800 jobs for the 800 people who have sacked themselves. I wish Senator Boswell had displayed the same concerns for the SEQEB workers that he purports to show for the people whose jobs are allegedly endangered at the moment in north Queensland. The Government, which he so naus- eatingly endorsed at that time, clearly sought to reimpose conditions on those persons if they were seeking re-employment, which would have involved absolutely no superannuation entitlements. Senator Boswell then went on to criticise the Australian Workers Union and its coverage of those members and employees. He went on to claim that between 2,000 and 3,000 jobs would be lost and that most of these persons were AWU members. I would just like to say that as a result of modernisation of the Australian Workers Union records in Queensland, which I was pleased to be a part of, the union is able to say exactly how many members were affected. Far from being 2,000 or 3,000 the union was able to come up with a figure of 204 members who were affected by the proposed wet tropical rainforest listing. The union sent out a letter, which I would like to read, to those 204 members. I will quote from that letter from the Secretary of the union, Mr Errol Hodder: Employers engaged in the timber industry have already lodged claims with the Federal Government for compensation. I understand that at the same time, some employers have suggested to their employees that it is not appropriate for employees to commence similar claims. In other words, the bosses were lining up for the handouts and telling their employees not to talk to the nasty Federal Government. It is a common enough story. They wanted to get their slice of the action first. I will go on with the letter: The Federal Government has announced that funds will be available for compensation. The Union is committed to ensuring that its members and their families benefit to the maximum extent possible from the expenditure of these funds. Following representations from the Union at the time of the first announcement of the Government's intention, the Government has agreed to establish a register of workers dependent on the logging industry. This register will form the basis of future planning compensation. It is vital that all Union members notify the Union if they consider that they are entitled to participate in the compensation package. The attached questionnaire should be completed and returned as soon as possible. The Union has already begun negotiations with the Government and the Minister and the Minister has assured the Union that its representations will receive the Government's most serious consideration. The Union will collect this information and prepare submissions to the Federal Government on behalf of its members. Despite those urgings, only 108 members replied. I note with interest information supplied to me from Senator Richardson's office to the effect that 106 people have received compensation packages already from the Federal Government. So as far as the projections about the 2,000 or 3,000 jobs are concerned and the argument that a majority of these people are AWU members, I simply point out again for the record that 204 members were found. They were all written to and, despite the urgings of their employers, or the instructions of their employers in some cases, they were all urged to claim compensation. Despite that, only 108 have done so, and 106 have received benefits and compensation from the Federal Government. The timber industry has been in decline in north Queensland for the last decade. Progressively, as the mills became more uneconomic and as the operations wound down, they were sold out to what were described to me by Mr Hodder as accountants and asset strippers who basically oversaw the almost complete dismantling of the timber industry in north Queensland. Up to 40 per cent of the jobs were lost over that decade. There was no doubt in the minds of union officials in that area and at the State level that the industry was going to be finished; it was just a matter of time. They saw that their job, clearly, was to be responsible to their members to try to arrest the situation where several thousand jobs had already been lost without a murmur from the State Government and where, at that time and until two to three months ago, not one cent of redundancy payments was made available to any of those members who were sacked, often at 24 hours notice. The position that the union took was that if there was to be money available for redundancy packages and if there were to be long term jobs available for those workers affected, the union had a responsibility to ensure that that offer was taken advantage of. In fact, I have a statement that was made at the time by the union officials concerned. It is pretty important that this be put on the record, because the union has complained to me that because of the disinformation campaign that has been waged by the National Party of Australia and by its various bizarre support groups in north Queensland, a number of workers who will be affected have not made adequate claims for compensation. That is what is hurting those families and that is what is hurting those workers. I read in part from a statement made at the time by the Australian Workers Union Secretary, Errol Hodder, when the World Heritage move was announced. The letter says in part: The Australian Workers' Union, Queensland Branch, has given its full support to World Heritage listing of the Wet Tropics of North East Queensland conditional upon an adequate adjustment and compensation package for affected workers. State Secretary of the A.W.U., Errol Hodder, said that the Union's decision had been reached with great difficulty and after a lengthy consideration of all of the issues. He has met with logging members in North Queensland and fully discussed Listing with them. I read further from that letter: My Union represents thousands of workers in North Queensland from a wide range of industries. We are conscious that our members in the timber industry would wish us to oppose the listing. However, we have had to consider what long term prospects the industry itself offers to its workers and the options which offer opportunities for other industries such as tourism which also employ our members. I point out that, in contrast with the 204 persons employed in the timber industry who were affected, the union covers 4,000 workers employed in the tourist industry in north Queensland. You would be interested to know that, Mr Acting Deputy President, because in other States they may be members of the liquor trades union. I continue to read from Mr Hodder's letter: The timber industry in North Queensland has been in decline in recent years with workers leaving the industry in large numbers with no compensation for redundancies. If the industry continues in its present pattern of decline then the best that the present work force could look forward to is a very limited period of employment and the chance of some redundancy provisions. The operations of the logging industry leave the rain forests severely damaged, to the extent that it adversely impacts upon North Queensland's vital tourist industry. It must be understood that North Queensland's accessible rainforests are as much an attraction to the overseas tourist as is the reef. The combination is unbeatable. Members of my Union who work in the tourist industry and all North Queenslanders who readily understand that their future prosperity is closely linked to the development of the tourist industry will appreciate that World Heritage listing is an investment in jobs and opportunities, not just for North Queensland, but for all Australians- in the longer term- The A.W.U.'s support for the listing is conditional upon appropriate adjustment programs and funding for that program. I wrote to the Prime Minister immediately after his announcement and asked him to answer a number of questions. In particular, the amount of funds that will be available for adjustment and how these funds are to be used. I asked specifically if funds would be available primarily for the development of alternative industries and whether adequate funding would be available for compensation and income maintenance for the current timber industry work force, and assistance with relocation for those workers who may have to go elsewhere for employment. The Prime Minister has assured me that funds are available for financial assistance from both the National Rainforest Conservation program and the National Afforestation Program. Errol Hodder said that he has commenced negotiations with Senator Graham Richardson on the compensation package. At the same time, the Union is surveying its membership to establish a profile of the affected workforce . . . Errol Hodder said that he understood the feelings of workers in the industry who are fearful for the future of themselves and their families and that the Union would be active at all times in their interests. I note that Senator Boswell has said that he would send a copy of my speech to all of those AWU workers who were losing their jobs. It would be about the only honest thing he has ever circulated to anybody in Queensland and I look forward to his saving me some postage. I point out to Senator Boswell that far from the 2,000 to 3,000 persons that he has mentioned as being affected by this decision from the Federal Government, the union concerned could find only 204. Of those 204, 108 have replied and 106 have already been provided with assistance by the Federal Government. I think the most useful thing that National Party senators and the Queensland Government could do as far as these people are concerned is to start to tell the truth for a change. The truth is that economic adjustment was necessary and it will take place. If people accommodate themselves to those changes, they will not suffer any deprivation of income in the short term or the longer term. I point out in closing that, in politics, one of the hardest jobs one has is to tell people things that they do not want to hear but which they know to be true. The truth is that that industry was finished. It was going to be finished irrespective of what we would have done. The State Government has sought to mislead workers in that area by giving them the understanding that their jobs could have been protected under State Government control. That was not the case. Senator KNOWLES(Western Australia)(11.07) —Today we are debating the Conservation Legislation Amendment Bill 1988. Of course, this legislation has very little to do with the protection of our unique natural heritage; it has everything to do with increasing the power of the Federal Government. As we have just heard from Senator Black, he has very little concern about any of the workers, particularly in Queensland, or in any other areas that are due to be affected at a later date, but he has every concern for having more control put on this country by this Australian Labor Party (ALP) Government. This Government is using the issue of conservation both to undermine the quite legitimate responsibilities of the States and to sacrifice the common-sense management of our natural resources in a very cynical vote-buying exercise. If any example needs to be given about the cynicism of this Government, we have quite clearly had it in recent times with, on the one hand, the Government pandering to the green conservation vote and, on the other hand, accepting donations from companies associated with woodchipping. This Bill gives the Federal Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories the power-let us not forget that the present Minister, Senator Richardson, is quite obsessed with power-to ban any activity within an area of any size that may be of World Heritage value and is merely subject to a Federal government inquiry that is considering its potential for World Heritage listing. In other words, an area that may not be considered worthy of nomination to a World Heritage Committee in the final analysis can, for months, be subject to a freeze on economic activity through a ministerial declaration. It is also a fact that actual nomination to the World Heritage Committee, resulting in an investigation that will take the best part of a year, may result in its rejection. The Minister, in his second reading speech, admitted that in 1987 only 65 per cent of nominations were accepted. But the main feature of the Bill is, therefore, an open-ended increase in Federal government power. So, too, are two other major aspects. The exemption of World Heritage areas from the requirements of environmental impact studies for actions approved by the Minister is the prime example of our contention that this Bill involves not conservation but control. In effect this would allow the Minister to enforce the building of a monorail in the Uluru World Heritage area without the safeguard of an environmental impact study. It is hypocritical of any government in effect to prohibit State governments or citizens from activity in an area that may or may not receive World Heritage listing, but then give itself a free hand in the World Heritage areas for which it has responsibility. Secondly, this Bill provides for a system of inspectors to enter property with a warrant from a federally created court or, if necessary, without a warrant. Any legislation that allows for the creation of an army of people with new official powers in any field must be regarded with suspicion. Senator Messner —With ID cards. Senator KNOWLES —That is exactly right; with ID cards. Senator Aulich —Oh, Tony, don't be stupid. Senator KNOWLES —This Bill must be regarded with increased suspicion because of the Government's attempt, only a few months ago, to foist an ID card onto Australian citizens. Senator Aulich is bleating away because, of course, he was the instigator of the minority report on the Australia Card, and he was the one who wanted everyone in Australia labelled. If through this legislation he is still to persist and obviously encourage a further extension of his ideology, at some time he must recognise that Australians do not want ID cards. The situation is that nothing in this Bill will prevent a Minister from enrolling militant extremists from the conservation movement to act as inspectors. Let us face it: that is more than likely to happen. By clause 7 of the Bill, proposed new section 17b provides for a fine of $1,000 or imprisonment for 12 months if one presumes to obstruct or hinder the inspectors whom this Bill will create. So, thanks to this Government, Australian citizens are likely to cop $1,000 fines or 12 months imprisonment terms. Many Australian citizens simply could not afford to pay a $1,000 fine imposed purely and simply because they cherish their privacy. So, what will the Government do? It will slap those people behind bars for 12 months. As Senator Puplick clearly stated in his speech on this Bill, these Richardson greenshirts, these inspectors, may enter and search, take photographs, examine, inspect, and measure. They may stop, detain and enter any vehicle. Allegedly they are to do so either with the consent of the person in charge of the property concerned, or on the basis of a warrant. However, in circumstances that are of such seriousness and urgency as to require and justify immediate entry, entry may be gained without the consent of the person in charge, or the authority of a warrant issued under the relevant subsection. That is how far this Government is prepared to go; and that is what it will not explain. This Bill will allow an invasion of privacy similar to that which we repeatedly debated when the Australia Card legislation was before the Parliament. However, this will be the law. One must either allow inspectors to enter, or cop a fine or a term of imprisonment. I would be very surprised if the Government were proud of that, but of course it will be interesting to hear Senator Aulich's comments when he follows me in this debate, because obviously he will seek to justify how the people of Australia can be fined or imprisoned as a result of his thugs not being allowed to enter a property. Legislation that increases Federal Government power and seeks to undermine legal action taken by the Queensland Government makes an absolute farce of the commitment given by the Minister last September when he said, `I wish to stress as strongly as I can that the Government is taking the consultation process extremely seriously'. That commitment was reported in the Ecofile newsletter that the Minister's Department publishes, at taxpayers' expense of course. Perhaps it could be said that the Minister does take consultation seriously, inasmuch as he wants an iron club in the form of this Bill to take with him to any of the negotiating tables. There is no question but that the immediate application of this Bill will be to the north Queensland rainforest. However, we just heard Senator Black say that that is not important. That is even more serious when one considers that he happens to be a senator from Queensland. Without doubt, parts of the 9,000 square kilometres within the boundaries of the area that the Federal Government has nominated for World Heritage listing are indeed of unique value and should never be subject to commercial exploitation. The Opposition does not disagree with that. However, the State governments have agreed to set such areas aside from logging. Further, those areas are already within national parks. From the Opposition's point of view this debate is not about the need to protect the Daintree. What honourable senators can and should query is the blanket inclusion of areas that may be of far less significance and where a degree of carefully controlled exploitation could occur, at least in order to wind down logging more gradually. Of course, it will be interesting to see whether the Government receives donations from loggers for the next election-particularly after the loggers have been wiped out. Equally, the Senate should be aware that included in the ambit of the nominated area of this Bill are areas of private land, service areas and essential water catchment areas. Commercial quarries, for example, are scarcely deserving of World Heritage protection beside the Daintree. Local communities have every right to be concerned about a Federal Minister having the power, by virtue of clause 5 of this Bill, to prevent any upgrading of water supply or of existing hydro-electricity schemes. This Labor Government has not heeded such responsible voices as that of Dr Ross Florence, Reader in Forestry at the Australian National University, who last September warned that the Minister was taking a simplistic approach that failed to realise that wood production could exist alongside conservation. Sadly, since this Minister has assumed this portfolio, we have seen a totally simplistic attitude adopted to so many conservation issues. He has not really bothered to consult; he has only visited north Queensland particularly to ensure that he gets across his point of view that these people will lose their jobs, their livelihoods and their future. Dr Florence said that the Government was ignoring the possibility of adopting a socially acceptable strategy that would confine rainforest timber to a specialised end use. He pointed out that the situation in north Queensland is different from that in northern New South Wales, in respect of which lengthy debate took place about the prohibition of logging, and where forest diversity provided a buffer to the timber industry. It is both ironic and sad that a Minister in this Labor Government can dismiss the concerns of timber workers by dangling the prospect of alternative work in forestry tourism and firefighting. If this were not so serious it would be a joke. A moment ago we heard Senator Black say that these people would not lose their jobs, that they would have the options of employment in these other areas. However, Senator Black and the Minister should at least have known that the tourist industry does not create jobs suitable for male blue collar workers and, I suppose one could say, that there is little call for firefighters in an environment in which it rains for nine months of the year. Yet, these are serious jobs offered to those people. Firefighters where rain pours down nine months of the year? Really! If it were not so serious it would be laughable. The Government has proceeded with a blanket World Heritage listing, not because that is the only way of protecting those areas of undisputed value, but because the numbers men of the Labor Party-of whom Senator Richardson is the prime example, together with the Enmore Branch in New South Wales and so forth-believe that there are more votes in the environmental lobbies of the major cities than there are in rural timber communities. It is also a convenient way of providing a trade-off to the members of the extreme left of the ALP who dominate sections of the conservation movement. This cynical policy is creating not only an increase in the arbitrary power of this Federal Government, made so crystal clear in this Bill, but also frustrates the possibility of a national conservation policy that is based on a true consensus. It is alarming to see this Labor Government depart from the spirit of the 1983 national conservation strategy that defines conservation as the management of the total environment for the greatest sustainable benefit to present and future generations, thus embracing both preservation and sustainable utilisation of the natural environment. The strategy also recognises that Australia can best contribute to global conservation by maintaining its position as a supplier of food and resources. Therefore, I believe that Australians should be concerned when the Chairman of the Heritage Commission, Mr Pat Galvin, stated at a conference in Colorado last year-presumably with the concurrence of this Government-that conservation and development are antagonistic. But actions always speak louder than words and the Labor Party has already demonstrated inconsistency born of political cynicism over the Kakadu World Heritage area. Listing has applied to an area of 17,000 square kilometres, even though only 30 per cent of stages 1 and 2 of Kakadu have outstanding ecological significance. Indeed, some 67 per cent of stage 3 of Kakadu consists of bare rock, spinifex and shrubs over sandy soil. Let me remind the Senate that this area was once described by Senator Evans as `clapped out buffalo country', before the ALP started running so hard for the conservation vote. Of course, all of these attitudes change when the ALP tries to pander to certain interest groups to get a vote. This is a classic example of what has happened. In effect, the Government has sacrificed objectivity in the protection of an undoubtedly magnificent environmental resource to include acreage for the sake of political effect-not reality, but political effect. In so doing in September 1986, this Government broke its previous undertakings to consult with the Northern Territory Government in the listing of stage 2 and arbitrarily revoked earlier guidelines for mineral exploration. Of course, that is not uncommon either. Agreements are easily broken by this Government, not just with the Northern Territory but, of course, with the Tasmanian Government. One does not need to be Einstein to figure out why agreements are broken with governments that are not of the same political colour. Clearly the Labor Party will now play up to ill-informed prejudice to the effect that mining exploration is sinister and destructive. Future generations will not even know the mineral potential of areas of less than unique environmental importance that have been arbitrarily listed by the Federal Government. Similarly, this Government does not care that 20 per cent of the area covered in the north Queensland World Heritage listing is covered by mineral exploration titles. New technology allows for exploration techniques that do not damage the environment but, of course, that is not a consideration by this Government. It does not want to know about new technologies. All it wants to know is where it can grab an extra vote. It is not a matter of permitting mining in what may well be areas of greater environmental importance. We can now expect that no mineral exploration will proceed over this entire area. The 20 per cent of Australia's land surface already sealed away from exploration and rational assessment of its total land use potential can be expected to grow under this Hawke Government. The Opposition firmly believes that some areas must be conserved in their natural state for the benefit of present and, of course, future generations. We support the World Heritage listing of such areas where objective fact and broad agreement testify to their unique environmental significance. Accordingly, there has been no controversy over the nomination of such environmental treasures as Uluru or Lord Howe Island. World Heritage listing in itself involves no surrender of sovereignty, as the actions of the current United States and United Kingdom governments in listing unique buildings show us. What does concern the Opposition is when World Heritage nomination becomes the vehicle for a massive land grab by a Federal government that is both buying votes and is determined to increase the authority of central government. Such cynicism and insensitivity to both State governments and affected industries and their workers can only bring World Heritage listings-listings that are, in fact, an Opposition initiative-into disrepute. The people of Australia want their State and Federal governments to ensure the protection of those aspects of their environment that are unique and irreplaceable. Of course, there are thugs in this Federal Government who will override the State governments. They have little or no consideration for the State governments unless they are of their own colour. Of course, we have a situation currently in Western Australia where an area of Shark Bay on the coast north of Perth has now been put up for listing by the Western Australian Government. I do not believe that the Federal Government should intervene in respect of what the State governments want to do. Are the views of the local people in those areas ever taken into account? No, they are not, because the future of these people means absolutely nothing to Labor governments. But, at the same time, most Australians who live in cities appreciate the importance of those industries that must, to some degree, exploit the environment to survive and to create the jobs and wealth that Australia needs. But, once again, that is not a consideration because the green vote is yet again more important. The Opposition believes that the right balance can be achieved while the Labor Government panders purely and simply to one viewpoint and one viewpoint alone. In so doing, it overlooks the fact that some extreme conservationists have an irrational and sweeping dislike of the Australian timber industry. On 12 November 1984 Philip Toyne of the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) reportedly called for an inquiry into all logging in Australia, pending which it must stop. Certainly, ACF policy aims for the elimination of all forestry in native forests, with 50 per cent of them immediately reserved in national parks and severe interim restrictions on the remainder. This ACF policy would result in the loss of 5,000 direct jobs and of 18,000 to 37,000 indirect jobs in the short term, rising to 9,000 to 12,000 direct and 46,000 to 74,000 indirect jobs if all harvesting of native forests were to cease. Yet, this Government believes that the employment side of this Bill does not matter. We are talking about thousands of people who are going to be affected by this legislation. Yet, this Government says that it does not matter. Current turnover of $640m in forestry would fall to $460m in the short term and to $215m over the long term. This is a disgrace. Total turnover in the forest products industry that now stands at $8.1 billion would be cut by as much as $3.4 billion in the short term and by $6 billion over the long term when all logging ceased in native forests. We are talking about an industry that overall employs 92,000 Australians, the same number as the car industry, with exports of $340m offsetting a national timber import bill of $1 billion. It is ironic that a government that wants our industries to make use of the export opportunities caused by a depreciated dollar, and that wants heavy investment in industries where tariff protection is properly being cut, should be jeopardising the forest products industry that is investing heavily in pulp and paper production. As a senator from Western Australia, the State which, along with Tasmania, would be worst hit by a shut-down of the timber harvesting of native forests, I sound this warning about the trend of conservation policy under this Labor Government. This legislation would enable the Government-and particularly this Hawke Labor Government-at some future time when it felt a need to pursue the extreme conservation vote, to list the jarrah and karri forests of the south-west of Western Australia for blanket inclusion as World Heritage. I have grave concern about that because it is crystal clear that this is the objective of this Government. Never mind that these forests are carefully supervised by an expert and dedicated State Department of Conservation and Land Management. Never mind that some beautiful stands of karri are in fact regrown after earlier harvesting and that one major timber producer, Bunnings, employs almost 3,000 Australians. Never mind the fact that in 1986-87 this company was one of Australia's top 100 exporters, achieved sales worth $263m and returned $14m to the Government in taxation revenue. This Government does not worry about those things. It believes they are all expendable. The Government may say that it has no plans for the south-west of Western Australia but the fact remains that, through this Bill and its mechanism of inspectors, any Federal government has the means to shut down an essential industry in my State and override the professionals who are successfully conserving the forests, if sometimes in a manner not approved by the extreme conservationists. Then again it is unlikely that any work in the forests will ever be approved by those extremists. It is now nearly 10 years since the much criticised practice of controlled burn-offs saved the Manjimup forests from an Ash Wednesday-style conflagration in the wake of Cyclone Alby. Last year the Liberal Party criticised the actions of this Government and its Democrat allies in regard to the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests in Tasmania as an example of the blanket and unscientific listing of areas as part of the National Estate. But of course we see the Democrats once again hand in hand with this Government trying to override the States. They do not care; it does not matter to them; they can promise anything. Fortunately, they will never have to deliver anything because they will never be in government. They just pander to the green vote as well and pander to this Government, voting consistently with it without regard to the States. Once listed, all land, such as the Lemonthyme Forest, becomes deliberately confused with national parks with the dangerous assumption that land on the National Estate Register becomes, in effect, land under the control of the Federal Government. The principle behind this legislation is equally dangerous and should not be overlooked. The Federal Government is stepping outside its proper constitutional role, not to save unique areas that are in no practical danger, but to place yet larger areas of Australia under its direct supervision. In opposing this Bill-and opposing it very firmly-the Opposition is not trying to allow the logging of the Daintree Forest or denying the proper role of the Federal Government in working with the States in consultation to preserve the environment and to nominate truly magnificent areas to World Heritage listing. But this Government is simply going overboard. It has completely lost its marbles on this subject and it continues to pander to a particular group for votes. We seek to oppose the blatant centralism of a Labor government extending its control over land use, in subverting civil liberty through the employment of inspectors with ID cards who, I remind the Senate, can come onto a person's property at any time. If one does not allow them to come onto one's property, one can be fined or imprisoned. We also seek to oppose the Government's demanding carte blanche over the management of existing World Heritage areas. We also register our opposition to the practice of this Government of playing politics with the environment to the detriment of the mining and timber industries and their employees and to the ultimate detriment of responsible environment management. The Opposition and I, as a Western Australian senator, are committed to opposing this type of legislation. Senator AULICH(Tasmania)(11.35) —Today we are debating how to protect effectively the wet tropical rainforests of north-east Australia, nominated by Australia in 1987 for inclusion on the World Heritage List. I am proud to be involved in that process, just as I was proud to be involved in the protection and listing of the West Tasmania Wilderness Park in the early 1980s. I do not feel any of the self-consciousness that Senator Knowles somehow or other seems to indicate we should feel about our part in this process. We are talking about not only our heritage but also the heritage of our children. After all, we are caretakers-just caretakers-of this environment and our role is to ensure that we hand on that environment in as pristine condition as possible to future generations. That will always be done despite the objections of vested interest groups, developers and those who support them politically. Because of the protection of some jobs, but more particularly the gaining of money with the least possible effort, that process of objection will continue in this Parliament and in the community as long as this Government moves to protect the environment in an effective manner. That is the difference between our legislation-the way in which we approach the protection of the environment-and the approach that was taken by the Fraser Government, which moved only when it was forced to step in. I will mention that later when I get to the question of the Franklin River and its relationship with this Conservation Legislation Amendment Bill 1988. This legislation is basically a tightening of the current Act to ensure that areas of World Heritage value are protected immediately and effectively. As I indicated before, that is the basis on which we are operating. We want to be effective. We are not doing this for political purposes or for show; we are doing this because we want to make sure that we effectively protect those areas that are nominated for World Heritage listing. If one looks at the 288 sites in the world that have been protected by World Heritage listing one sees some of the great birthrights of mankind-that is, such things as the pyramids of Egypt, the Grand Canyon of the United States of America, the Taj Mahal, Chartres Cathedral in France and many others. In Australia we have about seven World Heritage sites: the Great Barrier Reef, stages of Kakadu National Park, Lord Howe Island and groups around it, West Tasmania Wilderness Park, Uluru National Park, Willandra Lakes region of western New South Wales and the subtropical rainforest park of New South Wales. Surely when we look at those 288 sites and areas on the World Heritage List, and we understand that in Australia we are able to provide at least seven significant parts of that list, then as Australians we ought to be proud that we are doing something about ensuring that future generations have access to those pieces of World Heritage. I make no apology for making legislation to protect those pieces of World Heritage as effective as possible. Let us have a look at the opposition to the Bill. It is interesting that, once again, as with the Bill of Rights and a number of other policies that were introduced in this chamber, the Opposition-and in particular the Queensland Government and to some extent the Tasmanian Government-has attempted to build a coalition of interest groups against the Bill, creating a bogyman amongst groups such as canefarmers, graziers, miners and timber companies, none of whom will ever be directly affected by this legislation. But of course the aim is not to debate the issue; not to work out how to ensure that our heritage is passed on to our children and that we play our part as a nation in this world to ensure that there is some future for the significant features that are beautiful, unique and important to the ecosystem. No, it is not that. The aim of the Opposition is to ensure that it builds up a coalition of fear, just as it did about the Australia Card and just as it did about the Bill of Rights. That is what it is doing with this piece of legislation. Let us look at some of the issues that Opposition senators raised and some of the deliberate misinterpretations they have made in their minds and forced onto the minds of others about what this Bill does. The first Opposition criticism is that large areas of Australia, especially in Queensland and Tasmania, will be locked up against mining and other developments. The truth is that mining companies have access to all land except national parks. That means effectively that they are locked out to some extent of about 13.4 per cent of Tasmania's land area and about 2 per cent of Queensland's land area. That is all the area that is locked up against mining by virtue of its being protected by its national park status. Further, the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, Senator Richardson, has also said that mining in the area under consideration, that is, the Queensland rainforest, is not banned per se. Decisions on mining will be made on a case by case basis provided-there are two provisos-that there is not wholesale clearing of rainforest and that the World Heritage values of the area are not compromised. The second criticism that has been thrown around with varying degrees of stupidity and cynicism amongst groups outside by the Opposition is that there will be a massive and new invasion of privacy and civil liberties as a result of this legislation. The truth is that under this legislation no inspector can enter private homes, with or without a warrant, under any circumstances whatsoever. Senator Parer —What about private property? Senator AULICH —The truth is also that, under State powers given to inspectors under existing State legislation of various kinds-noxious weed Acts and so on, particularly in the primary industry area-State inspectors are currently allowed in many cases the right of entry, despite the opposition of the land owner, and the right to prosecute, to destroy property and to confiscate property and stock. Senator Parer does not disagree with those powers in primary industry areas. For example, he believes that, if there is an outbreak of foot and mouth disease, the appropriate authorities should not be able to move in there overnight, destroy the stock and burn the buildings. Senator Messner —That is a totally different issue and you know it. Senator AULICH —Every Minister in this country who has a responsibility in the primary industry area accepts that the powers of inspectors and the various authorities to beat cattle disease and so on must be paramount for the protection of the community as a whole. Senator Messner says that that is a different story. But is it? The rights to entry, confiscation and destruction are already in the hands of State authorities. I say to those people who are fearful about this Bill that, if they are concerned about Big Brother invading their privacy, and if they are farmers, they should go into their back paddocks because Big Brother is already there; he probably is the inspector from the primary industry department in that area because those inspectors have more powers than will any inspector appointed under this legislation. Since I have been in this forum, in the Senate, and in the six years that I was in the State Parliament, I have not heard one objection to the powers that primary industry inspectors have in various areas under State legislation. Yet Opposition members quibble about having inspectors under this legislation who, for example, will not be able to enter private homes, with or without a warrant. Of course, Opposition members are not interested in the truth of this matter. They are interested only in stirring up a coalition of fear amongst groups that will not be affected. They are doing it for political purposes. The next point-it is an interesting one-that mining companies have made is that they object to the legislation because of the powers to enter properties. The mining companies should talk! They know very well indeed that under relevant State legislation-by giving the land owner two days notice in Queensland and three days notice in Tasmania, for example-they can enter property and explore without the permission of the land owner, provided that they have a permit to do so from the mining department with the relevant powers in that State. The land owner can object as much as he likes, but the mining companies can enter that property and begin drilling. In Tasmania, with the exception of about 2 per cent of land in certain parts that was handed out in grants in the early 1820s or so, land owners do not have the mining rights to their land. In terms of mineral rights, 98 per cent of all land in Tasmania is owned by the Crown. For example, if the Crown decides to allow, say, an oil exploration company to enter a property, provided that company gives the owner three days notice it can enter the property and begin drilling and exploration despite the objections of the land owner. Yet the mining companies have the hide-and I must say the hypocrisy-to go out in the general community and say that this legislation takes away people's rights to private property and to prevent people from entering their land. I cannot believe that they are being anything less than cynical in that. The next point is that Opposition members have been indicating quite clearly around the traps, wherever they can get away with it-for example, wherever one of us is not there to correct the misinterpretations that they push around-that this legislation takes away the rights of States and individuals to have access to the courts, particularly the High Court of Australia. The Tasmanian mining industry, through its executive body, has indicated just that. It has said that this legislation prevents access by States or individuals to the High Court. This is such arrant nonsense that there should be no need even here today to point out that under our Constitution all legislation passed by this chamber, by the Parliament, is subject to the right of States and of individuals to challenge its validity in the High Court. There has never been any doubt in the minds of Opposition senators about the right of States and individuals to do such a thing. There has never been any doubt that they have access to the High Court; yet the Opposition continues to push this lie out in the community, for various reasons best known to them, primarily political. Why does Australia need this Bill? Quite simply, we need the Bill because history has shown, and current political experience tells us, that State governments alone cannot be trusted to protect the environment; that some State governments are much more subject to pressure from short term development groups; that some are more corrupt than others; and that, in the end, they cannot be trusted as caretakers of this environment, of World Heritage listed sites and places. Let us look at some of the examples that prove conclusively that State governments in many areas cannot be trusted to protect the environment. I do not want to dredge up old scandals, but we need to look at the track record because people who do not learn from history will be condemned to repeat it over and over again. Let us look at Queensland, for example, and the Great Barrier Reef, one of the unique assets not only of Australia but of the world. That is why it is one of the 288 great places of the world listed for World Heritage listing. Everybody in this chamber and 99 per cent of Australians have no doubt that the Great Barrier Reef has to be protected. Yet that was not always so. If we look at the record of the Queensland Government in 1969, we see that there were numerous attempts by private enterprise to suborn that Government through various mechanisms. The first, for example, was the Comalco company which gave preferential shares to members of the Queensland Cabinet; they admitted that. The Premier at the time, Joh Bjelke-Petersen, admitted that his Cabinet had accepted shares from Comalco at a discounted price. It got preference shares-that is, shares that were sold at a cheaper price than those on the market. Those people in that Cabinet had the hide to come out, through Joh Bjelke-Petersen, and defend their right, as Ministers, to sit in the Queensland Cabinet and make decisions about the environment. Comalco was one of those interested in touching up the Barrier Reef. Senator Parer —Rubbish! Absolute rubbish! Comalco was not involved in the Barrier Reef. Senator AULICH —I invite Senator Parer to have a look at all the share listings and the ownerships of companies. They believed that they had the right, as Cabinet Ministers, to accept shares from a private company at a preferential rate. That is something that none of us in this chamber would accept, but it was accepted then. Senator Parer —Comalco had nothing to do with the Barrier Reef. Senator AULICH —Senator Parer has provoked me, so I will get down to details. Let us talk about the Premier of Queensland who made decisions about the Great Barrier Reef. We will get closer to home. In January 1969 some 40 groups of oil search companies applied for exploration permits on the Great Barrier Reef. The then Premier, Joh Bjelke-Petersen, held 49 per cent of shares in Artesian Basin Oil Co. Pty Ltd, which, in turn, held one million shares in Exoil NL, which was an applicant for a lease on the reef. So the Premier, through Artesian Basin Oil Co. Pty Ltd, held shares in Exoil which was an applicant to examine and explore the reef for oil. Senator Parer provoked me to illustrate that clear example of what can happen in State governments that can be bought by development interests. A Premier and a Cabinet can be bought. How can we hand total control of the environment to such a government? If Senator Parer believes that such governments will not exist in future, obviously he is pretty naive. Let us look at some of the other activities of the Queensland Government. There was the Lindeman Island affair. In a semi-secret deal which leaked out, the Queensland Government tried to sell off Lindeman Island to a consortium connected with the then Premier's friend, or the Premier's then friend-I am not sure which phrase I should use-Sir Edward Lyons, known colloquially as Top Level Ted. At that time, in order to dampen down the understandable anger of most Queensland citizens and the disgust of other Australians, the Queensland Government promised that a further 23 islands would be gazetted as national parks. That is what it promised a couple of years ago. Nothing has been done about that promise. Not one of those 23 islands has been gazetted. That is a shameful breach of the Queensland Government's responsibilities under its respective environmental Acts. It told a shameful lie at the time to dampen down enthusiasm. That shows how much the Queensland Government can be trusted. Honourable senators will remember the Bellevue Hotel affair in 1979. Let us go over that again. It was in one of the most beautiful parts of Brisbane, which could have become a beautiful city. Because there were public protests about the loss of a State monument-it was a State monument; it was a very beautiful section comprising the Parliament, the Queensland Club and the Bellevue Hotel-and to get around universal support for the retention of the Bellevue Hotel, the Premier had the bulldozers move in on a Saturday, at about midnight, with police protection, to demolish it. One of Queensland's most beautiful buildings went to the ground. When people woke up the following morning the building had gone. When the Premier was queried about that he said, `I congratulate the demolishers on a job well done'. Do honourable senators believe that that Government should be given control over the environment? Do they believe that the Federal government, of whatever political persuasion, ought not to have the right to protect our unique historical and environmental assets? Not one person in this House really believes that in his own heart of hearts. Let us look at another matter, with which I was associated as a Tasmanian Cabinet Minister-the Franklin River issue. In the early 1980s the then Tasmanian Labor Government made a decision, which cost it office-we knew pretty well that it might cost us office; we were not naive about it-to save the Franklin River and to declare that area a national park. We rejected, for the first time in the history of a Tasmanian government, the recommendations of the Hydro Electric Commission to dam the Franklin River. We said that we would put a dam elsewhere. The Hydro Electric Commission went out and effectively knocked off that Government. The Gray Government succeeded the Labor Government. It began work as quickly as possible on the Franklin River to put a dam there. It told people that if a dam was not built, industry would dry up. It said that Tasmania desperately needed the 130 or so megawatts of electricity that would come out of that dam. The Government and the Hydro Electric Commission lied at the time-because now that the dam has not been built the new Hydro Electric Commissioner has stated publicly that not one megawatt of the electricity that supposedly would have come from that scheme has been taken up by Tasmanian industry. So at a cost of $1,000m, 130 megawatts of power would have been produced and Tasmania would have been in enormous debt for absolutely nothing. The Gray Government intended to dam one of the most exciting and beautiful rivers not only in Australia but in the world. It is the last wild river in Australia. If honourable senators doubt that, I invite them to go up it some time. Premier Gray described the river as a leech-ridden brown ditch. That boy is a man of soul! The Hawke Federal Labor Government moved in and saved the river. We won an appeal by the Tasmanian Government in the High Court of Australia. We beat the Tasmanian Government on that and saved the river. Now we see that the Tasmanian Government, in its official brochures, promotes the Franklin River; it promotes the national park that the Labor Government brought in at its own cost. The Liberal Government now says, `Come to Tasmania because we have beautiful national parks; we have the Franklin River'. It does not include, in brackets, the words `which the Hawke Government saved and about which the Tasmanian Labor Government of the day made the right decision'. Also, the Tasmanian Government does not say that about a year or so ago 300,000 people visited national parks in Tasmania. It does not tell us about the economic value of national parks, let alone the value to people's peace of mind of knowing that there is a pristine wilderness which they can pass on to their children. I was proud to be involved in that decision, just as today I am proud to be able to make sure that we have legislation which effectively protects the environment and assets that are of World Heritage value. The Bill is not about giving police powers. It is about making sure that we are effective. It means, for example, that if a State government, in its stupidity, short-sightedness or greed, decides to circumvent what we are doing in terms of listing something on the World Heritage List, we will be able, as a government, to stop that without having to have spy flights over a State and without having to send in people with secret cameras. We are giving inspectors their just and appropriate powers to ensure that the vandals do not get in and ruin that asset before it is officially listed by the World Heritage Committee. We recognise that a long and complex stage of discussion is involved when something is put on the World Heritage List. We know that in that time that particular area or site is vulnerable to attack by the vandals. I have already indicated that those vandals can take the form of private developers in there for a quick dollar or the form of a State government which is determined, for political reasons, to ensure that those developers can get in there. The Franklin River for example still bears scars because Robin Gray and the Liberal Government of the day, knowing that there was a High Court of Australia challenge coming which they might lose, moved in with the bulldozers. Those scars are there now as a testimony to the need for interim protection and that we need effective protection by the Federal Government to ensure that those vandals do not destroy the asset before it can be listed. If the World Heritage Committee decides in its wisdom that it does not wish to list a particular site or asset, what has been lost? Only a year or so. Senator Parer —A stack of jobs. Senator AULICH —Senator Parer has said, `A stack of jobs'. I ask Senator Parer why something like 6,000 jobs in the Tasmanian timber industry have gone down the chute in the last 20 years. They have been lost not because land has been locked up by the greenies, a green Federal Government or green State Labor governments. The jobs have gone because of technology. They have gone because we sold our assets in the timber industry short. That is why, for example, the Tasmanian Government had to reduce the allocation to the timber companies by 20 per cent about six years ago. A Labor government backed up by a Liberal government, went out and sold, to the Japanese in particular, contracts for volumes of timber which it could not fulfil. Why did this happen? It happened because we never bothered to find out what the volume asset was in Tasmania. We sold our birthright in Tasmania. I sat in the offices of some of those Japanese companies in January this year. I listened to those companies say what they think of us. I know that we were very foolish indeed. Just as I was proud to be involved in saving the Franklin River, I feel ashamed to have been involved in the selling off of Tasmania's forests at the cheapest possible price-a price which I believe makes us a laughing stock of Japanese companies. I asked one particular company two questions: `What are you going to do if, politically, it is not possible to get woodchips out of Tasmania? What will happen if Tasmanians say, ``We do not want to sell at rock bottom prices. We don't want to rip off our forests; we don't have the volume to supply you''?'. The Japanese said, `It is simple. We go to Chile because we do not have trade union problems there'. I thought that they were joking, but they were not. They said, `We go to China where they are doing very well with their new plantings of exotics because they are getting rid of their beech trees'. I thought, `Yep, that is the way exploitive companies view the world'. If we are foolish enough to put our heads on the block to cut out the environments that are important to us and our children, we ought to be ashamed of ourselves. This Bill is about making sure that our own short-sightedness does not dominate the economic and environmental agenda in this country. I am proud to be here today to say that we are going to be effective about protecting World Heritage listing. I make no apologies about that. I deride the sorts of viewpoints pushed around the community by people such as Senator Boswell and Senator Knowles. I think that there is a point at which ideology has to end and a point at which we have to look at what we are giving to our children and to the future. The environment is a once-off thing. Once it is gone, it is gone. To let the Queensland rainforests be cut down, ruined and given away is the equivalent of putting dynamite in the pyramids of Egypt. If that is what honourable senators opposite want to do, if that is the way they think, let them say so now. If they do not think that way but think about the future and our children's future, I ask them to vote with the Bill because there is no other option but to ensure that we protect World Heritage listings not only in the long term but also in the interim to ensure that the asset is still there when the Committee says, `Yes, we want to list it because Australia has an eighth wonder of the world that we think is worth protecting'. Senator PARER(Queensland)(12.05) —Today we are debating the Conservation Legislation Amendment Bill 1988 to amend the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 and the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974. I think that I should say from the outset, because Senator Aulich has said that in his opinion we on this side of the chamber are not interested in conservation, that we are very interested in conservation. However, we are not interested in preservation. That is the antithesis of conservation. We are interested in preserving areas that need to be preserved. But what we are objecting to in regard to most areas is the way in which the conservation has been done, the way in which the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson) has ridden roughshod not only over the Queensland Government but also over people who live in the areas concerned. I am most intrigued to find that honourable senators opposite, who are supposed to represent workers, their way of life and their living standards, have barely mentioned those workers in the debate. Their attitude is, `Who cares about the people who have been there for two or three generations; who cares that they cannot sell their homes; who cares that people with families are pulling their kids out of schools because they cannot afford the school fees?'. Even if they were able to move to other areas, they are unable to do so. I think that we have to balance the rights of individuals. It is wrong to go back and say to such people after all these years that they have been vandals. However, the areas these people are supposed to have vandalised are now being nominated for World Heritage listing. I refer honourable senators opposite to the remarks of Professor Percy Harris from James Cook University in this regard. The Federal Government's environmental policy is in a shambles. It is in a shambles because it has been politicised by the Minister. The Minister in a knee-jerk reaction, supported by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), decided before the last election that come hell or high water there were some political brownie points to be gained by riding roughshod over people in north and far north Queensland, hoping like hell thereby that as a result, although they might almost certainly lose the seat of Leichhardt, they might retain some marginal seats in Sydney and Melbourne. That is a disgrace. I think that the old-time Labor people would be rolling in their graves at that treatment of individuals in north and far north Queensland-individuals who only want to have an honest and decent living. In summary, the effect of the amendments will be as follows: they will declare retrospectively that World Heritage legislation is not subject to any provisions of the Environment Protection Act. Any High Court of Australia challenge by the Queensland Government on current grounds would therefore not be possible. Incidentally, the aim of the Queensland Government challenge was to question the scientific evidence. We have heard a lot from honourable senators opposite about how good the scientific evidence is. They have cited scientific authorities here and scientific authorities there. However I ask: if the scientific evidence is really so good, why prevent by legislation a High Court appeal on the basis of scientific evidence? The amendments propose also to establish that the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) so-called World Heritage Commission has total responsibility for the determination of World Heritage nominations. As a result of the amendments no appeal to any nomination by the Federal Government would be possible in an Australian court. The amendments propose to establish a new definition of `identified property'. For example, it would be any property subject to inquiry by the Commonwealth about its cultural heritage or natural heritage. I say also that the Bill does not set out any procedures for an inquiry. They are not detailed. The definition would also include any property included in the World Heritage List or property declared by Commonwealth regulation to form part of Australia's cultural or natural heritage. The amendments set out to establish that identified property may be protected by Commonwealth proclamation which may restrict activity on that property. The Commonwealth can define the restricted activity. The amendments propose to establish inspectors with power to enter and search private property, including vehicles but excluding private dwellings on an identified property. The penalty for obstruction or hindrance of an inspector is a fine of $1,000 or imprisonment for 12 months. The Queensland Government has challenged the World Heritage listing of the north Queensland rainforests in the High Court of Australia on the basis that the Hawke Government does not have scientific or technical evidence to support its case. I think it is worth quoting Dr Joe Baker, a retired chairman of the Australian Heritage Commission. At a meeting held in Cairns on 19 February 1988 he slammed the Federal Government nomination of the wet tropics on the basis that the case was badly prepared, that the boundaries could not be justified, and that current scientific studies were not complete. At an earlier time the Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies at the Australian National University took a similar view. It saw little science in the nomination process and questioned the wisdom of extensive reservation of areas of forest types already well reserved and the exclusion of other forest types inadequately reserved and already at risk. So the major purpose of this Bill is to prevent the court challenge and to do so retrospectively. Individuals and State governments will have no legal avenue to challenge the nomination of their property within Australia. The Bill is an absolute attack on natural justice and a gross infringement of the civil rights of every Australian. To make the legislation retrospective is intolerable. It is quite apparent that the Government is not confident of winning in the High Court, and the amendments proposed in this Bill effectively castrate those Acts which could be used in a legal challenge to the Government's action. While I am aware of the view of the Australian Democrats on World Heritage listing, the issues we are considering today are far wider than those involving the environment. There is no way in the world that the founder of the Australian Democrats, Don Chipp, would have had a bar of this legislation. There are many other offensive aspects of the Bill. One of the most objectionable amendments is that which seeks to remove the precondition that an area nominated for World Heritage listing must form part of the cultural heritage or natural heritage of Australia. Under this Bill such matters will be determined by the World Heritage Committee, which Senator Richardson tells us is the appropriate and proper authority to do so. What this will mean, of course, is that Australians will not be able to decide for themselves whether an area is worthy of World Heritage listing. Instead, those decisions will be made by foreign bureaucrats in Paris who will dictate what we can and cannot do with our country on the instruction of their own national governments. I ask: Will the Government go further and let the International Labour Organisation set wage rates for Australian labour or let the Security Council determine how Australian troops should be deployed? This amendment will also prevent the Government's nomination of the north Queensland rainforests being tested in the courts on its scientific and technical merits. If the Government truly believed that the entire nominated area was worthy of World Heritage listing, it would not be worried about the validity of that listing being challenged in the courts. Yet, the major purpose of this Bill is to prevent such a challenge. Surely even the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, Senator Richardson, can see that for the sake of fair play he owes the Queensland Government and the countless hundreds of local people who will be affected by this policy a day in court to test the validity of the decision. So much for the Government's much vaunted policy of consensus. I wish to refer to a booklet put out by Senator Richardson's own Department wherein he talks about the process for nominating Australian properties for inclusion on the World Heritage List. The booklet reads: During the July 1984 meeting of the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers (CONCOM), some guidelines were agreed to apply to new nominations of Australian sites to the World Heritage List, which involved full consultation with the State and Territory Governments. We know that this Government has a habit of breaking its promises and changing tack. However, these guidelines were reaffirmed at the November 1987 meeting of CONCOM. They were reaffirmed at the same time as the Minister was riding roughshod over the Queensland Government and not consulting with it. Those guidelines have been reaffirmed as recently as 1987. The 1984 guidelines also included inviting the State and Territory governments to submit suggestions of places to be examined with a view to possible nomination to the World Heritage List. That is fine. No-one disagrees with that. The aim is that the State governments nominate areas for listing, the Federal Government looks at the nominations and determines whether they are worthy of listing and, if so, nominates them for inclusion on the World Heritage List. The booklet produced by Senator Richardson's Department goes further. I think Senator Richardson should read his own publications, for it reads: Once a State or Territory Government has endorsed a potential World Heritage nomination, of course, the Federal Government needs to assess the proposal to ensure that the strict criteria set down by the World Heritage Committee are met as the World Heritage List must remain an exclusive list of the world's natural and cultural treasures. What we are saying is that Senator Richardson should read his own guidelines. The Government is not confident about the validity of its nomination, so it has chosen the coward's way out of vandalising legislation to prevent the possiblity of its decision being tested. Maybe its decision will be overturned; I do not know. What is the Government worried about? What Senator Richardson is saying is that if he and his Department say that white is black and a committee of foreign diplomats agrees with that proposition, then not even the High Court of Australia can intervene to set the matter right. The total hypocrisy of this amendment is demonstrated by the fact that, although Senator Richardson stated in his second reading speech that it was his view that the ultimate World Heritage test should be left to the World Heritage Committee, the Government has retained the right for itself in proposed new section 3a (1) (iv) to declare property as part of the cultural or natural heritage. The Government wants to have its cake and eat it too. Another amendment in this Bill which seeks to ride roughshod over the rights of the States and the people is that which broadens the definition of identified property. This provision will give the Government power to prohibit activity in areas that it is merely thinking about having declared at some later time as part of the World Heritage. Part III of the Bill seeks to insert in the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 a provision which will exclude World Heritage areas from the Government's own environment impact assessment legislation, in the past, the present or the future. It is clear that the Government has moved retrospectively to cure any breach which may have occurred when its nomination of the north Queensland rainforest was lodged with the World Heritage Committee in December last year. Such is the arrogance of this Minister and of the Government that they believe that they are not obliged to undergo the same process of social environmental assessment which they demand of others. The Bill provides also for the establishment of the Richardson police, so ably referred to by my colleague Senator Puplick. The Minister will appoint his own army of inspectors who will be able to enter and search people's private property and vehicles, and those inspectors will be able to do that with or without a warrant. There has been a cover-up in that regard. Senator Richardson indicated in his second reading speech that all sorts of safeguards would be put in place. If anyone hinders or obstructs Senator Richardson's Rambos they will be subject to a fine of $1,000 or 12 months imprisonment, or both. I think it is worth referring to a Press release put out yesterday, I believe, by the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties. It is very much a Labor organisation, the President being Mr Stephen Keim. Stephen Keim is very heavily associated with the Australian Labor Party in the Hendra area of Brisbane. His Press release reads in part: The Council is concerned at any extension of powers for the State to interfere in the lives of its citizens. He was referring, in fact, to the proposed penalties. The Press release continues. Any such extension of these powers, even if justified in the individual case, needs to be accompanied by the strictest of safeguards. The Council- that is, the Council for Civil Liberties in Queensland- calls upon the Minister to ensure that relevant changes are made to the legislation to provide the safeguards called for. Is it any wonder that people are saying that the Labor Party has lost its touch? This is a Labor Party organisation and these are its views on this sort of draconian legislation. The question must be asked: Why is the Minister making provision in this Bill for the Government to set up its own police force with quite unprecedented powers? This is East European stuff, totalitarian government stuff. I will be interested to see how Labor senators on the other side of the chamber, who often claim to uphold human rights, will vote on this quite unacceptable invasion of individual privacy. There are two major criteria for World Heritage listing. Firstly, the area must be worthy of being listed. Everyone agrees with and understands that. Secondly, and equally importantly, the Government must be able to show that the area can be properly managed. It is no good having an area which is worthy of being listed if it cannot be properly managed. To do this, the Government needs the support of the State in which the nominated area lies-in this case Queensland. The Government and the Minister clearly do not have that support. I have a copy of the nomination of the wet tropical rainforest for inclusion in the World Heritage List, which was signed on 23 December 1987 on behalf of the State Party-and when I say `State' under the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and National Heritage, `State' means the Federal Government of Australia and the people of Australia-by Graham Frederick Richardson, Minister of State for Environment and the Arts. I refer in particular to clause 2 (c) on page 3 of the nomination. The question is asked: Who will be responsible for the administration? The answer is: The public property is administered by the Government of the State of Queensland . . . It goes on to outline the Department of Forestry, the Lands Administration Commission and so on. It says: The Government of Australia has enacted the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 to implement its responsibilities and obligations arising from the World Heritage Conventions. A joint authority of the Australian and Queensland Governments is envisaged to assume responsibility for administration of the property. I refer again to clause 4 on page 17 of the nomination. When the question is asked about management plans the answer is: There are Statements of Purpose and Management Guidelines for the National Parks managed by the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service. I go to page 16 which refers to the agent responsible for preservation conservation. The answer is: Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service Queensland Department of Forestry Lands Administration Commission, Queensland- and, again, the envisaged joint authority. This is very serious stuff because to an international body reading this nomination, it would appear that the area being proposed was proposed with the enthusiastic support of all parties. Yet there has been no consultation or agreement with the Government of Queensland, the people responsible for land administration in that State. The document is a fraud. A Minister of the Crown in this Government, I believe, has set out deliberately to mislead an international organisation-UNESCO. It is a dishonest act by a Minister. He should resign and if he does not he should be sacked by the Prime Minister. Senator Gareth Evans —On a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President: I draw your attention to the allegation being made of dishonesty. It is unparliamentary language, as the honourable senator would be aware. I ask that he withdraw it. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Morris) —Senator Parer, I ask you to withdraw. Senator PARER —I withdraw. Perhaps I should rephrase my comment to say it was a deliberately misleading statement. Senator Gareth Evans —With the utmost respect, Mr Acting Deputy President, `deliberately misleading' is utterly synonymous with the expression `dishonest'. Senator Parer ought to be able to appreciate the verbal point involved and not pursue what is an unprofitable attempt to breach Standing Orders. I ask that he withdraw `deliberately misleading'. Senator Short —Mr Acting Deputy President, on the point of order: There is a world of difference between the two expressions used. There can be no suggestion that the term `deliberately misleading' is unparliamentary. I ask you to override Senator Evans's point. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I uphold the point of order. Senator PARER —I will rephrase that and say that there is a misleading statement in the nomination signed by the Minister for the environment. Senator Gareth Evans —Yes. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Evans will accept that. Senator PARER —The Government must withdraw the nomination for World Heritage listing and get into sensible discussions with the Queensland Government, as outlined by Senator Puplick in his speech. It is important to refer to the copy of a telex from the Premier of Queensland to the Prime Minister, which Senator Boswell had incorporated in Hansard during his speech. The Premier said: 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 confrontation 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 Honourable senators opposite have a habit of saying that the Minister has attempted all methods of consultation with the Queensland Government. Clearly that is not true. I made a point earlier that in the nomination for World Heritage listing there were statements which were misleading because the implication to foreign people receiving this document from UNESCO is that everyone is happy with the nomination. That is not the case. I have suggested that the nomination be withdrawn, sensible discussions take place and some balanced view come forward which has that support. The reason I say that the area cannot be managed-and this is the major second part of any nomination where, first, an area must be worthy of being listed and, secondly, it must be able to be managed-is that the Queensland Government has the responsibility for land management within its boundaries. Without the cooperation of the State, the listing will be an absolute fiasco, as the area cannot be managed. Notwithstanding Senator Richardson's blatant attempt to mislead the World Heritage Committee, it is aware of this fatal flaw in the nomination. I understand that there is every possibility that in November a decision on listing will be postponed until there is cooperation between the Federal and State governments. In other words, the World Heritage Committee clearly is embarrassed about this issue becoming a political football. I would like to quote from a telex sent by the Ambassador to UNESCO, Mr Charles Mott, to the Federal Minister for the environment, Senator Richardson. He complained that members of the World Heritage Committee were resentful about having to resolve what should be domestic issues. He is reported to have said: We are the only country that sends its internal difficulties to the committee on an annual basis and, to this extent, appear to be earning a bit of a reputation for eccentricity. Senator Gareth Evans —Blame the States and Territories, not the Federal Government. Senator PARER —Senator Evans knows, as Mr Ahern and I know, that if Senator Richardson were prepared to enter into consultations with the Queensland Government led by Mr Mike Ahern some resolution of this matter could come about. He has decided to ride roughshod over it for cheap political Brownie points. He thinks that by doing that the Government will get a few marginal seats in Sydney and Melbourne even though the seat of Leichhardt is down the gurgler-nothing more, nothing less. To continue with Mr Mott's remarks, he says: Some members resent being placed in a position of having to react to and resolve matters they think should be resolved in Australia. . . . . . . . . . He warned that the Queensland rainforests issue was shaping up as a Kakadu rerun and urged Senator Richardson to find a solution. We are also urging Senator Richardson to find a solution. We have told him how to do it-by withdrawing the nomination and getting into consultation with the Queensland Government. It is not opposed to the preservation of areas that it believes are worthy of listing or worthy of being preserved. In conclusion, I repeat that it should be an embarrassment not only to this Government but also to every person in this country that a Minister has placed a nomination before the World Heritage Committee of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation which implies that everyone is happy with that nomination when, clearly, that is not a fact. Hence he has been reprehensible to an international organisation. As I said earlier, it is bad enough if a Minister does it within the Parliament, but when a Minister goes overseas to an international organisation he is putting at stake the credibility of not only the Government of this country but also the country itself. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(12.32) —I am glad of the opportunity to join my colleagues on the Opposition benches in opposing this legislation, which I feel is a very unacceptable continuation of a collection of legislation to do with the environment which this Government has been putting in place over the months that it has been in office. There is no need for the Commonwealth Government to take these heavy-handed actions when there is an effective method of co-operation with the States-the so-called famous consensus for which the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) regards himself as such an expert. If he had been such an expert, he would have been able to achieve much more by co-operation instead of trying to use the heavy hand of centralist power. There is considerable concern in the country at this increasing trend of the Federal Government to move into areas which have always traditionally been the responsibility of the States. No State has suffered more in this area than my State of Tasmania. I do not wish to speak at length on this piece of legislation but, first of all, I want to congratulate Senator Puplick on his excellent speech, which set out the problems which the Opposition sees in this legislation. It is interesting, when considering trends towards centralism and control of these matters being taken more and more by the Federal Government, to look at the proposals that are coming forward from the Constitutional Commission that relate to this area. I was very interested to read that the Constitutional Commission has looked at the question of the use of the foreign treaty power by the Commonwealth Government and has chosen to make no recommendations as to the limitation of its use in so far as it affects intrusion into powers normally exercised by the States. I am sad that the Constitutional Commission, which has seen fit to bring down so many recommendations on changes to the Constitution, has not seen fit to make a recommendation in this area. I think it is curious and significant that it has studied the matter and has chosen not to make a recommendation. It bears out my concerns that the Constitutional Commission and its advisory committees have been hand-picked for the job by this Government. All this points to one direct, determined effort by the Commonwealth to become a centralist, powerful government in Canberra, dictating to individuals and to the States as to how these matters can be dealt with. I have lived in Tasmania for many years now and I feel that we are often given very poor Press coverage on the mainland. On many occasions I have known the full details of something which relates to an environmental matter only to find that it has been portrayed very differently on the mainland. A very clear example of this only recently was the question of pollution in the Macquarie Harbour area of Tasmania which was alleged to be the cause of poisoning of a large number of fish in a fish hatchery. I was intrigued to find that the 7.30 Report on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) carried quite a long item on this matter. It gave all the information that was adverse to Tasmania's reputation as an environmentally careful place and failed to carry to the mainland an interview which was carried in Tasmania as part of the story. There was very selective editing by the ABC's 7.30 Report staff. So the answers to the allegations were never carried on the mainland while they went to air in Tasmania. It has been a feature of the environmental debate over the last few years that explanations of the true situation are often not understood on the mainland. I wonder whether the Federal Government does not get to know the facts in environmental debates that take place a long way from Canberra, or whether it is determined to ignore the facts. Certainly, when it comes to the debates that we have had recently in Tasmania and Queensland, the Federal Government has been prepared to blunder on regardless of the realities of the situation. But matters come to a head when we see the powers that the Government is prepared to give to people it employs to go onto private land as inspectors. This is one of the features that concerned me on the Lemonthyme legislation, over which we fought very hard in this place last year. I recall that the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills was very critical at the time of the power that was to be given to the commissioners to go onto private land. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee said that paragraph 14 (c) of the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests legislation: . . . confers on the member or authorised person a broad power to enter upon private land based upon nothing more than the personal opinion of the person exercising the power. The Committee went on to say: . . . by providing such a broad power of entry upon land it might be considered to trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties. That is virtually what the Government is doing now. There are some differences but not enough to make it very significant. The Government is allowing its inspectors, who may or may not be police officers, to go onto private land in certain circumstances without any warrant or consent. I believe that it is quite unacceptable to be continually widening the class of persons who can go onto private land. We now have a vast army of people who would be able to do such things. All Australians should be concerned at this increasing power of the bureaucracy to enter onto private land without the approval of the courts or the consent of the owners. The entry in itself is serious, but I believe that the widening of the class of people who can go onto private land is also serious. I have drawn this matter to the attention of the Chairman of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee because I believe that it is an area in this legislation to which that Committee has not given sufficient thought. It is certainly an area which is concerning very much the industries that understand what this legislation will do to private property. A number of honourable senators have had letters from industries concerned about this. I do not think there is any need to go into that in any detail, except to say that the offering of these powers to wider classes of people is quite unacceptable, not just to the Opposition but also to the people outside this chamber. I also find it quite unacceptable that judges of the High Court of Australia seem to be no longer the ones who will have the ability to decide matters such as heritage values. Those decisions will now be made not by our judges but by people outside Australia. When one looks at some of the countries that are signatories to the World Heritage Convention one wonders why the Australian Government would give people in those countries power over decisions that affect us. I refer to Mozambique, the Laos People's Democratic Republic, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Cuba, Haiti, Ethiopia-many countries that do not seem to be able to run their own countries too well, and have forms of government that we certainly would not want to see having an impact on the way we run our country. However, the Hawke Labor Government seems to be prepared to give that power to other countries. I for one find that quite intolerable. I find quite unacceptable the whole direction of power that the Government is adopting. I refer to the power given by the Government, firstly, to other countries and, secondly, to its employees-that is, to bureaucrats. They are empowered to go on to privately owned land in Australia. The Government is also prepared to take unto itself power in making decisions in Canberra, not always in full possession of the facts and quite often against the wishes of people who live in the more remote areas of Australia. I find intolerable that the Government is continuing down a path which, it is quite clear, many people in Australia find unacceptable. I find intolerable also that the Government's line seems to be nothing more than a cheap stunt in order to keep the Australian Labor Party in office by boosting its stocks in Sydney and Melbourne, where it believes it can win more seats. These measures are certainly not politically attractive to people in most areas of Australia. However, by the Government's dominance of House of Representatives seats in New South Wales and Victoria, it believes it is good politics to play for the greenie vote in those electorates. I fear that the Government is losing touch with its natural constituency, if such it be-the working men and women of Australia. Those people have seen through this nonsense. They understand that it is a political ploy, that it is not based on principle. Indeed, this Government does not seem to have many principles. It is prepared to chase the greenie vote down the holes and burrows and up and down the trees; but it does not seem to care too much about the people whose jobs will be affected by its actions. I warn the Government that the people in those jobs realise how vulnerable their jobs are now that the Government has jettisoned any pretence at trying to look after people. The Government seems to be concerned more about trees than about people. But we know that the Government is concerned about trees only in so far as that affects votes in certain localised areas. I trust that the electorate will give the Government a bit of a surprise on Saturday so that the Government will realise that its jettisoning of principles has not paid off. Any government that goes down the track of governing simply by what it perceives to be the opinion polls, and has no caring for the men and women who need their jobs and want to support their families, deserves to be given a shock by the people-and a shock the Government certainly will be given on Saturday. I hope that the people in rural New South Wales particularly, who understand just what it means to care more about trees than people, will send a message to Canberra as well as to Sydney on Saturday. I am glad that the Opposition opposes this legislation. We certainly have a fine record on environmental matters, and we are not ashamed of what we have done in the past. We believe that when we attain government we will achieve a much more honourable record on environmental matters. The Federal Government is not an environmentally alert and aware government. It is an unprincipled government that will do anything for a vote regardless of the men and women of Australia who are working to keep their families and to increase the wealth of this country. This sort of legislation, with its quite obnoxious overtones, is destined, fortunately, eventually to bring down the Government. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Morris) —Order! It being 12.45 p.m., I call on matters of public interest. Senator BISHOP(New South Wales)(12.45) —I have spoken several times in the last few weeks in this chamber about issues concerning the State of New South Wales in terms of the gerrymander and in terms of an ageing and discredited government hanging onto power. There is a particular matter I would like to bring before this chamber this afternoon. As I have said, I have spoken earlier about the gerrymander in New South Wales, where the Liberal Party and the National Party together require 53 per cent of the vote, and the Australian Labor Party (ALP) requires only 47 per cent of the vote, in order to win the coming election. I have raised that issue specifically because we hear so much about the gerrymander in Queensland and yet the Labor Party, being the main aggressor in that area, has failed to acknowledge the gerrymander that exists in New South Wales. We have also seen, and I have highlighted, the `protect your own' mentality that pervades the New South Wales Labor Party and particularly the right wing of that Party. We have heard over the last week in particular of Mick Young's Qantas Airways Ltd appointment; of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) touting for business for Mick Young. One asks oneself: What does mateship really entail? What is really involved in the handing out of golden parachutes? I have pointed out that yesterday morning on Sydney radio Premier Unsworth attempted to pre-empt the decision of Mr Ian Temby as to whether or not to prosecute Stephen Loosley when he said, very simply, that he considered that Stephen Loosley would be found only to have committed some sort of an administrative error. He said specifically: I think you will find that while Stephen Loosley has taken the initial responsibility in the long run he will not be held responsible for what was an administrative question. We have seen a whole series of articles with headlines such as `Old Mates Rush for Life-raft'. This is not something new to the ALP; it is something which has been long experienced by those of us who come from New South Wales. It goes hand in hand with a `win at all costs' mentality, which began, clearly, with the election of Neville Wran, remained throughout his premiership and has certainly been taken over lock, stock and barrel by Barrie Unsworth as Premier. We could well say that in this respect Unsworth is well in the mould of Wran. Let us take a look at the weekend story that was not leaked to the Sunday Telegraph but, indeed, given to the Sunday Telegraph exclusively, it claimed, by the Premier himself. The Premier is anxious to win at all costs and to hold onto power at all costs. The article stated: ``We can still govern with a minority. I'll tell the Governor that we are the Government and he can work it out for himself,'' the Premier said on Friday. ``If we're voted against (in Parliament) there'll be another election. And, you know what happens to Independents if the people go to the polls again-they're tumbled out . . .'' This so-called tough minded proposal revealed in the Sunday Telegraph is being developed as the Labor Party's fall-back mechanism for the coming election on Saturday. Nick Greiner, quite properly, pointed out that the Liberal Party will win in its own right in any event but that it was a superb example of the arrogance of Labor's desperation and persistence in trying to hang on to power. The Sunday Telegraph commented as follows: Independent MPs might enjoy the balance of power on the floor of the State Parliament, but the Governor would have to decide which major party leader he would call on to form government. Mr Unsworth's disclosure this week suggests he would revel in such a pressure-packed position. And, if the Governor gave Nick Greiner the nod, Barrie Unsworth would be spared the fate of a loser; instead, he would become the latest Labor martyr to be sacked by the Queen's man. Such cynicism and hypocrisy is engendered by the Labor Party into the political scene in New South Wales that it will be seen through by the people. But, of course, Wran, who has been fixed up with a job for the boys himself, was the master manipulator. He employed in his Administration some interesting operatives who, on their own admission, carried out some very strange tasks. One such person who was employed by the Labor Government was one John Patrick Begg. John Patrick Begg joined the Premier's Department in 1976. He wrote speeches and Press releases for Premier Wran and was promoted to the Ministerial Advisory Unit after three months. In 1976 he was responsible to the Premier for restructuring the Department of Industrial Development and Decentralisation. In 1977 he wrote legislation and recommended key appointments for the New South Wales Meat Industry Authority. Also in 1977, he set up and managed a nine-member trade mission to Saudi Arabia and returned with a $1m three-year meat contract. In 1978 he was responsible for the 1978 State election campaign in the country and, in the words of his own curriculum vitae, `By astute identification of issues raised the Government's vote from 33.2 per cent to 50.04 per cent'. A by-election was held in Castlereagh in 1980. He says that in 1978 he: Organised and managed the Castlereagh By-election campaign culminating in a Government win. Co- ordinated press releases/ads/slogans/protocol and issues. The `Curran for Castlereagh-Your Vote in the Government' campaign is regarded as his most outstanding achievement. I read those items concerning John Patrick Begg from a curriculum vitae prepared by him. I have done that to show that he was a most trusted and important member of the Wran Administration. So he was a man who was in the trust of the Labor Party. He was a man who had influence in the Labor Party and he certainly was in the mould of the winning at all costs scenario. The year 1980 saw the calling of the by-election for Castlereagh, a country seat which had been held by Premier Renshaw in that great movement of country seats that had been established decades before. It would traditionally be called a Country Party or National Party seat. In 1980, when that by-election was called upon the retirement of Mr Renshaw, 28,828 voters were enrolled. Of that number, 18,112 in fact voted. Those are most interesting figures. We can see that the margin by which the Labor Party won that seat was in the region of 660 votes. If one-half of those people had changed their vote, of course, there would have been a different result. Mr Begg in 1984 addressed a meeting of a group on the central coast. This meeting was set up for organisers of a campaign to work against the establishment of power stations in that area. In fact, it was held at the Wyong Creek hall in Wyong. On that occasion Mr Begg made a speech which I will now quote. He said: . . . get your captive audience, and get around and buy 'em a beer, buy 'em a drink, buy 'em a steak sandwich, and keep talking, you know? Stooge-for God's sake, this has been done before, you know, like I mean, they read out my-I'll be quite open to you about this, you know-they read out my curriculum vitae. One of the things was the Castlereagh By-election which was a traditional Country Party seat they said the Labor Party had no chance of winning, and once again, getting back to basics, there were beautiful advertising slogans, there was this, there was that, and I just sat down one day and I, you know, sort of got myself and I thought to myself-this is going to be close. Now, you know, I then went down-there's one office, the regional newspaper office, and Castlereagh started at Dubbo and went right through to Bourke-it was huge-big electorate-and I went down to the local thing and I went-it took me two days-and I went through twelve months and looked at the obituaries and I got everyone that died in the past 12 months and then I compared them to see if they were on the roll and there were 400 on the roll. So I sent little people out to vote for them on these blokes' behalfs and, do you realise, we won the seat by 330 votes. Loud laughter and comments resulted. He said: I'm telling you, Big Brother's going to do it to you, so you've got to do it to the-Fred Daley time-you know, do unto others as they do unto you, only better. And that's, you know, that's the way you've gotta do this-you've gotta be tough, you know, you have gotta be tough, and you've gotta realise, now, you know . . . I have a tape of that speech which I seek leave to table. Leave granted. Senator BISHOP —In that speech Mr Begg-as I said, a trusted man in the Wran Government-demonstrating the win at all costs mentality, has said from his own mouth that a tactic that was acceptable to the Labor Party was to go through the notices in local newspapers to find the dead and, in his words, `Send little people to vote for them on these blokes' behalf'. Senator Boswell —They have been doing it for years, early and often. Senator BISHOP —That is perhaps another manifestation of the `hang onto power at any costs' principle. I have raised this matter here today for the simple reason that, as we go to the polls on Saturday, the scrutineering that will take place will be most scrupulous on the part of the Liberal Party. It has become of great concern that the laws have been changed to allow people to vote in any subdivision so that we run the risk of having multiple voting. As I have clearly outlined, the Labor Party is there to hang on at all costs. Mr Unsworth has his fall-back plan of trying to hang onto a minority government, to try to force the Governor into a position whereby Mr Unsworth could become, in the terms of the Sunday Telegraph, `not a loser but a martyr'. The man who was described by Bill Hayden as pulling wings off butterflies and who has another nickname-Chainsaw Barrie-is not likely to become a martyr. Barrie Unsworth, the man who has tried to pre-empt-- Senator Gareth Evans —Mr Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: It is not appropriate for Senator Bishop to tell untruths. The proper quotation is, of course, not that he is a man who himself pulled wings off butterflies but, `If you were the sort of person who pulled wings off butterflies, Barrie was your man'. There is a subtle but very important distinction, which I hope Senator Bishop will acknowledge. Senator BISHOP —I thank Senator Evans for his esoteric knowledge on these matters. Indeed, it confirms the point I was just making. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Morris) —So you accept the point made by Senator Evans? Senator BISHOP —I accept his superior knowledge of the esoterica that Mr Hayden can indulge in. I conclude with these remarks: The people of New South Wales will no longer be fooled by the sorts of pervasive attitude that the arrogant Labor Party, particularly the right wing machine in New South Wales, has to the voters. We have seen a whole sad, sorry tale of the decline of the Labor Party federally. The decline that it has reached federally has been passed in the State arena. On Saturday the people of New South Wales will make their decision and the tired, stale ALP Government, which will do all in its power to cling to government, will be a tired and spent force. Senator McKIERNAN(Western Australia)(1.00) —My contribution this afternoon will be a little lighter than the one we have just heard from Senator Bishop. I suppose it should be lighter, because today we are all celebrating Senator Devlin's birthday. I am sure that all honourable senators in this chamber join with me in congratulating him and thanking his good wife, Vurlie, for the contribution that she has made over the years to ensuring that Senator Devlin is here today to celebrate with us. It is appropriate, with a name like Devlin, that he should be celebrating his birthday on this particular day. Senator Watson —Bipartisan support. Senator McKIERNAN —Of course. I thank Senator Watson. The matter that I want to address today is a recent publication which was launched in this Parliament, a book called Acts of Parliament, by Gavin Souter. I found this book absorbing and tremendously informative, and it is one that I will be recommending to any person who has an interest in politics and in the parliament of this country. As a newcomer to the country, in reading it I found a whole lot of information about what has happened in the Parliament over the years, information that I was unaware of or of which I had only scanty knowledge. In recommending this book to other people to read-it certainly should be in every school library in the country-I point out that it is not a heavy book in the sense of being full of heavy technical terms, which, of course, the Parliament from time to time is full of. It is a compelling narrative that is very easy to read. I did say that it was not heavy in the sense that it was not complex and complicated, but it is certainly a heavy book. It is not a book that one would want to keep holding up. One has to put it down because it is a very large book. It is packed with historical information and I am sure that it will in later years be used as a reference book. But therein lies the difficulty and the reason why I have chosen to stand up and make a contribution today. In the final chapter in the book, `Adjournment', on page 600, Mr Souter talks about the previous Parliament, in 1985. He uses some statistics which are compared throughout the book for the various parliaments that have been formed in this country. I quote only part of what he says: Ninety-three per cent of members in 1980 were Australian-born, compared with 91 per cent in 1950, and their ethnic origins were overwhelmingly Anglo-Saxon-Celtic. The only non-British European-born members in 1985 were Dr Klugman, who had been born in Austria; Dr Andrew Theophanous, (Lab, Calwell, V), Cyprus; Lewis Kent, (Lab, Hotham, V), Yugoslavia; and Senator David Vigor-gone but certainly not forgotten, who was born in France. The book continued: Senator Arthur Gietzelt . . . and Norman Sanders . . . had been born in the United States. Therein lies the problem for me, because it brings into question all the knowledge contained in the book. Here I stand before the Senate as a person who is European but not British. I certainly was not born under the Union Jack. Of course, I am Irish, but there is no mention of this. I think that in 1988 we ought to have overcome those difficulties. The statistics that we have in this country relating to the origins of the people who are here now are confused, because until very recent times the only statistics collected from the part of the world of which I speak referred to everybody as British or British and Irish, and there was no differentiation between the two. I choose to say this today as it happens to be St Patrick's Day. I will point that out to Mr Souter. Hopefully, he will be able to do something to correct it and an erratum-or whatever the technical term is for the issuing of a correction to a book such as this-will be put out. It is unfortunate that this has happened, and I hope that Mr Souter will turn his attention to it and make some corrections in whatever way possible. I would not suggest that the whole book be reprinted merely because of this small error. It is small, but I see it as important. I raise this matter today because it is the national day of Ireland, St Patrick's Day. The Irish people have been in this country now for 200 years and were a very important part of the First Fleet. Indeed, if they had not been part of the First Fleet perhaps the First Fleet would not have come at all. Over that 200 years my country-people who are now Australians have contributed enormously to the development of the cultural, religious, legal, political and labour movements throughout this country. In the nation we have now joined, we each share a passion for freedom, and we are prepared to acknowledge that in other forums in the world. There are deep and enduring bonds between Australia and Ireland-bonds which will be brought to the forefront in a few short weeks when the first ever delegation from this Parliament visits the Republic of Ireland on a fact finding mission. I am happy and proud to have been selected by the Government, by the Australian Labor Party, to be a member of that parliamentary delegation. I have only a few brief remarks to make but, given that the subject matter is Ireland and today is St Patrick's Day, I mention another very important event which has occurred in recent times and which is cause for celebration, I am sure, by all honourable senators in this chamber and, indeed, by all honest and free thinking people throughout Australia. I refer to the announcement that the former Premier of Western Australia has been appointed to become Ambassador to Ireland on behalf of the Australian nation. Brian Burke has made a contribution, and a measurable contribution, to Australian politics. It is a contribution that will not be recognised, unfortunately, until many years into the future. It is a contribution that has almost always been positive. I speak as a left winger and Brian, of course, is quite happy to announce publicly that he is a member of a different faction. We have had our differences in the past. Nonetheless, I can-- Senator Bolkus —Are you staying with him in Ireland? Senator McKIERNAN —Unfortunately, Brian will not arrive there until July. I will perhaps have to make arrangements for another trip. I put on the record my appreciation for the work that Brian has done for the people of Western Australia and for the Australian Labor Party, both at a national level-he has played a role there-and in my home State of Western Australia. Many people will, I am sure, be eager to jump up and join me in these good wishes. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(1.08) —I rise to express my concern over a Press report in the Canberra Times concerning the remarks of Mr Hand, a member of the other place. The report states that Mr Hand has said that the Aborigines support the idea of setting up an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. I am very happy to learn that Mr Hand has agreement from, as the report states, some 6,000 Aboriginal people and some 1,200 communities and organisations. But what the report omits to say is that Mr Hand does not tell us whether he has agreement with the Torres Strait island people. As far as I am aware, Mr Hand has not come to a position whereby the islander people will be catered for under the proposed new legislation. I know these island people very well. I have been invited to their islands a number of times and I know their inspirations, ambitions and hopes. They are a people of Melanesian and Polynesian background and are a completely different race from the Aboriginal people. The islanders are understandably fearful that the proposed new Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission will not give them a say in their own rights. They believe that it is going to swamp their culture, their race and their lifestyle. This Commission, if it goes ahead in the form that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand) has proposed, will give the Torres Strait islanders one vote out of 11. The islanders have been run by whites for the last 200 years, and under this proposal they will be run by Aboriginals for the next 200 years. The islanders do not want to offend their black brothers and sisters, but they are a separate identity and they have their own needs. It was under these conditions that the islanders became desperate and called for independence-and it was a genuine plea. The islanders are being invaded by Papuans, who come down for traditional visits and stay for some time. Sometimes the women have babies on the islands, the babies become Australian citizens and they are allowed to stay. Sometimes the Papuans intermarry and stay there. The islanders are fearful that they are losing their identity. Some of the people who go there are not immunised and are carrying certain tropical diseases, and that is a worry to the island people as well. The Queensland Government has recognised the islanders' right to self-management through a democratically elected island coordinating council. That coordinating council represents all the 17 islands and the people on Thursday Island. The council makes its own decisions on behalf of the island people. The council members are elected every three years under the Local Government Act, and I believe that they will be facing an election this Saturday. Every island community is treated as a local council, and one representative from each of the 17 islands-including Yam, Badu, Yorke, Sue and Warraber-form the co-ordinating council, which has its headquarters on Thursday Island. They make their own decisions as far as the State Government is concerned. The Federal Government, however, has not recognised the islands' ability to make their own decisions, and all the Federal money allocated goes through the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. All decisions and priorities are made and set down by white officers in the white-controlled office of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. Just 60 or 70 miles to the north of Thursday Island lies Papua New Guinea: a people of similar Melanesian background, a people who have independence. They make their own decisions, arrange their own priorities and run their own lives. The same priorities are denied to the islanders by the actions of the Federal Government. When I say that, I am not supporting independence. I believe-- Senator Colston —You sound like you are. Senator BOSWELL —Well, I am certainly not. What I am supporting is some sort of autonomy for the island people. I do not believe that they want independence. But let us not force them down that track by denying them autonomy. I believe that they are proud Australian people and that the majority of them do want to remain so. But the islanders have to go cap in hand to the white officers in the Department of Aboriginal Affairs to buy a tractor, a boat or a bus, and the system leaves itself open to manipulation. I am not making any accusation against any white officer, but the system is wrong and it can be manipulated for political advantage. After 200 years it is time to give these people the responsibility of running their own lives. I believe it is time for a change, and that is what they want. They want some autonomy whereby they can make their own decisions. I do not mean to imply that they want independence. The Federal Government can no longer treat these people as ignorant, uneducated black people. Most of the islanders are educated to senior standard. Some of them go to schools in Cairns and Mackay and other places on the mainland. The young people are growing up, and they are moving down to Cairns and Townsville because they cannot see any future on the islands. They are not able to give anything back to the islands because there are no jobs for them there. The islands are run by white public servants in the Federal Department of Aboriginal Affairs, who spend three or four years on the islands and then go to another posting or back to Canberra, and I do not believe that they have the islanders' interests at heart. If they do, they certainly would not be able to put as much ethos into their work as would the people of the islands themselves. Positions in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Australian Customs Service, the police forces and other government instrumentalities must be given to the islanders. The islands are their home and they want to give something back. They are not recognised by the Federal Government. The Government agrees with all the decisions made by white officers, and those white officers receive their instructions from Brisbane and Canberra. It is time to change, to give the islanders a chance to develop their own industries. Often when a white project officer has been assigned to develop a project on the islands it has failed because the presence of the officer has undermined the confidence of the islanders. There is a fine example of the islanders running their own business. A crayfish industry was developed by the Aboriginal Development Commission and operated by white public servants, and it failed. The island people pulled it together and formed Bardu Enterprises, developing a prominent crayfish industry which has an income of around $3.5m a year. I will not say that it is a thriving industry. It is going through problems but it has been employing a number of island people for the past three or four years and it is contributing to the economy of the Torres Strait islands by some $3.5m a year. The islanders are now developing a trochus shell industry, receiving around $4,000 a tonne, and a fledgling beche-de-mer industry is starting. Other industries can be introduced. The climate and conditions are ideal for the production of coconuts. The goldmining industry can use huge volumes of coconut fibre in the extraction of the gold. The islanders wish to develop a tourist industry. The Torres Strait area is one of the few remaining unspoilt paradise areas in the world. People who see the islands fall in love with them, and they like the islanders too. The islanders have plans for economy accommodation on the outer islands where one can catch a fish-a sweetlip or a red emperor-almost from the back door of the house, or dive on the reef for crayfish. It would be ideal. The islanders make beautiful artefacts and handicrafts, which would be in great demand for the American and Japanese tourists. However, none of these industries will ever develop until the islanders can make their own decisions. The islanders are sick of this Government's promotion of the hand-out mentality. They are ready to take responsibility for managing their own affairs. I do not believe that they want independence. They are proud Australians and proud Queenslanders, but this Government should not force their hand by including them in an Aboriginal and Islander Commission. They do not want to be lumped in with the members of that Commission. They recognise their black brothers and sisters but they want to be independent. The Government must give the islanders their own autonomy and allow them to run their own lives, make their own decisions and set their own agendas. We can make the Torres Strait islanders a role model to be held up to the rest of the world as an example of how Australia has created racial equality, or we can drive the islanders to seek independence once again. After 200 years, we must recognise that these people are hard working, responsible and proud-people who do not want to live on government hand-outs. Giving money to indigenous people without responsibility has never solved any problems and has only created misery among our black brothers and sisters. We do not want to give our islander people a free meal; we want to give them a fishing line so that they can feed themselves. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(1.21) —I wish to take a few minutes of the Senate's time to speak of a few of the achievements of the Tasmanian Liberal Government. We have just passed the halfway mark in the term of the second Tasmanian Liberal Government led by Robin Gray. It is therefore timely to reflect on some of the achievements of that Government and its plans for the future. In May 1982 the first majority Liberal Government in the history of Tasmania was overwhelmingly elected. On 8 February 1986 it was returned with an increased proportion of the vote. In fact, if Tasmania had single member electorates the Australian Labor Party would have won only a solitary seat in the House of Assembly as only one subdivision, that of Moonah, returned a majority Labor vote. As an aside, I think it is interesting to draw a contrast with the Hawke Government, which has yet to serve anything like its full term, and whose percentage of the vote has declined consistently since 1983. In Tasmania there is a government of achievement and a government of reform. In the economic field, 25,000 new jobs have been created since 1982-an increase of 14.5 per cent. We compare that with 10.9 per cent nationally. Also on the economic front, the Gray Government has established, first, the Tasmanian Development Authority, which is a major instrumentality designed to encourage entrepreneurial development of all sizes of business. Secondly, it has established the Tasmania Bank, through a merger of the oldest building society in Australia and the oldest savings bank, to result in a comprehensive financial institution which is able to service the needs of individuals as well as the larger corporate bodies. Every Tasmanian Budget to be brought down since Robin Gray became Treasurer has been brought in on target. This is despite his Government's inheriting a deficit of over $34m from the Labor years. The Tasmanian Government has abolished death duties and has slashed payroll tax for small and medium sized businesses. The size of the State Public Service has been reduced by natural attrition and unemployment has been reined in. Largely due to the Tasmanian Government's employment schemes such as Taswork, aggregate employment in Tasmania has climbed from 168,000 in 1982 to today's total of 189,000-a good benchmark by any standards of economic development. Several major industries have objectively seen the favourable economic conditions in Tasmania and a competent government and have moved their operations south. Some examples are the New South Wales clothing manufacturer Gazal Industries Ltd. It has recently moved some of its factories to Tasmania and there is the potential for 300 more jobs in the Glenorchy area with a new plant. The frozen food processor McCains Australia Pty Ltd has moved from Ballarat, and its new plant will make Tasmania the biggest producer of potato chips in Australia. Ansair, the bus building division of Ansett Transport Industries Ltd, builds its vehicles in southern Tasmania and Commonwealth Industrial Gases Ltd is presently negotiating a venture with the State Government to farm pyrethrum daisies in order to produce what is estimated to be a $20m natural insecticide industry within five years. In the field of care for the aged and the needy, the Gray Government was the first in Australia to have a Minister for the elderly. Keeping it in mind that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, I am pleased to see that the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, endorsed this approach by appointing a Minister for aged care, even if it is in his Ministry a more junior portfolio. In 1987-88 the Gray Government will spend more than $56m in caring for the elderly and the underprivileged. This represents an increase of some 19 per cent. It has also increased the local government rate remission for pensioners to 30 per cent, and it has increased the heating allowance and the Hydro-Electric Commission rebates for winter Hydro bills. In fact, there has been a conscious decision by the State Cabinet, with the establishment of the Division of Community Health, to increase home nursing and ancillary services so that 1,500 more elderly Tasmanians are able to stay in their own homes, amongst friends and with a measure of independence. This is something that the other States and the Commonwealth could well emulate. Some people think that the Gray Government is one which is not particularly concerned with the environment or is anti-conservationist. Such a judgment is totally wrong. The fact is that since the Liberals have come to power many initiatives have been taken in the environmental area. The most comprehensive program for better forest practices in Australia, the forest practices code, has been introduced. The departments of lands and national parks have been merged to provide a macro approach to land use management and the protection of native fauna and flora as well as the development of new scientific and recreational areas. The Environmental Department has rigorously tightened up exemptions for industry and has increased penalties for pollution violations. There is an extensive anti-litter campaign supported by strict legislation. The State Government has announced a ban on chlorofluorocarbons in aerosol pressure cans, in a world first to prevent further deterioration of the ozone layer. I have touched on only a few areas and I will take additional time in other such debates permitted during the year, in which I will outline the achievements of the Gray Liberal Government and the way that it has transformed Tasmania. All this, I must remind the Senate, is against a backdrop of continually decreasing Federal funds from Messrs Hawke and Keating with the loss to a small State of $327m-a drop of 23.2 per cent in State grants, which is disgraceful. Under Liberal stewardship, Tasmania has been transformed from an economic backwater with a moribund government to an exciting and invigorating State with a huge potential and with a State Government which is ready and equipped to manage its beautiful State well into the twenty-first century. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(1.28) —As a result of representations made to me I have become aware of a serious anomaly in the operation of Medicare and taxation legislation with regard to living organ donors, such as bone marrow and kidney donors, whose selfless sacrifices can and do save lives. The facts of this matter also clearly demonstrate that this Government has totally lost the respect of the average hardworking Australian family because of its shameful lack of compassion and callous disregard for the suffering accompanying families undergoing transplant surgery. Briefly, the case which brought this anomaly to light is as follows: The brother of a leukaemia patient was found to have compatible bone marrow and as part of the treatment made at least five trips from Melbourne to Sydney. These trips involved stays of five days while the medical procedures were carried out. In addition to air fares and accommodation expenses there was, of course, a loss of earnings from the time off work involved. In the case to which I am referring expenses totalled in excess of $3,000. I very much regret that, notwithstanding the excellence of the medical care and the family support, the patient failed to overcome the complaint. This instance only involved trips from Melbourne to Sydney. One can imagine the intolerable burden it would have caused had the donor lived in Perth, Darwin or Hobart. When I became aware of the situation I put the case to the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) for relief under Medicare. He declined and passed it onto the Treasurer (Mr Keating), looking for some taxation relief. This was also refused, although Mr Holding, on behalf of the Treasurer, did say that while some medical expenses were deductable, the donor in this case was not eligible. He went on to say that to cover such a case an amendment to legislation would be necessary and that, although such an amendment had been considered, `it has not been possible to amend the law in this way due to other budgetary responsibilities'. What a pathetic and shameful statement. This Government, which can find money for artists in residence with the Builders Labourers Federation (BLF) and for the design of women's surfboards, finds it impossible to assist the people who are helping to save the lives of others. No doubt this is not a unique case, but there would not be a large number of people affected. How many, I wonder, would there be? Assistance in this area would not be an intolerable burden on the Budget, and I am sure that most Australians would rather see their taxes used to relieve such suffering than to paint a mural for the BLF. I ask the Government, if it has any moral sense or compassion left, to amend the relevant legislation as a matter of urgency so that at least those donors involved in the future are given some assistance in and recognition for the sacrifices they make. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard three letters: mine to Dr Blewett and the two pathetic responses-one from Dr Blewett and one from Mr Holding, representing the Treasurer. Leave granted. The documents read as follows- 17th September, 1987 The Honourable N. Blewett MP, Minister for Health, Parliament House, Canberra, 2600 Dear Minister, Re: Mrs Roslyn Mary Newcombe, Raymond Terrace, NSW I have had representations on behalf of the family of the above who is a sufferer of chronic myloid leukaemia, and has been for 2 1/2 years. Upon diagnosis, the family were all tested to ascertain their marrow compatibility with a view to a transplant. Mrs Newcombe lives at Raymond Terrace in N.S.W., and her brother Mr David Edward Wright (who was a compatible donor) lives in Ormond Victoria. Treatment is being carried out at St Vincents Hospital in Sydney and has necessitated Mr Wright making five trips to Sydney to give bone marrow and blood. The airfares have been $350 per trip, and there has been loss of wages, accommodation costs, etc. etc. that has caused them considerable total loss. Can you please advise whether the costs incurred can be recouped under Medicare as, although Mr Wright is not a ``patient'' within the normal interpretation, he is very much a part of the treatment and in the saving of a life. Should you believe this is not an item of claim, can you advise me if the costs can be claimed as a tax deduction. I feel sure that the Government would accept that this type of treatment is just as essential as that provided by the doctors themselves, and in this instance the strains on Mr Wright's family by his providing assistance to his sister, has been very considerable. Yours sincerely, Brian R. Archer, Senator for Tasmania 20 November 1987 Dear Senator Archer, Thank you for your personal representations of 17 September 1987, on behalf of the family of Mrs Roslyn Mary Newcombe of Raymond Terrace, about the recoupment of costs associated with trips to Sydney by Mr David Wright to donate bone marrow. Under the Medicare arrangements benefits are only payable towards the cost of professional services rendered by legally qualified medical practitioners, certain specialist services rendered by approved dentists and consultations by participating optometrists. There is no provision under Medicare for costs associated with travel to or from places where hospital/medical treatment is undertaken. Although my Department administered the Isolated Patients Travel and Accommodation Assistance Scheme (IPTAAS) until 31 December 1986, I regret that as Mr Wright is not a resident of an isolated area he would not have been eligible for financial assistance under that Scheme if his journeys occurred before IPTAAS ceased. From 1 January 1987 the State Health Departments assumed responsibility for patient transport assistance. Mr Wright may therefore wish to take this matter up with the State Department of Health, Victoria. With regard to your request for advice as to whether Mr Wright's travel costs can be claimed as a tax deduction, I have forwarded a copy of your letter to my colleague, the Treasurer, for reply to you direct on that aspect. Yours sincerely, (Sgd.) NEAL BLEWETT Neal Blewett Senator B. R. Archer PO Box 542 BURNIE, TAS. 7320 TREASURER PARLIAMENT HOUSE CANBERRA 2600 Senator B. R. Archer P.O. Box 542 BURNIE TAS. 7320 Dear Senator Archer As you know your representation of 17 September 1987 to the Minister for Community Services and Health on behalf of the family of Mrs R. M. Newcombe of Raymond Terrace, NSW was referred to the Treasurer. In particular you asked whether the costs associated with travelling to donate bone marrow and blood could be claimed as an income tax deduction. Mr Keating asked me to reply. The Commissioner of Taxation, whose assistance I sought, explained that there are no provisions within the income tax law which authorise deductions or rebates for travel and other incidental expenditure ancillary to medical treatment. However, the law does allow a rebate for medical expenses, and for this purpose the term ``medical expenses'' is specifically defined. Although the definition covers a fairly wide range of expenses, it does not extend to include the type of expenditure incurred by Mrs Newcombe's brother. Accordingly, an amendment of the law would be necessary before the taxation concessions could be extended to cover such expenditure. Similar proposals have been considered on several occasions in the past. However, to date it has not been possible to amend the law in this way due to other budgetary responsibilities. Although I sympathise with Mrs Newcombe's situation, I am unable to recommend such a change to the Government. I trust this information is of assistance to Mrs Newcombe and her family. Yours sincerely (Clyde Holding) Minister Assisting the Treasurer Sitting suspended from 1.31 to 2 p.m. The PRESIDENT —Senators and members have been circulated with a note on the withdrawal of cleaning services today. The text of the circular issued by the Secretary of the Joint House Department reads: Cleaning in the new Parliament House will be undertaken by contract and tenders are presently being evaluated. Concurrently action is being taken by the Joint House Department to ensure that as far as practicable alternate employment is found for cleaning staff currently employed and that the rights and entitlements of staff are protected. Consultations with staff and the Federated Miscellaneous Workers' Union (FMWU) have been an integral part of this process. At a meeting this morning between staff and the FMWU they have advised that they have stopped work for the remainder of today. This action has been taken in support of issues arising from the abovementioned action. Consequently there will be no further cleaning undertaken in Parliament House today. Normal cleaning services will resume tomorrow. The Department has been engaged in discussions with staff and has taken a number of initiatives to find alternative employment. To date, jobs have been found for eight staff, with 18 yet to find alternative employment. The PRESIDENT —Staff of the Parliamentary Catering Service held a stopwork meeting today which affected luncheon services. Services resumed at 1.20 p.m. Staff have advised that further rolling strikes may occur. The Joint House Department has requested urgent meetings with staff and union delegates. I table for the information of honourable senators the letter that the Speaker and I sent to staff early in January regarding decisions taken on cleaning and catering in the new Parliament House. I will keep honourable senators informed on these matters. Senator WOOD(New South Wales)(2.03) —Mr President, I seek leave to move that the Senate take note of the statements regarding the catering staff and the cleaning staff. Leave granted. Senator WOOD —I move: That the Senate take note of the statements. I think it is unfair and totally inappropriate that cleaning and catering staff who in some cases have worked in Parliament House for 30 years, since the Menzies era, giving loyal, faithful and good service to Parliament House, should become redundant on 30 June and have to go onto unemployment benefit. I would just like to point out to honourable senators that if the same procedure were adopted for honourable senators because of the move to the new Parliament House, we should probably all go to the people again to see whether current senators-- Senator McGauran —What about your case? Senator WOOD —The High Court of Australia is currently deciding mine. Perhaps we should all go to the people again for them to decide whether honourable senators and honourable members are suitable for the new premises. I do not think that any senator or member would agree with that course of action. Neither do I think it is fair that long serving members of the catering staff and cleaning staff should be put on the scrapheap just because we are moving into a new building. Some of the cleaners are young people with families and homes to pay off. They do not know what they will be doing after they lose their jobs. No doubt they will have to join the ranks of the unemployed. I do not think it is proper and fair for the Parliament to be acting in this way. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(2.05) —Mr President, I do not think a debate on this matter is warranted. But, since Senator Wood has made those remarks, I will say that I believe that the people of Australia would expect the Presiding Officers to be looking to the efficient running of what is a very expensive institution. Mr President, I have noted that all of your comments have included reference to the fact that discussions have been going on with respect to the placement of staff who will be losing their jobs in the transfer. I believe that it is quite absurd to suggest that the running of this place should be exempt from the normal requirements of efficiency that face other Australian institutions. I hesitate to say that I welcome some privatisation of these matters, but, in fact, I do think you are entitled to the support of the Parliament in what is, I think, a very necessary effort to avoid a ballooning of costs. I am sure that Senator Walsh would require that of you, knowing a little of the negotiations that have taken place between the Presiding Officers and the Department of Finance with respect to appropriations. Mr President, because of Senator Wood's comments, I merely want to add that everybody here would expect the existing staff to be treated with consideration and would expect to be taken the sorts of measures that you have indicated are being taken. But that should not stand in the way of appropriately efficient and effective procedures being put in place in the new and permanent Parliament House. The PRESIDENT —I also point out to all senators that no members of the catering staff have been made redundant. There are completely different sets of issues in both disputes. Question resolved in the affirmative. The PRESIDENT —On 24 February I reported that a species of legionella bacteria, legionella bozemanii, had been detected in air-conditioning water cooling towers in the provisional Parliament House. I further reported that at the time of its detection, the contents of the towers had been dumped, the towers scrubbed and the new water treated with biocides to control bacterial growth. The latest series of tests of the water cooling towers were carried out on 25 February and the certificate of analysis for these tests provided by Maxwell Chemicals Pty Ltd advises that no legionella bacteria were detected during these tests. Weekly dosing of the towers to control any bacterial growth will continue and scientific testing of the water for legionella bacteria will be carried out on a monthly basis. Senator HAMER —My question is to the Minister for Transport and Communications. Does the Minister remember that on Monday, 22 February-three weeks ago-he claimed that the container depot crisis in Sydney would be under control within two weeks? Does he still make that claim today, when the Australian Shippers Council states that the backlog has increased since the Minister's statement from 1,000 TEUs to 1,500 TEUs? Does he now agree that, even with the extra facilities provided by the Australian National Line depot which began operating a few days ago and the reopened Rozelle depot, it will still take at least another seven weeks to clear the backlog? Is the Minister also aware that the proposal to introduce a second shift of depot workers failed because the unions would not agree to a second shift without a trade-off of five weeks annual leave instead of the usual four? When will the Minister seriously consider the possibility of allowing licensed depots, other than union approved depots, to assist in clearing the backlog? When, in fact, will the Minister do something to bring an end to this appalling situation on the Sydney waterfront? How long will the Minister delay while small businesses are suffering serious hardships and facing bankruptcy as a result of the delays in receiving their imported goods? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have great pleasure in referring this question, if I may, to the Minister assisting me in shipping and waterfront matters, Senator Robert Ray. Senator ROBERT RAY —I did not copy down the nine or 10 parts of the question that Senator Hamer asked, but I think I got the general drift of what he said and I did follow his previous questions and interest in this matter. A whole series of talks has been held between employers, unions, ship companies and officials of the Department of Industrial Relations and the Department of Transport and Communications to try to resolve the short term problems in regard to this backlog in Sydney. The Government, like any responsible government, cannot be satisfied with the current situation in Sydney. In a previous answer, Senator Gareth Evans pointed to some of the almost exceptional circumstances that have occurred on this occasion. An increase of 30 per cent in the arrival of containers was one of those. The closing of Darling Harbour for events associated with the Bicentennial was another. Nevertheless, this dispute, or this failure to clear the backlog, is really a good window, if you like, into the general problems of waterfronts around Australia. In some ways the Government is stuck because of its own strategy. Because these matters are not strictly Federal and in many cases State matters are involved-for instance, States usually control the harbours-this situation was referred to the Inter-State Commission for a general development of a strategy. I am fairly certain that Senator Hamer would have followed the timetable on that. It is very hard to find other than bandaid solutions to these problems when everyone knows that there is an overall body which, hopefully, will bring down a final report in July to outline a total waterfront strategy. It is very hard to bring all the parties together. Nevertheless, on the latest information available to us, we think that the backlog will be cleared up in about four to six weeks and there is ample potential for it not to recur. I have also instructed members of my Department to start looking at the waterfront in Melbourne in case a similar problem develops there. If there is a backlog in Sydney it is natural for some importers or exporters to say, `Let us re-route the goods through Melbourne'. Suddenly we could have the situation replicated in Melbourne. I hope that if there is any sign of that occurring these matters can be dealt with more expeditiously and headed off before Melbourne has the problems that exist in Sydney. In conclusion, I share Senator Hamer's concern about the delays that have occurred in Sydney. However, I believe that the various employer and employee bodies have made some substantial progress in this regard in the past few weeks. The indications are that the backlog should be out of the way within four to six weeks. Senator COLLINS —Can the Minister for Transport and Communications comment on a report on the front page of today's Australian newspaper suggesting that Qantas Airways Ltd could fund the coming expansion of its airline fleet using internal funds and retained earnings without blowing out its debt to equity ratio? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am very happy to do so. The report in today's Australian of statements by Qantas officials to the Caucus committee on transport and communications a couple of nights ago is not in fact accurate. The first thing that should be said is that the planned capital expenditure program by Qantas over the five years to 1991-92 is not $600m as reported but $5.4 billion. The $600m is the capital injection needed by the company to prudently undertake a capital program of $5.4 billion. Secondly, the article ignores the fact that Qantas is already very highly geared, by any international standard in the aviation business, and it implies that Qantas could comfortably undertake this huge capital program without a further capital injection. In the discussion paper which I released publicly a few weeks ago, in mid-February, I made it clear that Qantas is presently very highly geared, with a debt to equity ratio of 79 : 21, as at the end of the last financial accounting period, 31 March 1987. I further noted that, if a capital injection was not received, that ratio would increase from an estimated 72 : 28 in 1989-90 to 78 : 22 for the two years thereafter. In that paper I also pointed out that independent professional advice obtained by Qantas had concluded that a ratio in the range of 70 : 30 at the top and 60 : 40 at the lower end would be commercially prudent. An injection of $600m in 1989-90-or about that period-is required to bring the debt to equity ratio of Qantas within this range. A marginal improvement in the ratio from the current high level to that of 78 : 22 simply does not address the potential problems that a highly geared company faces, particularly a company in a commercial environment with a very variable revenue flow. A high gearing ratio reduces the company's commercial opportunities and does not provide a cushion for cyclical downturns that occur, particularly in the international airline business. The article in the Australian this morning points out that three of Qantas's major competitors-and I am sure that this is generally true elsewhere-have debt to equity ratios ranging from as low as 33 : 67 to 58 : 42, yet the article fails to draw the obvious conclusion from that. The Qantas officials at the meeting confirmed the conclusions and the figures which I detailed in my discussion paper and which I am retailing to the Senate now. Contrary to the impression given by the article, the Qantas officials did not see a continuation of the current high debt to equity ratio as being sustainable. While it is possible to finance any capital expenditure program through a combination of extra borrowing, particularly when supported by a degree of government guarantee and through retained earnings, the truth of the matter is that the directors of Qantas-no more than any other similar commercial organisation-cannot be expected to undertake a course of action that they consider commercially imprudent. That would contravene their obligations not only under the companies code but also under the guidelines issued by this and the predecessor Government. Senator WATSON —My question is directed to the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. Following concerns expressed in the Australian Labor Party's Caucus and other Party forums about the impact of some environmental legislation on regional economic interests, I ask: Has the Government established an inter-departmental committee (IDC)-either formally or informally-or some sort of working group or party to look in detail at matters of environmental legislation with a view to getting a greater input from departments such as the Department of Primary Industries and Energy? If so, what is the precise nature of this IDC or working party, what is it specifically undertaking at present and to whom will it be making any reports? Senator RICHARDSON —There was a discussion in the Party Caucus a few weeks ago which involved some criticism of the Australian Labor Party having too much of an environmental bent. However, that was in relation to national parks and, as I pointed out to the Caucus in the debate, the Commonwealth has no jurisdiction over national parks. Therefore, the matters being raised were for the States. People who are concerned about it should talk to the State governments concerned. I pointed out that it was my responsibility as Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories to look after the National Estate-I will be doing a bit of that this afternoon in opposing Senator Walters's Bill-and to look after World Heritage. I might say that Caucus has decided to do nothing about this and has continued to support the basic line that I have taken; I have no doubt that it will continue to do so. The only IDC of which I can think and to which Senator Watson may be referring is an IDC which is currently looking at land use. That may report towards the end of April. It will report to a range of Ministers and I anxiously look forward to seeing it. Senator WATSON —I ask a supplementary question. Can the Minister give us the details of that inquiry into land use? Senator RICHARDSON —If further details are required on what we are looking at, I shall inform Senator Watson of them. I am delighted to see that he is taking an interest. Senator COATES —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services and Health aware of reported comments by the Tasmanian Health Minister, Mr Roger Groom, about the funding problems facing Tasmania's public hospitals? Is it true, as suggested by Mr Groom, that the funding problems are the result of the Federal Government's introduction of Medicare? Is the Minister able to say why public hospital funds in Tasmania are under pressure? Can he explain how the Federal Government is responsible for the failure of the Tasmanian Government to include the 4 per cent second tier wage rises in estimates of the salary budget for public hospitals? Senator COOK —From recent Press comments, I understand that the Tasmanian Government faces a $6m blow-out in its hospital budget this year. Any suggestion that the Federal Government or Medicare is to blame for this is, of course, nonsense. State governments are entirely responsible for preparing and maintaining hospital budgets. The States set their own priorities for spending their health dollar-not the Federal Government. Under Medicare, the State governments are currently provided with an additional $1 billion to compensate them for the abolition of charges in their public hospital sector and to subsidise the cost of treating private patients in public hospitals. Tasmania will receive over $35m this year under the Medicare compensation grants. This is in addition to the identified health grants and general financial assistance. It appears from the Press comments that a major reason for the budget overrun is the cost effect of the 38-hour week for nurses. All State governments have been aware of the likely flow-on effects of nurse awards and the cost implications of the second tier wage rises. I am not aware of any other government finding itself in the embarrassing position that the Tasmanian Government apparently is in at the moment. It is a reflection on the industrial relations practices of the Tasmanian Government that now, at the eleventh hour, it finds itself at loggerheads with its hospital sector unions. In short, the Tasmanian Government has got itself into a mess because of bad planning and, in casting around for any scapegoat other than itself, it has attempted to blame Medicare. Blaming Medicare for anything and everything wrong with the public health system is a tired old excuse. The facts simply do not support the assertion. Public hospitals in Tasmania are under pressure because of bad State Government management, not Medicare. Senator POWELL —My question is to the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. Is the Minister aware of Victorian Government plans to allow subdivision of an area of wetlands around Greens Bush on the Mornington Peninsula? Is the Minister also aware that this wetlands area is used as a shelter area during the Australian summer by migratory birds-in particular, the Japanese snipe, a bird which is protected by the `agreement between the Government of Australian and the Government of Japan for the protection of migratory birds and birds in danger of extinction and their environment'? Will the Minister undertake to investigate the matter and ensure that Commonwealth Government responsibilities under the international agreement will be met? Senator RICHARDSON —I am aware of the concerns regarding the Greens Bush area on Mornington Peninsula where a subdivision has been proposed because I received a number of representations on it prior to getting Senator Powell's question. The significance of the area has been recognised by the Government. Last year the Prime Minister provided a message of support to the Victorian Conservation Trust's efforts to purchase some of the land in question to make sure that there is a possibility of its incorporation into the national park in the area. The Greens Bush wetlands is a habitat area for the Japanese snipe, which is listed under the agreement between Japan and Australia for migratory birds. The habitat values of the area have been exhaustively assessed by the Victorian Government and it subsequently acquired 171 hectares of the Greens Bush area for ultimate inclusion in the Nepean State Park. The responsibility for the implementation of the agreement between Japan and Australia will be met. It does not oblige Australia to protect particular areas where migratory birds occur. Rather, it provides a framework within which each country can give an overall commitment to the protection of migratory birds and their habitats. Australia will continue to implement the agreement. In Victoria it is implemented via wildlife legislation. However, I will ensure that the concerns raised by Senator Powell are conveyed to the relevant Victorian Minister. If there is any more that the Commonwealth can do, I will make sure that we do it. Senator DEVEREUX —My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. In light of recent reports about the low take-up level in Victoria of the Government's new family allowance supplement compared with better figures in States such as Queensland, can the Minister provide any information about the take-up in Tasmania? Senator BOLKUS —I thank Senator Devereux for his question, which obviously highlights the Government's concern for the needs of low income earners in the Australian community. The family allowance supplement scheme was introduced in a context of people on low incomes having acute needs for finance. It should be noted and remembered that under the previous Government real disposable incomes for low income families declined substantially. The incomes of beneficiary couples with, say, four children, decreased by over 5 per cent. As a result of the period of the previous Government, the number of children in poverty more than doubled while at the same time the additional pension benefit for children fell by approximately 32 per cent in real terms. So in government we have had to work within that contextual background. The Government's new family allowance supplement has been welcomed by low income working families not only in Tasmania but throughout Australia. The payment is especially valuable to Tasmanian families because incomes are generally much lower in that State than elsewhere in Australia. In response to Senator Devereux I should say that, on the most recent available figures, 4,868 families in Tasmania are now receiving this tax-free assistance of up to $28 a week for each child, on top of their family allowance payments. Senator Chaney —Who introduced the family income supplement? Senator BOLKUS —Senator Chaney mentions the family income supplement. I will get to that later. Senator Vanstone —He doesn't mention it; he asks who introduced it. Senator BOLKUS —Senator Vanstone will get her answer. The imposter of Miss Devine should just simmer down. The most recent available figures show almost 5,000 Tasmanian families now receiving this assistance. The Government estimates that in Tasmania 9,000 working families, with about 20,000 children, are eligible to receive the family allowance supplement, and the Government is keen to ensure that all these families are processed to receive the supplement. Already the Department of Social Security is processing 500 further claims. In addition, the Department of Social Security hotline in Tasmania is indeed running hot with inquiries about the family allowance supplement. I should mention that this is happening in the context that the Prime Minister recently wrote to 1.3 million Australian families which have one or two children, reminding them of their eligibility for benefit under the scheme. The question that Senator Chaney raised was in respect of another provision. I should say in that context that the Government is particularly pleased with the take-up of the family allowance supplement when one considers that fewer than 2,000 families in Tasmania were receiving the payment that it replaced, the family income supplement. I do not have to say much more than that this is part of the Government's program. The Prime Minister has written to all of these families and it is part of the Government's commitment to ensure that no Australian child lives in poverty by 1990. In closing, I thank Senator Devereux for his concern in this matter and note the disregard with which some members of the Opposition obviously treat this extremely important issue of incomes assistance to low income families. Senator ALSTON —My question is to the Minister for Finance. Is the Minister aware of yesterday's statement by the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Ray, as reported in today's Melbourne Age, that, despite being currently in receipt of a salary package approaching $100,000, he will not be pushed into paying out a low interest housing loan which he obtained in 1978 prior to entering the Parliament? In view of the refusal by the Minister for Home Affairs to acknowledge any moral obligation to make way for the many thousands of deserving families who would greatly appreciate access to such funds, I refer the Minister to remarks he made in the Senate on 17 November 1982 about the former Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Anthony, who found himself in similar circumstances. Senator Walsh said: If the Government really expects to be taken at all seriously, the prerequisite to gaining any moral credibility, any moral authority at all, is for the Prime Minister to instruct his deputy to repay that 4 3/4 per cent loan. Does the Minister still adhere to those lofty principles? If so, will he advise the Prime Minister to instruct Senator Ray to repay the loan? If he will not do so, is the Minister content for the Australian community to reach the irresistible conclusion that double standards have replaced moral standards as the order of the day? Senator WALSH —I am well aware of double standards. Indeed, I used to publish quite a lot about standards a few years ago. I table a page from a June 1981 issue of News Sheet which I used to publish some years ago. It has some examples of double dipping, with the notation that the dollar figures given are those of the day and need to be upgraded quite significantly, of course, to convert them to present value dollars. I have not seen the story to which Senator Alston referred. My colleagues tell me that it appeared in several newspapers, but as I have yet to read this morning's newspapers, I have not seen it. However, I do remember that in the 1960s Mr Anthony, Mr Sinclair and Mr Nixon obtained loans with, I think, a 4 1/2 per cent interest rate. In the early 1980s, Mr Anthony was paying a massive $19 a week-not as rental, but as rental purchase-for a house in Forrest which even at that time was believed to be worth well over $100,000. I think that the interest rate was 4 1/2 per cent over a 25-year period. Mr Nixon, who, even by National Party of Australia standards, has a very thick hide, had one as well. For all I know, both still have those loans, although, I think Mr Anthony flogged off the house in Forrest in 1983 for about a quarter of a million dollars. I certainly remember that very well and I do not resile from anything I said about it at the time. Senator ALSTON —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Does Senator Walsh resile from the moral standards that he enunciated in 1982? If not, why are they not applicable in the present instance? Senator WALSH —I have already answered that, Mr President. Senator COONEY —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security the following questions: Has the proposed agreement with Italy providing for reciprocal arrangements for the giving of social security benefits been ratified by the Australian and Italian governments? If either or both governments have not ratified the agreement, what is the reason? If it has not been ratified, can the Australian Government do anything about finding an expeditious conclusion to the agreement? Senator BOLKUS —The matter raised in Senator Cooney's question is of concern to the Government. Reciprocal agreements are an important priority for the Government for a number of reasons. Obviously, they impact on the income of migrants in this country and are of real concern to elderly migrants in Australia. The three categories of people to whom they are of real concern are migrants in Australia who have not been here long enough to qualify for payment of Australian benefits; those who have been resident in Australia for long periods but return to their original country before eligible for Australian pensions; and those who paid into overseas social security funds but do not get paid because they came to Australia. In response to Senator Cooney's second question, the Prime Ministers of Australia and Italy signed the reciprocal agreement in April 1986. Australia is ready to ratify the agreement, but Italy has yet to pass legislation. The recent resignation of the Goria Government has, yet again, delayed ratification. Yesterday the Minister for Social Security, Mr Howe, expressed his disappointment at the new delay and also his intention to proceed quickly with ratification. The Government is very keen to see the agreement ratified. Last January in Rome Mr Howe raised the matter with Mr Rino Formica, the Italian Minister for Labour and Social Welfare. Senator Vanstone —Where are you staying? Senator BOLKUS —I have not stayed at some of the places at which the honourable senator would probably stay. The Government is extremely concerned to get the agreement ratified very quickly. To that effect, Mr Howe gave an undertaking yesterday that he would be keen to return to Italy if that would assist ratification in any way. Senator KNOWLES: I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. What amount of Federal Government funding has been allocated in total for the recovery of unexploded ordnance in the Warnbro area of Western Australia and over what period? What is the current allocation for such clearance? When will this allocation cease? Has any provision for further funding for clearance at Warnbro been made in the 1987-88 defence budget? Is it proposed that any other funds be allocated for clearance of unexploded ordnance in neighbouring areas? Senator ROBERT RAY —From time to time I have some fairly detailed briefs, which even go so far as to talk about dead fish in Jervis Bay, but unfortunately, by some oversight, we do not have this issue covered at the moment. I will seek an answer from the Minister for Defence and try to provide it by tomorrow. Senator McKIERNAN —My question, which is directed to the Minister for Resources, is a follow-up on a question asked yesterday by Senator Giles regarding the Australian Bureau for Agricultural and Resource Economics and relates specifically to the iron ore industry. I ask the Minister to inform the Senate of the industry's performance and to give reasons for its performance. I ask the Minister whether the industry is approaching the next round of negotiations with confidence because the buyers of our iron ore now see Australia as being a reliable supplier. Senator COOK —I did answer a question by Senator Giles yesterday about Australia's production of mineral commodities over the last year and the quite spectacular output that we enjoyed over that time. I knew of Senator McKiernan's question so I was not surprised by it. Production of iron ore in Western Australia last year was a record one million tonnes, 4 million tonnes above the previous record that Western Australia set-- Senator Chaney —One million tonnes? Senator COOK —I am sorry; it was 100 million tonnes. I thank Senator Chaney for his interjection. He has given me an opportunity to correct the record. It was 4 million tonnes above our previous record. That record output was achieved despite a significant reduction in the number of workers employed in the Pilbara. Improvements in productivity and a significant reduction in industrial disputes have been features of the iron ore industry over the past three years. Those factors have had a positive impact on the marketing of iron ore overseas. The improvements in productivity, which in some cases have exceeded 30 per cent, have given buyers a clear indication that the Australian iron ore industry-both management and workers-is determined to ensure that it remains the most efficient supplier in the world. The reduction in industrial disputations over the past four years has shown that Australian suppliers can be relied on to supply iron ore when it is required. I might say that the one exception to that was when the industrial relations record was blemished last year by a dispute at Robe River. That is the most significant single blemish. Of course, that dispute was a company initiated one. The Western Australian Iron Ore Industry Consultative Council, which was inaugurated by the Prime Minister in 1984 as a joint Commonwealth and Western Australian Government initiative, has played a most important role in achieving productivity gains and improvements in industrial relations. Regarding Senator McKiernan's question on price negotiations, those negotiations have been completed for deliveries of iron ore in 1988. I am confident that the improvements in efficiency and reliability will result in significant gains in the quantity of ore the Australian industry is able to sell overseas. I am aware that those negotiations have resulted in Australia obtaining something close to its record share of the Japanese iron ore export trade-a percentage from which we had declined previously. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —My question, which is also addressed to the Minister for Resources, relates to the ongoing funding of the Bundaberg and Isis irrigation project in Queensland. Is the Minister aware that, until December 1987, expenditure on the project amounted to $163.2m, with $112m coming from the Queensland Government and $51.2m from the Federal Government? Given the desperate plight of farmers in the Isis area who are facing the ongoing effects of drought, can the Minister give an assurance that the Commonwealth-State agreement that finishes at the end of the financial year 1988-89 will be renegotiated and that the Commonwealth will provide a commitment to continue funding at the present level of 40 per cent of the total costs to allow the scheme to be finalised? Senator COOK —Of course, I am aware of the Bundaberg irrigation scheme. In fact, I have exchanged correspondence with the relevant Queensland Minister, Mr Neal. I might add that he has ranked all of the irrigation projects in Queensland in order of priority. Obviously, I acknowledge and accept his ranking as being indicative of what the Queensland Government regards as the most important priorities. I have to say that in that ranking the Bundaberg irrigation scheme is not No. 1. In fact, I think that the Queensland Government assigns the No. 1 ranking to the Burdekin scheme. To go to the detail of the question, the Commonwealth has made a substantial financial contribution so far to the Bundaberg irrigation scheme-exceeding its initial commitment in 1970. The project in Queensland has been generously treated by the Commonwealth under the Federal water resources assistance program and its predecessor program, the national water resources program. From the original commitment to the Fred Haigh dam in 1970, at an estimated cost of $12.8m, the Commonwealth has now contributed a total of $52.65m for the dam and irrigation infrastructures. That confirms part of Senator Bjelke-Petersen's question. A further $4m will be provided in 1988-89 under the current agreement. During 1987-88 Queensland will be allocated 60 per cent of the total funds allocated to the States for the Federal water resources assistance program which, the honourable senator will agree, is a fair allocation of priority for those programs from the Commonwealth. Further Commonwealth assistance for the scheme will be considered when the current agreement concludes in 1988-89, in light of the priority accorded to it by the Queensland Government for the Federal water resources assistance program funding and then the prevailing budgetary circumstances and other competing commitments and priorities within the program. Senator BLACK —I ask whether the Minister for Transport and Communications has seen media reports that the Queensland airline Flight West Airlines has refused to pay Federal Transport Department charges totalling in excess of $70,000. Can the Minister advise whether these charges have now been paid? If they have not been paid, and in light of the appalling safety record in Papua New Guinea of Flight West's parent company Talair which has resulted in more than 130 deaths of pilots, passengers and bystanders in the last 10 years, could this refusal reflect Flight West's attitude to its financial and safety obligations as a Queensland carrier? Is the Federal Government considering any review of the charter licence and supplementary airline licence issued to Flight West in 1987? Senator GARETH EVANS —The situation in respect of this matter is as follows: following compliance with all Federal operational requirements for issue of the respective licences, a charter licence was issued to Flight West on 1 June 1987 and a supplementary airline licence was issued on 16 July last year. On 1 July 1987 revised charging arrangements were introduced for all general aviation (GA) aircraft. Under these new arrangements, GA aircraft which use aviation turbine fuel, such as those operated by Flight West on the western Queensland route, pay landing charges for all landings at Commonwealth airports or at airports which receive Commonwealth financial assistance. Landing charges are based on the weight of the aircraft concerned and the extent of the facilities provided by the Commonwealth at the airport. The new charging arrangements were introduced only after quite extensive consultation with the aviation industry and were certainly known to Flight West when it commenced its supplementary airline operation in Queensland. However, Flight West has objected to the new charges and has mounted a campaign against them. As Senator Black said, Flight West has refused to pay the landing charges since August 1987. Currently, some $68,900 is owed in respect of its five aircraft. Statutory liens were imposed on these aircraft on 10 March this year. Under the new charging arrangements, the landing charges applicable, for example, to a return flight from Brisbane to Longreach by a Super King aircraft is $73.71. Based on passenger figures supplied by Flight West this represents some $5.25 per passenger or 1.2 per cent of the return air fare for this flight. This is considerably below the average charge per passenger paid by the domestic trunk operators, Ansett Airlines of Australia and Australian Airlines. An exemption from landing charges for any operator such as Flight West would require a compensating increase in charges to the remainder of the aviation industry. It would not be appropriate for Flight West to be subsidised by the rest of the aviation industry in this way. In addition to the commuter airline subsidy already provided by the Commonwealth, I understand that the Queensland Government is providing further assistance to Flight West-whether it deserves it or not-through a $1.3m subsidy for the operation of routes formerly serviced by Australian Airlines. As to the final part of Senator Black's question, I can say that Flight West has met all Federal operational requirements for the issue of its charter and supplementary airline licences. Those requirements are very rigorous indeed, as is well known around the world. Flight West is subject to the same monitoring arrangements that apply to all similar operators. Licences cannot be removed because of non-payment of air navigation charges. Accordingly, no review of the charter and supplementary airline licence is being considered. Senator TEAGUE —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts and Territories. I refer the Minister to my question to him on 23 February in which I asked: Why does the Government not . . . ban X-rated videos once and for all? I urged the Minister to act before the New South Wales State election. The Minister then replied: If it is possible to take action on the basis of the information I receive prior to 19 March, I shall. Has the Minister received the information he expected to receive prior to 19 March? What action has the Government taken? Is it true that an amending ordinance banning X-rated videos in the Australian Capital Territory has been drafted and, if so, why has it not yet been gazetted? Finally, is there a meeting tomorrow of Australian Attorneys-General with a priority agenda item of video classifications and the achievement of a consistent ban on X-rated materials throughout Australia? Senator RICHARDSON —I do not believe that the Government will be taking any action prior to the New South Wales election. There is a meeting of Australian Attorneys-General taking place today and tomorrow in Brisbane. They are discussing this issue with, I think, particular reference to violent videos. I also understand that there will be a meeting in May of those Ministers with some responsibility for censorship. I am informed that that is in fact the most important meeting that will be taking place on this matter. It would therefore be unlikely that we would seek to take action until all that information was to hand. If that means that we have to wait for a further short period, so be it. Senator ZAKHAROV —I ask the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women whether it is a fact that Australia recently reported to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women-the CEDAW Committee. Can the Minister indicate to the Senate how the Australian statement was received? Can she also inform the Senate whether there is any Australian representation on the 23-member independent committee? Senator REYNOLDS —I am pleased to advise the Senate in answer to Senator Zakharov's question that Australia's reputation as a world leader on the status of women has been further enhanced with a most favourable reception by the United Nations Committee monitoring the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women. This was on the occasion just two weeks ago when Australia gave its first report since the Convention was ratified. Under the terms of the Convention which was ratified by the Hawke Government, signatories must submit on a regular basis a report on the measures adopted to give effect to the Convention in their country. Australia's first report was delivered to the Committee in New York on 23 February. I am very pleased with the way in which the Australian report has been received by the Committee. The report was commended by the Committee as an important and diverse report which was an example to other nations in its adherence to reporting guidelines and data provisions. I am optimistic that the fact that Australia's reputation has been recognised overseas will perhaps assist in the process of achieving some kind of bipartisan approach to the very important issue of the status of women in Australian society. Over the past several years we have not heard in this chamber as much as I would like from members of the Liberal and National parties on the way in which they, if they were ever given the opportunity, would continue the work that has been pioneered by the Hawke Government. While I am not expecting them to be given that opportunity, nevertheless, I think it is about time that we approached these very important status of women issues on a more bipartisan basis. When the report was presented the Committee also congratulated the Government on its commitment to the Convention through legislation, programs and administrative structures. In particular, the Committee commented positively-- Senator Vanstone —Why don't you table the statement instead of just reading it out? Senator REYNOLDS —Some people are very interested in this matter. I am sure that Senator Giles is very interested, as she has worked very closely with my predecessor, Senator Ryan. I am sure that people listening to the radio broadcast are very interested, and I am sure that women of Australia-- Senator Stone —People were listening. Senator REYNOLDS —I am very surprised that Opposition senators are so sensitive to the Australian Government being praised. I cannot understand why they would not welcome and be looking forward to working on a bipartisan basis. I shall continue, because I believe this is a most important issue. The Committee also congratulated the Commonwealth Government. In particular, the Committee commented positively-- Senator Vanstone —Did you tell them in the report that you dig into the lives of Opposition members' wives? Senator REYNOLDS —I do not know why the honourable senator is so angry. The Committee commented positively on the Commonwealth's sex discrimination and affirmative action legislation, the placement of the Office of the Status of Women within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the implementation of the domestic violence public education program, the establishment of the register of women, the measures taken to counter the sexist portrayal of women in the media, and the active commitment of the Government to the implementation of the Nairobi forward looking strategies through the national agenda for women which, I understand, is the first to be prepared. I would be remiss if I did not comment that this report in which the Australian Government is congratulated is totally at odds with what Senator Puplick said about the national agenda for women in what I would consider to be a rather sloppy Press release. In a Press statement dated 11 March Senator Puplick referred to the national agenda for women as another sloppy, tokenistic and insulting statement. That is what Senator Puplick has to say about this very important document. I am glad that he has returned to the chamber. He might like to explain-- Senator Puplick —Why don't you be honest and say why I said that? Senator REYNOLDS —I can go on and explain why he said that; I am happy to do so. He might like to ask me a particular question about that so that I do not take the time of the Senate now, as Senator Vanstone does not like to hear the good news about what the Australian Government has done for the status of women. She is supposed to be the Opposition's spokesperson on the status of women. Why can we not accept this report as good news and why can we not have a bipartisan approach to status of women issues? All we get from the Opposition is criticism and carping about how it is not interested. Senator Vanstone —You are boring everybody to tears. Ask yourself why the Labor people say that there is a weary complacency evident in that report. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask Senator Vanstone to cease her repeated interjections, and I ask Senator Reynolds to ignore the interjections and reply to the question. Senator REYNOLDS —In reply to the second part of the question asked by Senator Zakharov, I am also pleased to report to the Senate that Justice Elizabeth Evatt has been re-elected as an independent expert member of this Committee, polling second in a field of 16. Justice Evatt's reappointment clearly indicates her high international standing in this field. I am sure that I am reflecting the view of honourable senators on this side of the chamber-I hope it is also the view of honourable senators on the other side of the chamber-in congratulating her on her reappointment. Senator ARCHER —I ask a question of the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. Media reports relative to the replacement of the Nella Dan allege that there have been irregularities in the handling and awarding of the contract, which allegations now involve the Australian Federal Police. Have such allegations been made to the Minister? What steps has the Minister taken to have a full inquiry conducted into all facets of the calling and handling of tenders and the awarding of the contract? Will the Minister make a report to the Senate as soon as such an inquiry has been carried out? Senator RICHARDSON —Yes, I am aware of the reports to which the honourable senator refers. A couple of weeks ago I received a letter from a person called Ralfs-I forget his first name-in which some allegations were made about the tender process. Mr Ralfs has forwarded those allegations to the Australian Federal Police. My understanding is that the Federal Police have asked for further information from Mr Ralfs in order to see whether they can establish any sort of problem. It is difficult for me to comment, therefore, on the specifics of Mr Ralfs's allegations. Until that Federal Police investigation is completed it would be improper for me to do so. Nonetheless, as soon as the investigation is completed I intend to comment at some length on what Mr Ralfs has said. However, as to the general question of the tender process itself, I have asked that an official of the Department of Administrative Services with considerable experience in the tender process visit the Antarctic Division in Hobart, go through all the files and report to me on whether or not each and every obligation we had to meet was met. I hope that that report will be available to me by the end of next week or, if not, during the following week. I will most certainly report to the Senate on what I am told. Senator SANDERS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. I refer to the revelations by the German magazine Der Spiegel, based on European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM) documents and company documents, that the label on a shipment of Australian uranium was swapped with the label on some unenrichable American uranium in order that the Australian uranium could be enriched to weapons grade in breach of Australia's safeguards agreement with EURATOM. I refer also to statements by officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade reported in yesterday's Age newspaper in which they said that the Australian Safeguards Office had uncovered no illegal activity. I ask the Minister: First, if the swap was illegal, does this mean that the Australian Safeguards Office is unable to detect the diversion of Australian uranium for illegal purposes? Second, if the swap was legal, does this mean that Australia's safeguard arrangements are unable to prevent the diversion of Australian uranium into activities banned by Australia's safeguards policy? Third, does the Minister agree with the Foreign Affairs official quoted in yesterday's Melbourne Herald as saying that Australian uranium `goes into one big melting pot' and that `the safeguards are monitoring on paper only'? Finally, will the Government tighten up its safeguards arrangements to prevent the illegal use of Australian uranium? If this is not possible, will the Government ban the export of uranium? Senator COOK —I thank Senator Sanders for giving me notice of this question. Two questions were asked yesterday on this very subject. I think one was asked of Senator Evans by Senator Haines and one was asked of me by Senator Wood. The answer that I gave on that occasion is exactly the same answer that I give now. I stand by what I said yesterday. I am sure that that answer is consistent with what Senator Evans said. That answer applies to all of the questions that Senator Sanders raises today. What may not have come through during Question Time yesterday was an interjection that I think Senator Peter Baume made just as I was resuming my seat. The interjection was, `Will you report back?'. That interjection was in the form of a question to me. The answer to that interjection, which I gave at the time but which I do not think is recorded in Hansard, is, `Yes'. It is my understanding that the portfolio Minister, Mr Kerin, intends to make a report on the investigations that have been conducted and are being conducted by Australian officials. It should be said, with respect to the allegations that have been raised, that there are several competing allegations. It appears that the source of them may be an article published in Der Spiegel in January-February. There have been several articles in it. Many of the news services, that of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in particular, seem to have sourced the articles they have put to air or published from Der Spiegel as a primary source. As I said in answer to the question yesterday, with reference to Der Spiegel we are concerned that allegations can be made at all. When they are made we pursue and investigate them. I said yesterday, and I say it again today: We are assured, on the advice that I have and Minister Kerin has, that no diversion which offends against the Australian safeguards regime has been made. If the matters referred to in the several particular parts of the question by Senator Sanders are the same as the allegations made in Der Spiegel in January and February, those allegations in particular have been investigated. I am advised, on the basis of information available, that the transactions to which they refer are consistent with the Australian European Atomic Energy Community safeguards agreement. Senator SANDERS —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. If the report the Minister has alluded to does show that the allegations are true and that there are discrepancies in the safeguard arrangements, will the Government take steps to review its safeguard arrangements? Senator COOK —As I said, the safeguards mentioned in Der Spiegel in January-February have been investigated. I have just given an assurance on what we are advised-that they are entirely consistent with Australian safeguards. Since many allegations are being made, and I have said that Mr Kerin will report on the outcome of those investigations, it is proper and prudent to wait for that report. Senator CHAPMAN —Is the Minister for Finance aware that the South Australian Government has introduced legislation removing all liability from the Electricity Trust of South Australia (ETSA) for damage it causes to property or persons, including damage caused beyond the South Australian border? Is the Minister aware that because of this legislation persons will be without claims against anybody for restitution and must now take out all insurance on their own behalf, which, even if obtainable, would be cost prohibitive? Is he further aware that should there be another disaster, such as the Ash Wednesday fires, the Natural Disasters Organisation and the Department of Finance would now not be refunded from ETSA's insurers as was the case previously? Is he also aware that there would have been $400m worth of bankruptcies in South Australia if ETSA had not been liable for Ash Wednesday and that, consequent upon this legislation, such an amount may in future be sought from the Federal Government as disaster relief? In view of the national implications of this legislation, will the Minister bring his influence to bear on his Australian Labor Party colleague, South Australian Premier Bannon, to withdraw this outrageous legislation or, alternatively, will the Minister give his assurance that the Federal Government will reimburse legitimate claimants for all damage caused in the future by ETSA, including in the event of major disasters? Will he also give his assurance, in light of the dangerous precedent established by this legislation, that the Government will remain liable for all uninsured Federal government instrumentalities now and in the future? Senator WALSH —The first part of the question was whether I am aware of legislation which allegedly the South Australian Government has introduced. The answer is no. The rest of the question, therefore, becomes non-applicable, except that since Senator Chapman is a South Australian who has displayed an interest in bankruptcy, I will table two pages from the September 1981 edition of the esteemed publication called News Sheet that I used to publish some years ago, referring to a contemporaneous South Australian bankruptcy. Senator BEAHAN —I refer the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce to the announcement in June last year by the Prime Minister that the Commonwealth Government would investigate the commercial viability of manufacturing the Sarich orbital engine in Australia. Has any action occurred on this matter? Is there any further evidence on the feasibility of the project? Can we expect an early decision on the manufacture of the engine in Australia? Senator BUTTON —Following the Prime Minister's announcement last year, the Federal and Western Australian governments jointly established a committee to report on the potential for the manufacture in Australia of the Sarich two-stroke engine. The committee has now presented to the Government a detailed blueprint for the establishment of such a facility in Australia. That blueprint is dependent on two things. The report found that manufacture of the engine in Australia would be a feasible economic undertaking, provided, firstly, that the development of the engine is successfully completed-and it is not. It is alleged that there are some nine months to go to complete a satisfactory prototype. Secondly, the obvious requirement is that a substantial international market is found for the engine. These steps must be achieved before any manufacturer or consortium of manufacturers would make a commitment to the production of the engine. However, if the development of the engine continues on schedule, it will take about nine months for that necessary work to be completed. Once that development stage is completed, it could take between five and seven years to progress the engine to the production stage. This timetable could be reduced, depending on the priority given to the project. Subject to the successful completion of the preparatory work to which I referred, progress to the production stage will depend on satisfactory purchasers being available. It is believed that the most likely end user would be an international vehicle manufacturer wishing to engineer a vehicle around the specifications of the Sarich engine. I am encouraged by the finding that it would be feasible to manufacture the engine in Australia but the proposal still has to meet the market tests both of getting a committed buyer and attracting private investment, to which I referred. The committee, in its report, said it has received valuable support from the State governments and the trade union movement for the establishment of a facility. I should add that the development work of the orbital engine company has involved expenditure of about $40m over the last 15 years. Substantial contributions and incentives have been provided by the Federal and Western Australian governments, including funding of this study, I think to a total of about $15m. To assist companies genuinely interested in the establishment of such a facility in Australia, the report and blueprint will be made available through the Automotive Industry Authority in consultation with the orbital engineering company. Senator BUTTON —Yesterday at Question Time Senator Messner asked me a question about Mr Young's superannuation entitlements and his appointment as a consultant at Qantas Airways Ltd. I undertook to obtain an answer from the Minister for Industrial Relations. The Minister has advised that on present understanding of the consultancy arrangements between Mr Young and Qantas it would not be appropriate to specify the position as a public office within the meaning of the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973. The types of consultancy arrangements which Qantas has with Mr Young are not of a nature that would be appropriate for referral to the Remuneration Tribunal. The Tribunal normally fixes remuneration of directors, chief executives and senior office holders, not part time consultants. The Minister says that he is unaware of any part time consultant arrangements that have ever been referred-- Senator Durack —What about all the part time members of authorities the Tribunal deals with? Senator BUTTON —I will complete my answer and then if the honourable senator has anything to add he may do so. The Minister is unaware of any part time consultant arrangements that have ever been referred to the Remuneration Tribunal. That may be in conflict with Senator Durack's views. In any case, there is considerable doubt whether the Act could apply at all to these arrangements. There are no discretions under the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act to reduce Mr Young's pension in light of his appointment by Qantas as a part time consultant. That Act provides that, where a former member who is entitled to a parliamentary pension also receives remuneration as a holder of certain offices of profit under the Crown, the pension must be reduced. The meaning of `office of profit', as defined in the Act, is exhaustive and contains no discretions. Senator TATE —At Question Time yesterday, Senator Brownhill asked me a question concerning certain materials which I think he said were reported or made available to the parliamentary commission of inquiry into Mr Justice Murphy and he asked whether those same materials were made available to the coronial inquiry into the death of Mr Eustace. I was unable to answer that part of his question. I say now that the proceedings of the parliamentary commission of inquiry were in camera; therefore, I do not know what information was available. On the question of what information is now locked away, I refer Senator Brownhill to section 6 of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry (Repeal) Act 1986, which specifically prohibits access to all documents the subject of inquiry to all persons, apart from the Presiding Officers. Senator COOK —Yesterday Senator Walters asked me a question concerning a health promotion grant of $115,000, or more, to the Hobart Women's Health Centre to promote cardiovascular health in women. I would like to add to the answer I gave Senator Walters yesterday. It appears that her question was based on a recent article by a journalist called Margeuretta Pos of the Hobart Mercury-a newspaper, I observe, which is not well known for its extensive coverage of women's health matters. But to go to the questions raised by Senator Walters, she appears to have got the wrong end of the stick again. Of course, the Hobart Women's Health Centre has three voluntary staff. Their qualifications include bachelor of applied science medical technology, diploma of applied science nursing, diploma of social work and hospital nursing training. Their experience includes overseas and domestic nursing, social work in government and non-government organisations, family planning counselling and technical and further education teaching. The grant will enable them to be paid salaries-or perhaps Senator Walters is in favour of not paying women a fair return for their work. The project for which the centre is being funded is not a research project; it is a developmental project. The Women's Health Centre is being funded to identify whether preventative strategies and behavioural changes can be effective in modifying women's risk of developing cardiovascular disease. The centre will run a series of workshops focusing on specific groups of women at high risk. The workshops will assess at risk behaviours and promote attitudinal and behavioural change. At no point did Dr Blewett say, as alleged by Senator Walters, that he would give the grant to the Women's Health Foundation until the centre was established. The Minister said that the grant would be managed through the foundation until the health centre group becomes incorporated. Incorporation of the centre is expected in the next few months. Data initially quoted by the Minister for Community Services and Health was based on Australian Bureau of Statistics and National Heart Foundation figures from 1973 to 1983. Senator Newman —Steady on! Won't those figures be out of date? Senator COOK —That data showed the trend of an increase in mortality rates from cardiovascular disease for Tasmanian women between 45 and 59 when rates for men declined in the same period. Senator Newman —Why is he giving us old figures? Senator COOK —It is correct that, in the short period since 1984, death rates from cardiovascular disease for Tasmanian women have come down-and at a faster rate than for other States, except Queensland. However, if we start from a high base with relatively small populations, a small figure decline equals a large percentage. All this debate about statistics obscures the main point: Tasmanian women have unmet health needs, including in relation to their cardiovascular health, which have been ignored by the State Government. Senator Newman —You are using five years old figures. Senator COOK —Cardiovascular disease is still one of the major killers for women, as it is for men. But efforts to reduce incidence of the disease have not been as successful for women as they have been for men. This grant will meet a direct need for Tasmanian women to help reduce cardiovascular disease and enable Tasmanian women to contribute to a reduction of the disease in women everywhere. I think the interjections from Senator Newman are the most eloquent testimony to Tasmanians that she does not really care about this issue. Senator GARETH EVANS —Yesterday Senator Haines asked me a question about the nuclear export issue based on articles in the Melbourne Herald. Although most of the points that can be made at this stage in relation to this matter have been made by Senator Cook on behalf of the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy in answer to questions in the last two days, I think there are one or two matters I should add for the record as I represent the interests of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade in this matter, and in particular to respond to what was said yesterday about the Herald report. Allegations have been made by the members of the European Parliament that the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM) and the West German nuclear firm Nukem arranged for Australian uranium to be converted into weapons grade nuclear fuel in contravention of the Australia-EURATOM nuclear safeguards agreement. The articles in the Melbourne Herald on 15 and 16 March, which echoed these allegations, were totally misleading. They did not accurately reflect either the statements made by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade spokesperson or the system by which safeguards are applied to Australian uranium. These current allegations appear, as Senator Cook has said, to be the same as those which were made by the West German weekly magazine Der Spiegel in its editions of 18 January and 15 and 22 February. We have investigated the Der Spiegel allegations and are satisfied, on the basis of information available to us, that the transactions to which they refer were consistent with the terms of the Australia-EURATOM safeguards agreement. We are now investigating the latest allegations and honourable senators will be informed of the outcome. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications) —I seek leave to make a statement on behalf of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden), to incorporate the statement in Hansard and to move a motion. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- During my recent visit overseas I represented the Australian Government in valuable and productive discussions with heads and members of governments and other community leaders in Mauritius, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Kenya, Yemen Arab Republic, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Israel, Maldives, Singapore and Indonesia. These discussions canvassed a broad range of topics, including international and regional issues, economic and trade matters and official aid activities. There were two particular points of significance about my visit. The first is that the issues raised range across all our national interests and obligations: the Commonwealth and the Front Line States, for example; trade and aid; the Middle East dispute; the Gulf War and the arms race; human rights; and our immediate regional preoccupations. In Lusaka, I attended the first meeting of the Commonwealth Foreign Ministers' Committee which was set up by the Vancouver Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in order to bring about Commonwealth action to hasten the end of apartheid. The Lusaka meeting decided on a program of work to achieve two objectives. One was to widen and tighten Commonwealth sanctions against South Africa. Australia made an important contribution to this objective by presenting a report on work done by Australia towards the study (commissioned by the CHOGM) into South Africa's relationship with the international financial system. This study will provide better understanding of possibilities for financial sanctions against the apartheid regime. Australia will continue to contribute to this study, which will be considered at a future meeting of the Commonwealth Foreign Minister. The Lusaka meeting was not concerned solely with sanctions, of course. Its second objective was to find ways in which the Commonwealth can play a constructive role in a range of activities: reducing the economic dependence of Front Line States on South Africa; assisting with their security needs; facilitating contact with groups inside and outside South Africa; supporting victims and opponents of apartheid; and counteracting South African propaganda and censorship. The Front Line States opposing the apartheid regime bear a heavy burden, in the sense that their economic condition is in large measure determined by this regime. This was a recurring theme in my discussions with leaders of Zambia, Zimbabwe and Mozambique. We make no bones about our concern for these economies. Apartheid is the most deplorable example possible of infringement of fundamental human rights. Unlike the Opposition, the Government will not tolerate compromise over this great moral imperative. The Commonwealth has focused attention on the plight of Mozambique, a special victim of drought and famine complicated by campaigns of destabilisation by Pretoria. The drought is particularly serious and international awareness of its effects is spreading at last. Senior officials of the International Committee for the Red Cross and of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees describe the refugee situation in Mozambique as the worst they have ever encountered. The Commonwealth and the wider international community have therefore sought to respond out of humanitarian concern for the predicament in which the ordinary people of Mozambique find themselves. Australia's capacity to help is obviously limited. Our pledge of $100 million in aid over three years to the countries of Southern Africa (including Mozambique) is small compared to the commitments of Canada (for example) and the Europeans. It is nevertheless an earnest of our commitment to a nation bordering on the Indian Ocean, which is a region of significance to Australia. It allows us, moreover, to continue our close involvement in an international issue of fundamental concern and to assist Mozambique to cope with the consequences of South African destabilisation. The Opposition's attitude on this point is churlish and shameful. Let me make two points about this meanness. One is that-for all the Opposition's indignation about aid to Southern Africa-the fact is that this level of aid will increase by a few cents to about 32 cents on average per head this year! Compare this to more than $95 per head spent last year in PNG (for example) or more than $100 per head in Vanuatu! The second point is that most of it is in the form of food aid and at least three quarters of our food aid over the past four years has been spent on Australian produce. If the Honourable Member for North Sydney, having heard this, still disagrees with the idea of giving humanitarian aid to the starving and the famished of Southern Africa, let him go and explain himself to the high-protein biscuit producers in New South Wales or the sorghum farmers in Queensland or the dried fruit growers in Victoria. I found a clear wish in Mauritius, Kenya and Zimbabwe to develop closer trade and commercial links with Australia, particularly as these countries also strongly desire to reduce their dependence on South African sources. I made it clear that Australian expertise and technology have ready application in a number of product and service areas. In particular, my discussion in these countries identified agricultural development and minerals exploitation and processing as areas of great interest and commercial potential. A trade mission of Australian business representatives will visit Zimbabwe and Mauritius in May this year to explore at first hand the opportunities for increased commercial contact between these countries and Australia. To succeed in these countries, Australian corporations will need to be competitive and innovative in their approach. The effort is worth making. These are countries with an Indian Ocean focus in their worldview, a novel experience for Australian companies, and they offer long-term prospects for Australia. Australia must recognise at the same time that these countries need assistance to develop their own export capabilities. My Department for instance, will be extending such assistance to exporters in Zimbabwe to help them promote their products in Australia. The Middle East is an area of primary trading importance to Australia, with two-way trade of almost $3 billion last financial year. During my visit, I signed bilateral trade agreements with Jordan, Egypt and Israel. These agreements will facilitate closer economic and trading relationships, an important aspect being the establishment of joint committees in which business will have a dynamic role. In my trade discussions in the Middle East, I emphasised Australia's wish to strengthen and broaden our commercial relationship with the region beyond the present emphasis on commodity trade. I was able to highlight the suitability of Australian technological expertise in a number of manufacturing and service areas of relevance to the region's development needs. In addition, I was able to talk directly with customers in the $309.7 million a year market for Australian wheat in Egypt and in the $58.4 million Yemen Arab Republic market, for example, where our market share is under threat. Moreover, at the meeting of heads of Australian missions in the Middle East-attended for the first time by senior officers of Austrade working in the region-we discussed integrated strategies to pursue Australian economic and political interests in the region. Australia's influence on regional political events is naturally limited but we do have obligations and interests in these events. One such development is the war between Iran and Iraq. The continuation of this war threatens our important trading links with both countries. It also imposes limits on our capacity to expand these links. It has to be said that the Iran-Iraq conflict is being complicated by the involvement of several nations in the supply of arms to both combatants. This is an obviously important factor militating against solution. It certainly emphasises the urgency and necessity of controls on conventional as well as nuclear weapons. The conflict between Israelis and Arabs is especially significant to Australia. Nearly half a million Australians of Jewish and Arab origin have a direct and often personal interest in this tragic and complex issue. My visit to the region immediately preceded that of Secretary George Shultz and took place in the atmosphere created by his attempt to bring the disputants together. The issue was therefore the most significant in the subjects of my discussion with leaders in Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Israel and with Palestinian representatives. In these discussions, I made clear our realisation that we were marginal participants in events and that we were therefore not in the business of pressing prescriptions on those who were central to the issue. I made clear also Australia's strong view that the Shultz initiative and those of King Hussein and President Mubarak should be taken up as rare opportunities to begin the process of settlement. I was able to convey directly to Mr Shultz my impressions of the attitudes of leaders centrally involved and, in the light of these attitudes, to offer what I know our American friends appreciated as constructive suggestions. While I was in Israel, I expressed to Prime Minister Shamir and Foreign Minister Peres (through a letter from our Prime Minister and in my own words) the deep concern felt in Australia-as a friend of Israel-about the continuing violence in the occupied territories. I was able to see for myself in Gaza the legacy of hatred being created by the continuing inability of all involved to agree to solve the Palestinian issue through negotiations based on acceptance of the rights of Israel to exist within secure and recognised boundaries and of the Palestinians to self-determination. During the return leg of my journey, I took the opportunity to visit Singapore and Indonesia and Maldives, our Indian Ocean neighbour. My visits to Singapore and Indonesia were part of our commitment to maintaining regular contacts with these important regional partners. They were also my first as Minister responsible for trade. I ensured that my program reflected this new responsibility in the fullest measure, in my discussion with Ministerial counterparts and business representatives. My visit in Jakarta, of course, offered the chance of another in the regular exchanges I have maintained with Foreign Minister Mochtar, who is a good friend to Australia. A full agenda of discussion with Dr Mochtar included the issue of Kampuchea (on which Indonesia has continued to play a major role), progress on the Timor Gap question, the illegal entry into Australian waters of Indonesian fishing boats and access to Indonesia by Australian journalists. In Maldives, trade matters were an important item of discussion with the emphasis on expanding our existing commercial links. Our aid program was also discussed. It was valuable to gain Maldivian views, particularly on topics bearing on our common interests in the Indian Ocean. My visits to Maldives and South East Asia illustrate the extent and diversity of the regional diplomatic agenda for Australia. We must focus simultaneously on both the economic and political level on the Indian Ocean, North Asian, South East Asian and South West Pacific areas. The days are long gone when we could strike political postures against China, for example, while pursuing a trading relationship with China. Striking the right balance, judging the trade-offs costs in competing national priorities, deploying scarce government resources in the maximum national benefit: these are complex, connected strands in our diplomacy which have to be pursued with sublety as well as energy if we are to protect and preserve Australia's vital interests. This raised the second point of significance about my visit. This is that the issue with which it dealt exemplify in many ways the complexities in the conduct of diplomacy nowadays. By this I mean such issues as disarmament and Superpower relations, for example; the international economic and trade systems; human rights, the effects of racism and colonialism; and the condition of Australia as a multicultural community. The recent speech to the Australian Institute of International Affairs in Hobart by the Leader of the Opposition demonstrated significant differences of view of foreign policy between the Government and the Opposition. So have various statements by the newest spokesperson on foreign policy of the Opposition. There should be no mistake about this. There is an influential minority in Australia which either does not understand the current complexities in external policy or is frightened and confused by them. Let me discuss a few examples. One is the Opposition's view that the Southern African issue is irrelevant and (to use its word) peripheral to Australian interests. I will not dwell on the Opposition's tacky philosophy (as shown in its statements on the Grey case in Mozambique) that humanitarian aid should be used as a tool of political pressure; as a form of ransom. It is hard to imagine an attitude that could do Mr Grey more harm. It is unfortunate that it is necessary to point out the seriousness to us of the situation in Southern Africa as an irritant in world affairs, as a major concern to the Commonwealth and a cause of growing insecurity in the Indian Ocean region. I regret this because it is a reflection of the Opposition's unacceptably benign view of the doctrine and effects of apartheid. With one or two honourable exceptions (such as the Honourable Member for Goldstein), the Opposition proclaims its distaste for apartheid but it opposes any Australian attempt to do anything about it. This hypocrisy does Australia great harm in the Commonwealth and elsewhere. Nothing could be better timed to show the inherent inhumanity of apartheid than the case of the Sharpeville Six. Six people not directly involved in a violent incident are about to be hanged as a gesture towards the South African Government's attempts to prop up its apartheid system. I regret also that the Opposition's position on Southern Africa shows a dangerous myopia about Indian Ocean affairs. This is a region which is so important to our strategic interests and our trade and communications links that we consult annually with the United States on developments there. These developments have great significance for us. This is why we have increased our diplomatic and defence presence there since 1983. It is why we have such an active interest in encouraging the work of the Indian Ocean Commission and the concept of the Indian Ocean Zone of Peace. One searches in vain through Opposition pronouncements for some recognition of this. The point will not be lost on Western Australians. Another point of significance about the Opposition's reaction to the issues raised by my visit is the degree of misunderstanding-indeed, ignorance-about the conduct of policy towards the Asia-pacific region. The Opposition makes typically vague and unsubstantiated allegations that the Government has ``dissipated'' its resources and energies in the region. I think my friends opposite should be introduced to a few facts on this point. Apart from my Department's specialist resources at home, almost half of all its policy staff overseas are working in this region. There are, in addition, officers working in the region from such departments and organisations such as AIDAB, Australian Federal Police, Customs, Department of Industry, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, Defence and Armed Services, Department of Primary Industry and Energy, and Department of Special Minister of State, Austrade, Treasury, Education. Since this Government came to office, there have been 192 Ministerial visits to countries in the region and 144 visits to Australia by Ministers of Asian and Pacific governments. In the first half of this year alone, continuous, active contact with the region has taken place or is planned. I instance visits to China by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, and the Minister for Trade Negotiations on the occasion of the Joint Ministerial Economic Commission. The Minister for Industry, Technology & Commerce has also visited Hong Kong and Thailand. The Minister for Employment, Education and Training visited Hong Kong and Korea. Other activities include: Trade discussions with China, Japan and Korea; further development of bilateral strategies for Japan and Korea; development of concessional financial arrangements with China to promote Australian commercial participation in Chinese economic development; and development of beef strategies for Japan and Korea. I plan to visit Japan, Korea, Hong Kong and the Philippines next month and Japan again and China later in the year. Later in the year, apart from visits to South East Asia by other Ministers, I plan to continue the Australian presence at the annual meeting of Foreign Ministers of ASEAN dialogue partners with their ASEAN colleagues-an activity to which the Government attaches the highest priority. Australia has consistently supported the efforts of those Governments which are trying to find a practical and lasting solution to the Kampuchean problem, which is a major source of tension in the region. The Opposition continues to express fear about the relationship with Indonesia, especially since the reaction by the Indonesian Government to Australian media criticism in 1986. Despite this reaction, there has been continuous and productive engagement between the two countries since then at all levels. There have been six visits to Indonesia by Australian Ministers, including two by me. Defence contacts have continued; so have negotiations over the Timor Gap, which are making very encouraging progress. Australian investment in Indonesia has increased. Indonesia will be represented at Expo 88. Access to Indonesia has now been granted to AAP and there is a reasonable prospect of access being given also to the ABC. I plan to make a comprehensive visit to the South Pacific again this year. This will repeat my visit to the area in 1986, when I visited all eight independent island states plus New Caledonia-the first ever such action by an Australian Foreign Minister. I have made subsequent visits to this area. Australia will continue to take part in the South Pacific forum meeting at the highest level. We continue to play a full role within the Forum in developing regional institutions on security and other strategic interests in South Pacific countries. We continue to co-operate with other Forum members on rationalising and strengthening regional organisations. We have enhanced the trading prospects of South Pacific island nations by our comprehensive liberalisation of the SPARTECA Agreement and we are exploring areas of possible broader trade and economic co-operation. We have significantly increased our aid to South Pacific island nations. Papua New Guinea continues to be a principal focus for the Government. The Prime Minister and PNG Prime Minister Wingti signed a Joint Declaration of Principles late last year which will guide the conduct of the bilateral relationship into the future. Trade will be an increasingly important element in relations and the Government is actively engaged in a review of our trade agreement with PNG. Despite problems induced by New Zealand's policy on United States ship visits ANZUS, which is such a significant factor in regional security continues to be fully in force between Australia and the United States and, separately, Australia and New Zealand. We played an active role in creating the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone. The Honourable Member for North Sydney has described this development as ``a nonsense''. It shows how little he understands the region and how greatly he patronises it. The Treaty is the result not just of the policy of the Australian Government but also the strongly-and widely-held views and desires of members of the South Pacific Forum. Finally, the Australian Government has actively promoted constructive relationships between Western governments and the island states. We strongly encouraged the US, for instance, to enter a treaty with the island governments to redress the problems of US tuna fishing in the area. We have encouraged Japan to develop its relations-especially its economic co-operation-with the island states. We have encouraged France to develop its relations in the area in a manner consistent with the interests of the people of the South Pacific as expressed through the Forum. The Leader of the Opposition said in his Hobart speech that ``Mr Hawke announced in Singapore that he would welcome `constructive' Soviet political involvement in the Asia/Pacific region''. The Prime Minister did say in Singapore that he would welcome a constructive involvement by the Soviets in the region but he went on to say that they would be judged in this not by their words but by their actions in (for example) Indochina and Afghanistan. There is a world of difference in meaning and emphasis between the two. There ought to be some kind of limit to the degree of liberty to distort allowed to the Leader of the Opposition who, after all, purports to be the alternative Prime Minister. We have embarked on policies to increase the competitiveness and productivity of Australian industry. We have set in train programs of structural reform in industry and greater flexibility in the economy. These activities are designed to reverse Australia's traditional low export orientation so as to take advantage of the economic development taking place in this region. The Government of which the Leader of the Opposition was a senior member saw the necessity for this but never had the courage to attempt it. The point is important because one of the results of this activity has been continued export growth in a difficult trading environment. Between 1983-1984 and 1986-1987, the rate of growth in exports (that is, export receipts adjusted for inflation) to China, for instance was nearly 30 per cent, more than triple the rate of growth over the period 1975-76 to 1982-83. To Japan, the growth rate from 1983-84 to 1986-87 was nearly 5 per cent per annum, a significant improvement on the negative real growth rate of the 1975-76 to 1982-83 period and to Hong Kong exports grew by nearly 14 per cent over the period 1983-84 to 1986-87, well up on the 6 per cent per annum growth rate over the 1975-76 to 1982-83 period. Exports to other countries have also grown strongly in real terms in recent years: to South Korea by nearly 9 per cent per annum and to the South Pacific (excluding New Zealand) by 3 per cent per annum. Average annual exports to the ASEAN nations have grown by nearly six per cent, despite the problems experienced by those economies during this period. The Opposition charges that all this activity constitutes neglect. The kindest explanation for this is that its advisers have not kept it abreast of developments which are having such an influence on our developments as a force for economic and strategic progress and stability in our region. While all this progress has been taking place, we have heard nothing but negativism from the Opposition. It is constantly trying to denigrate the country and its economic performance-in the process, trying to instil uncertainty in quarters overseas which are involved in our now more open economy. I am reminded of the Leader of the Opposition's speech in the US in July 1986 where he spent fully 20 minutes criticising his own country before an audience of foreigners. It may be permissible (although I hardly think it advisable) constantly to denigrate one's own country at home. But, to do so while overseas, is a shameful and unpatriotic act. The Leader of the Opposition should still be embarrassed about it two years on. Another regrettable Opposition misconception is that this Government has damaged the relationship with the United States with ``gratuitous criticism''. The fact is that certain aspects of United States economic and trade policy directly affect and even jeopardise our industry, especially agriculture. This has been recognised by the all-party delegations sent to the United States by this Parliament in 1986 and 1987. It is certainly in line with comments by the OECD. If the Government had not pointed this out to our American friends in a forceful but constructive way, it would have failed in its duty. If the Government had not made the point-and lobbied energetically for it with both the Congress and the Administration-some elements of the United States Trade Bills with particular impact on Australia would not have been dropped or modified. I refer, for example, to the failure of proposals which would have affected our exports of sugar. In the meantime, we continue to be concerned with the protectionist tone of the proposed United States trade legislation which could increase the power of the United States aggressively to pursue bilateral solutions to trade problems. I repeat: failure to continue vigorously placing our concerns before the U.S. Congress and Administration would be to neglect our primary obligations to protect Australian interests. The Opposition appears to prefer passive surrender in a situation for which they obviously have no stomach. Well, let them go and explain this to the farmers and others whose interests were and are under attack. We make no apology for fighting for Australia's interests. Failure to do so would be to neglect inexcusably a primary obligation to protect Australian interests. The United States accepts this, even if the Opposition does not. Admiral Hayes, United States Commander in Chief in the Pacific, understands it. Only three weeks ago, he gave an enthusiastic account of the state of the United States-Australian relationship to the National Defence University. ``Security co-operation between the United States and Australia has never been better,'' he said. ``It is heartening to see the extent of mutual benefits that accrue from the alliance relationship.'' Mr Shultz himself has pointed out that the relationship is ``as strong and vigorous as ever, if not more so''. The Government is working energetically to support efforts to improve the framework of world trade through the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations. The Round has a very broad agenda, which Australia supports: market access across all sectors, for example, removal of non-tariff barriers and subsidies; trade in natural resource products; dispute settlement; rules for new areas such as trade in services and intellectual property rights. The Government is also intent on ensuring that the Uruguay Round comprehensively addresses Australia's concerns for reform of agricultural trade. This form of trade has never effectively come under GATT rules. It represents one of the most distorted sectors of world trade. Australia's active role in the Cairns Group is intended to ensure that our interests will be effectively represented in trade negotiations. The final difference on foreign policy between the Government and Opposition which I wish to discuss today is probably the most important. It concerns the timid, derivative and dependent outlook permeating the Opposition's policy, as displayed in its Leader's Hobart speech. This is an attitude which the electorate quite properly rejected in 1983, 1984 and again in 1987. Taken to its logical conclusion, it would oppose, rather than encourage, moves by the Superpowers to develop greater accord on crucial strategic issues, especially disarmament and arms control. The Australian Government has done all it can to facilitate this process in multilateral forums such as the UN General Assembly, Security Council and the Conference on Disarmament. We have actively encouraged the process which has produced the INF Treaty, the first treaty actually to reduce the number of nuclear weapons. We welcome the treaty also because it sets important precedents for other arms control measures. It applies asymmetrical force reductions, for example, and its verification arrangements are uniquely intrusive and co-operative. Eliminating medium-range missiles in Asia as well as Europe, it has particular relevance to us in that it reduced the threat to Asian targets which are significant to us-for example, in China, Japan and the Philippines. Moreover, it represents a significant improvement in Superpower relations which only ideologues and the most reactionary Cold War Warriors would deplore. Mr Shultz has welcomed the constructive dialogue now taking place between the Superpowers. The NATO communique earlier this month hailed what it called ``welcome signs of change'' in Soviet policies which created ``the prospect for greater openness in (Soviet) relations with their own people and with other nations''. A summit meeting will be held in Moscow between President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev probably in May at which arms control and disarmament issues will be prominent. Mr Shultz and Foreign Minister Shevardnadze are meeting on a monthly basis in the meantime. The Opposition's reaction to these positive developments has been moans and cries of alarm and suspicion. The Australian Government does not hold these current signs of change with fear and loathing, as the Opposition does. It welcomes the INF Treaty as an example of these changes. It will co-operate actively with those nations which are trying to utilise the Treaty in the cause of further arms control. Australia will (for example) continue to work actively for a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, an agreement to eliminate chemical weapons, an agreement to prevent an arms race in space and to control and reduce the use of conventional weapons. There is an important point here. The Superpower relationship is not the only area of change in international affairs. The whole field of international affairs is becoming rapidly more complex; its limits and its definitions are becoming ever more elusive. Global power has become more diffuse; the loci of power have multiplied. Issues have created themselves: human rights, for example, and its impact on the doctrine of national sovereignty and the domestic affairs of multicultural countries such as Australia. There is not a conflict between states or an infringement of human rights anywhere in the world that does not resonate in some ethnic community in Australia. There are many other complexities with which we must learn to cope. We have at the same time the characteristics of a developing and a developed economy, dealing with a fusion of economic and political pressures. We are a pluralist democracy in a region in which plurality and democracy can be alien and even dangerous concepts. Such a time and such an environment call for creative response. The Government and people of Australia are fortunate that they are served by professional officers who understand and demonstrate the necessary flexibility and adaptability to allow such policy responses to be developed. I would like to place on record here the Government's appreciation of this. The Opposition reacts to the complexity and change facing us by diving into a funkhole hoping that great friends come to the rescue. Its Leader's Hobart speech is redolent of this abject and lickspittle mind-set, unchanged from the 1960s. All his attempts in Hobart to bluster and fulminate cannot hide it. The Opposition clearly has no pride in this country, its capacities and the respect it has earned overseas for its actions. This is why its Leader travels around, putting his country down here and overseas. Australians as a whole on the other hand, are showing that they are prepared to accept the change confronting them as an opportunity for progress and development. In this, they will receive the fullest possible encouragement and assistance from the Australian Government. Senator GARETH EVANS —I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Senator HILL(South Australia)(3.18) —I wish to respond to this statement on behalf of the Opposition. The statement is really incredible. Of course, we have not had it long, but it does not take long to read. In fact, it has very little content. But what is most astounding about this statement on foreign affairs is the fact that it is predominantly-- Senator Newman —It is hollow. Senator HILL —It is not only hollow but also predominantly an attack on the Opposition and, in particular, an attack on a speech that was given by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard, in Hobart recently which received wide acclaim in the media, speeches that he had previously given in the United States of America and, in fact, any other speech of the Leader of the Opposition that the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) was able to find. I would have thought that all honourable senators would have been most concerned that a speech which was to relate to such important issues as southern Africa, the Middle East and South East Asia had as its dominant theme an attack on Opposition parties. I would suggest that it indicates how quickly and how far the pendulum has swung that the Minister feels that a campaign speech is necessary at this stage under the guise of a statement on important foreign affairs matters. The statement superficially touches on the major issues that I mentioned-the issues of southern Africa, the Middle East and South East Asia-although, really, the Minister only dropped in to Singapore and Indonesia on his way home and it is, therefore, not surprising that that part of the statement that deals with South East Asia is even more shallow. With regard to the subject of southern Africa, the Minister attacks South Africa but, unfortunately, he does not deal in any depth with the major political, economic or social challenges facing the southern African states. That was most disappointing. Consistent with the general theme of his statement he rather concentrates on an attempt at political point scoring. Let me refer simply to one example, on page 2 of his statement, where he says: Apartheid is the most deplorable example possible of infringement of fundamental human rights. He then adds: Unlike the Opposition, the Government will not tolerate compromise over this great moral imperative. What does that mean? The Government retains an ambassador in South Africa. Is that compromise? The Government still deals with South Africa on important trade issues. The Government is happy for De Beers to enter into relationships with Argyle over the diamond ventures in Western Australia. Is that compromising? What the Minister is really doing in this statement therefore is attempting to score political points on an issue that the Opposition would have thought was of great importance. That does nothing for his standing and contributes even less to this important debate. On the Middle East, and particularly the Israeli-Arab conflict, the Foreign Minister said that he met Prime Minister Shamir and Foreign Minister Peres, and was able to give Mr Shultz good advice-whatever that might be-though he did not give us the benefit of the advice he gave, or of his discussions with the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Israel. There is no mention in the paper or statement of the complexities of the issue, of the constructive options that might be open to Australia, or the alternatives that we could consider in helping at the United Nations, at an international conference or in any other way. In other words, in an attempt to offend no-one on what obviously is a sensitive issue, the Foreign Minister rather abdicates his responsibilities. Thirdly, we touch on the subject of South East Asia. In that regard the Foreign Minister's comments are even more shallow. In fact, in relation to Singapore the Minister said nothing more than that he visited Singapore. That is not particularly helpful to a constructive debate in the Senate on issues of bilateral concern to Australia and Singapore. Senator Button —He might have said that he did not visit Singapore, about which you could have made a long speech. Senator HILL —I must say that that is a particularly helpful interjection, Senator. The Foreign Minister did help a little more on Indonesia, when he said on page 7: A full agenda of discussions with Dr Mochtar included the issue of Kampuchea, on which Indonesia has continued to play a major role, progress on the Timor Gap question, the illegal entry into Australian waters of Indonesian fishing boats, and access to Indonesia by Australian journalists. I ask you, Mr Deputy President: How much help is that? They are four topics of considerable importance to the Australian community, and all that we have in this statement, which is supposed to lead this important foreign affairs debate, is that the Foreign Minister raised those issues. That is totally unhelpful. He might as well, as Senator Button interjected, have not mentioned that he visited Indonesia. One can only assume, therefore, that, as I have said, the priority of this statement was not to address the important issues that could have been addressed therein but rather to attack the Opposition. I suggest therefore that that does not reflect the type of leadership that this country should receive in the matter of foreign affairs. The Opposition has been critical of the Government's choice of priorities in this area and will continue to be so critical. I remind the Senate that the Government set its own priorities when it came to office. I can quite clearly remember the speech given by Foreign Minister Hayden at a meeting of the Australian Institute of International Affairs in Canberra. He said that as a middle power of limited resources we can best make our contribution to a more just world, a world with less inequities than presently exist, by concentrating on our region. I remind the Minister and the Senate that some of the worst poverty in the world exists not far from Australia. I instance hundreds of thousands of people who are still in refugee camps in Thailand; in South Asia, Bangladesh I think still has the lowest per capita income in the world; even in East Asia, where because of the economic achievements of the newly industrialised countries in that region we sometimes tend to disregard or have camouflaged from us the extreme poverty that still exists within that region, many millions live a very basic subsistence existence. They are the areas which we thought, from the priorities that the Government had set for itself, that it would concentrate on. However, as we know in practice the Government soon failed its own priority test. I do not know whether that was because of criticism that the Government engendered in the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) with its ham-fisted attempt to influence events in Kampuchea, which was its first attempt. I do not know whether that scared off the Government or contributed to scaring off the Government. Neither do I know whether it was because it considered the small Pacific states as too insignificant for the international status building that this Government wanted. All I do know is that, for whatever reasons, it neglected the region for other priorities-priorities which we know as world stage issues, such as international disarmament, Nicaragua which, I remind the Senate, the Minister visited soon after his appointment, the southern African debate, the Middle East debate and so on. They are issues with regard to which a Foreign Minister can dance the world stage and mix with, and perhaps lecture, the superpowers from the security of distance we have and the knowledge that we do not have the responsibility of a key player. In doing that, and therefore neglecting the priorities that the Government set itself for Australia's contribution towards the well-being of the region, I submit the Government should stand condemned. Earlier this week we had the example of the Government delivering a statement on Commonwealth Day. That statement condemned the racist policies of South Africa, but failed to mention any other specific Commonwealth issue. Of course, that reflected the fact that the Commonwealth itself is very much becoming a one issue organisation. In Vancouver, the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting was dominated by the South Africa issue, with each national leader attempting to outdo the last in the depth of his condemnation. As was particularly mentioned in debate earlier this week by my leader, Senator Chaney, the Opposition would have thought that that statement would have referred to Fiji. Last year, democratic government in Fiji-located in our region-was overthrown at the point of a gun and, of relevance to the Commonwealth, Fiji therefore ceased to be a member of the Commonwealth. The Opposition would have thought that if the Government were not to exhibit distorted priorities, the statement would have dealt with such issues as Fiji. Rather, we find that the Government and the Foreign Minister tell us that Fiji is firmly in civilian hands, and they want to help Fiji return to the Commonwealth. By that statement I suggest the Government is showing the same naivety which it showed prior to and between the two coups. It is showing the same failure to read what is happening in the Pacific. Honourable senators will recall that, rather than having to pass political judgment on the new regime in Fiji, our Government changed its worldwide practice in relation to the recognition of states. That is a typical example of the Government's not being prepared to face up to an issue within our region. If the Fijian Government is firmly in civilian hands, as Mr Hayden claims, why is Rabuka seen in military uniform at Cabinet meetings? The civilian Government of Fiji clearly exists at the pleasure of the military, which has twice shown that it will intervene to pursue sectional and racial interests, and would clearly do so again. I remind the Australian Government and the Foreign Minister, who claim that Fiji is clearly in the hands of a civilian government, that it still has no constitution. What I am saying is that Australia must face up to its relationship with that regime, but must do so on the basis of reality and not on a distortion of the facts. That is the type of priority that the Foreign Minister and the Government should address. In relation to Indo-China and South East Asia in our region, and the earlier ham-fisted attempts of this Government to intervene, to which I referred previously, it is a matter of great regret to those of us on this side of the chamber that as a result of the discrediting of our Government in that exercise there would appear to be no substantive role that we can play in the peace process that is likely to be worked out in the near future. There may now be, for the first time, real hope for progress in Indo-China. There is reason for hope when one looks at the talks between Prince Sihanouk and Prime Minister Hun Sen; the continual reiteration of the Vietnamese that they will withdraw by 1990; and the emerging signs of change in attitude of the Soviet Union. Only today, Press reports indicate that the Soviet Union withdrawal from Pakistan has bogged down because of what is described as difficult matters. We can be sure that a Vietnamese withdrawal from Kampuchea will be as difficult to achieve. There should be a role for Australia to play in that withdrawal. But it is doubtful that Australia will have a role because our friends and allies in ASEAN simply do not trust us because of this Government's policies and practice. Mr Hayden's equidistant policy between Vietnam and ASEAN, which totally failed to appreciate the sensitivities of ASEAN's frontline states, particularly Thailand, resulted in a loss of their confidence. It will be a long time before that confidence is restored. There are so many other critical issues on our doorstep to which this Government should give priority. Vietnam refugees travelling by boat are now being turned away from Thailand. Are we addressing the policy that Australia will adopt if there is another wave of boat people? This Government has badly let down Papua New Guinea (PNG). I remind the Senate again of the unilateral decision of this Government to cut aid to PNG so shortly after an aid package had been bilaterally negotiated and confirmed. I remind the Senate of the dismissal of the imaginative proposals of the Deputy Prime Minister, Julius Chan, to replace aid with a guaranteed trade package. I also remind the Senate of the somewhat platitudinous statement of principles that has just been entered into which is so strong on rhetoric and short on detail. Mr Acting Deputy President, you possibly experienced the embarrassment of Prime Minister Wingti explaining that in some areas of trade development Canada has been more supportive than Australia. PNG democracy has been a great success story but I would suggest that the lesson of Fiji is that this should not be taken for granted. PNG democracy will remain fragile for a long time yet and this is another example of where our priorities should lie. Indonesia, which was touched upon in Mr Hayden's statement, is a state of 160 million people on our doorstep about which most Australians know very little. I would suggest that this Government should be concentrating on fostering a better understanding of Indonesia, its people, languages, economy and aspirations and how we can better interrelate to that country in terms of trade, education, culture and many other ways. By doing so, this Government would be reflecting a better understanding of the real priorities that are facing Australia. Let me refer briefly to another example-the Philippines, a country in our region strained by abject poverty, armed insurgency and entrenched human rights violations. We have a real opportunity to support Mrs Aquino in her efforts to return the Philippines to democracy and to show that we regard stability and democracy in the Philippines as important to us, important to security in the whole region and important to the security of the Western alliance. But our response was half-hearted. I have been critical in this place before of that half-hearted aid contribution that we have made to Mrs Aquino. Again, I would suggest that this attitude aptly reflects this Government's priorities which I suggest are wrong priorities. If this Government could point to a record of achievement in our region, a record of advancing Australia's interests, of building friendships and alliances based on mutual interests, of a substantial contribution to alleviating poverty within our region as opposed to its appalling record of aid cuts, if it could point to a record that demonstrates an understanding of the significant changes that are occurring in the Pacific, the new alliances that are being formed and built-and I note the recent confirming of a formal structure in respect of the Melanesian spearhead group-perhaps we might have more respect for its attempts to leave its mark on the wider world stage. No-one can question the coalition's abhorrence of apartheid or state entrenched inequalities in all facets of life based solely on race. I would have thought that our record in the past left that beyond any doubt. Of course, there will always be debates as to the best set of policies to influence the South African Government to take a better course, to try to find the right balance between pressure for change and inducement for change. But that is a different issue from the issue of condemning apartheid and searching for the right policy mix to influence change for the better. As I said, our legitimacy within that debate is beyond question. We will continue, within our capacity to do so, to influence that change. But what we will not do is be totally preoccupied with South Africa so that all other priorities in relation to southern Africa suffer. We will look at the African front line states, cognisant of the critical role played by South Africa in terms of their development and their economic and political wellbeing, but not be blinkered by it. We find that so many debates in the United Nations and other forums are premised on the belief that the problem with the southern African states lies solely at the feet of South Africa. This is not so. The problems are a combination of so many things, including, in some instances, poor leadership which has the advantage of blaming South Africa for all of its regional problems, poor education, a lack of sound economic planning and implementation. We have no doubt on this side that South Africa might contribute to a certain amount of destabilisation. I can remember when I was in Zimbabwe that one night half of the Zimbabwean air force happened to be blown up in mysterious circumstances. There is little doubt that South Africa, directly or indirectly, is contributing to the rebels in Mozambique. Nevertheless, we must go beyond that and see what can be done from within and without the southern African states to benefit them. A preoccupation with South Africa should not be used as an excuse simply to shut off all other available options. All economic development should not be stopped and I suppose, in some ways, Zimbabwe is an example of that. Regrettably, little is heard from the southern African states as to what they can do to help themselves. If we heard a little more from the leaders of such states about what they believe they could do, this would be of great assistance to Australia which supports aid and the aid debate. It is a matter of regret to me that there was no development in this paper of any examination of the difficulties faced by such states as Mozambique. In comparison, Zimbabwe was left with a better infrastructure and a greater emphasis was put upon education of the indigenous black community when the new government came to office. The paper also should have examined Zambia, which has become too reliant upon one aspect of its economy. A worthwhile contribution to this debate by the Foreign Minister would have been an examination and comparison of these different states and, from that, we might have been able to find some way in which we could further constructively contribute. Of course, that was not the Minister's choice. Rather, he chose this opportunity to put down a paper in which he sought to condemn us rather than to be constructively helpful. Within our resources, and subject to our world-wide priorities, it is clearly the policy of the Opposition that we should help. We should help to alleviate poverty wherever it occurs, as we were prepared to do in respect of Ethiopia, even though, in many instances, we saw the nature of the direct contribution that the Ethiopian Government made to that poverty. We have a normal humanitarian responsibility to act in this way. Within our priorities and resources we would also want to help with development aid in southern Africa. I have seen examples of this occurring. Some of the best examples have been the small ones, such as exchanges of teachers. Australian teachers have lived and worked in schools in Zimbabwe and helped to build up the educational standards of that country. They have also given us the benefit of coming back with a better understanding of the region and its problems. There are many other ways-particularly in the non-government areas-in which we can contribute constructively, and not necessarily with high budget items. I am thinking particularly of our agricultural expertise and our land development expertise. Our drilling for water is one specific example that has been a great success story throughout Africa. I would have liked to see in this statement by the Foreign Minister an examination of the alternative ways in which we could aid and assist the southern African states rather than just simply a condemnation of South Africa and a condemnation of us for some reason that I do not understand. On this trip the Minister also visited the Middle East. It is a matter of regret that his dealing with that issue in this paper was so superficial. It is also a matter of regret to us on this side of the chamber that Australia withdrew its helicopter force from the Sinai observer contingent where, as a nation, we were playing a constructive role in the only peace treaty that has held in the Middle East and where we were present at the wishes of both Egypt and Israel. That was a constructive, positive involvement by this country in efforts towards peace in the region. By withdrawing that force to the base at Townsville, as this Government felt necessary as part of its Fortress Australia policy, we lose a certain amount of our legitimacy to contribute constructively to the debate. When one is not prepared to help materially it is hard to make positive suggestions to which states will listen. We in the Opposition accept that Australia will not be a principal player in the Middle East debate, but we also recognise that the Middle East is a key to stability and security of the whole world and therefore obviously we have an interest. We want a comprehensive peace settlement in the Middle East, one that requires resolution of the issues of the West Bank and Gaza. Israeli policy in relation to the West Bank and Gaza has clearly been one of damage control in recent years, but it seems now that the damage is getting out of control. Rather interestingly, it seems that that has occurred through the spontaneous action of rank and file Palestinians, rather than any particular leadership direction of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) or anyone else. The tactics of industrial strikes and stone throwing are not easily countered by traditional military methods and when an attempt is made to use the military in such circumstances international anger is aroused, as has occurred in this instance. Now that this level of protest has started I suggest that it will not be easily satisfied. One suspects that it will continue. For a comprehensive peace settlement in the Middle East, which we, of course, advocate and seek, a number of preconditions must be met. We have put them down in recent statements and I repeat them today, which is more than the Minister was prepared to do in his statement. First, the PLO and those neighbouring Arab states that do not recognise the state of Israel must give such unqualified recognition and they must also recognise the right of Israel, as such, to exist within secure borders. Secondly, there must be an acknowledgment of the Palestinians' right of self-determination and to a homeland. It is hard to imagine that that will occur other than in concert with Jordan, but this is not the time for that detailed debate. It is hard to imagine that such a homeland would not encompass the West Bank and Gaza. The third precondition is the preparedness of the parties directly concerned to negotiate towards an agreement. We all know the difficulties as to who will represent whom, and again, unfortunately, there is not time for that detailed debate. As part of the wider world community, Australia can contribute through the mechanism of an international conference or, if that is not satisfactory, in some other way to bring the parties directly concerned together at the negotiating table and to give them the confidence to deal with each other. Hopefully, then one day we will also be able to contribute in supporting a peace settlement that might be reached. That is the purpose, as we see it, of these wider international methods-not to reach a solution in themselves because that can only be reached by the parties concerned, but to help bring the parties directly concerned together at the negotiating table. Mr Hayden could have led a constructive discussion of these options but again, unfortunately, he chose not to do so. On this side, we reject the violent solutions to the Middle East problems that we have seen recently in Gaza and on the West Bank. These will not provide a long term solution. We urge both Israel and the Palestinian leadership to recognise the enormous benefits that could flow to each if they were able to make the necessary concessions towards ultimately reaching a comprehensive peace settlement. We appreciate the opportunity to put our position on important issues; we only regret that the Government did not use this opportunity to put its position-if it has one-but instead defended itself in circumstances where the political pendulum has swung even further than some of us realise. Senator SHEIL(Queensland)(3.47) —I am sure that the Government is quite pleased that our peripatetic Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) had such a wide-ranging tour on his last junket. But if this report represents the fruits of it-- Senator Stone —He is promising a few more. Senator SHEIL —It is quite true; he does have some more coming up to the Pacific. The Government certainly has not received value for money from the Foreign Minister's report of his journey. I compliment Senator Hill on his response for the Opposition. His speech was a tour de force of the way the Foreign Minister has used this report to attack the Opposition. Perhaps he is getting fearsome at the prospect of the immediate future. But it is certainly not the right way to approach a report of his trip around the world to use it as a launching pad to attack the Opposition, which he does throughout the report. Like most Foreign Ministers in the world at the moment, he opened his statement with an attack on apartheid. It now seems to be mandatory to be part of the anti-apartheid industry. He explained away his gift of $100m from Australia to the front line states. He then moved on to the Middle East and followed in the penumbra of Mr Shultz. He seemed to enjoy basking in some of that reflected glory. I think he had his eyes opened when he saw the enormity of the problem there but, as Senator Hill has said, he did not offer any solutions; he wants Israel to negotiate on the Palestinian issue. He also wants Iraq and Iran to negotiate. I will deal with this matter later. The Minister then moved on to a whistlestop tour of South East Asia and came home to slam the Opposition on its foreign policy, which I think is entirely unwarranted. To open his report with an attack on South Africa was entirely predictable. Like most of the anti-apartheid industry people, he is maddened and blinded by the policies of apartheid. I am sure that if these people came up with some suggestions as to what the South Africans should do about the enormous multi-racial and multi-national problem they have, the South Africans would be quite happy to listen. And if the suggestions were practicable or realistic, I am sure they would be welcomed and implemented. The policy being followed will foment revolution, insurrection and bloodshed over there. There is nothing more certain than that. If the policy is not changed, that will happen. I remember on one of my trips over there I ran into Chief Jongilanga. He was the education Minister in one of the homelands called the Ciskei. I asked him what was the thing that he found most offensive about the apartheid policy. He said, `Integration; we have to have integration; it is the most important thing'. I said to him, `That is a very big step. Perhaps you could get the ball rolling. Right next door to you people are three-quarters of a million Indians. How about you integrate with them and get it all started?'. He said, `Oh, no, no, we must integrate with the white man'. So I just kept looking at him until he realised the enormity of what he had said and he just burst into laughter and said, `Don't worry about it. The white man will fix it'. Mr Hayden has taken just a superficial look. He does not realise the relationship that exists between those front line states and South Africa. He does not realise how dependent they are on each other and how these front line states have one voice for the world stage and another one when they are talking at home. South Africa helps them with the management of their ports and the control of their diseases. Many diseases have got out of control to a large extent since the independence of these nations. The tsetse fly, the rindepest and malaria are all running wilder than before. South Africa helps them with their weights and measures and the training of their civil servants. A lot of the workers who come in from those countries, particularly Mozambique, are paid three-quarters of their wages in gold so that their countries have some gold with which to run themselves. For example, Zimbabwe is landlocked and has to do all its exporting through South Africa. I am surprised to hear that the South Africans may have had some complicity in blowing up most of the Zimbabwean air force. I am surprised to hear that South Africa is maintaining rebel raids into Mozambique. I thought it was rather the other way round and that the African National Congress had bases in Mozambique and were raiding South Africa. I have not been to South Africa for some years, but I find it surprising that South Africa would deliberately destabilise Mozambique. There is no need to destabilise it very much because it is under a communist regime, which I am sure is responsible for a lot of these problems. This is not recognised in Mr Hayden's report. He says it is all due to drought and famine. But that is not so; it is due to bad organisation. It did not have droughts and famines before. Lourenco Marques, as it was, was one of the tourist ports of the world. But now it is derelict, as is the country, and the people are in desperate straits. But one can hardly blame South Africa for that and one certainly cannot blame apartheid for it. Suggestions from the Minister for the removal or reduction of apartheid would have been very welcome if he had taken the trouble to have a deeper look at it all. As has been said later in his report he talked about China and said that we have to have a delicate diplomatic relationship with that country. If one switched the name of China for South Africa, one would see the duplicity of the attitude of this Government to the two countries. Returning to the South African scene, there are six or seven nations of blacks. The Zulus outnumber the others. There are the Xhosa, the Venda, the North and South Sotho, the Swazi and the Tswana. They all speak different languages and they cannot speak to each other or understand each other. I do not know how one can expect to run a democracy in a country with a lot of people who cannot understand each other. Some of them can speak their own language and English or their own language and Afrikaans; but there is no common language for them all. Altogether there would be about 25 million Bantu; Bantu simply means the people, but they are all different peoples. Of that 25 million, half of them are still tribal people. I think that the women will take a great role in the elevation of the black nations. They have adapted a lot better than the men have to an economic mentality and a cash economy. They have realised the importance of education for their children; some of them even go without food for that education. I do not think we give enough credit to the people of South Africa, white and black, for getting to work on their own problems and sorting them out. Standing outside and just calling for revolution will not solve the problem. We had a big debate here yesterday about the Sharpeville six. These are mentioned in this report and Mr Hayden says that they were innocent people plucked from a crowd and that they are to be executed after a summary trial, for electoral purposes to show that the South African Government has not gone soft on the black people. That is entirely wrong; I made that point yesterday. These people were the leaders in the crowd that was attacking the mayor of the town. As was said here yesterday, the first guy threw the first stone which knocked the mayor on the head and knocked him down. The second guy wrestled him on the ground and took away his revolver with which he was trying to defend himself. The next guy poured petrol on him. The girl who was there slapped the face of the lady who was saying, `Please, please, stop this riot', grabbed a placard and started bashing the man. The next guy poured petrol on him. The next guy lit him and then burned the house down. These people were involved intimately. In deciding on the murder, all the judge was saying that he could not decide on was which one had actually killed the man. So they are all going to suffer. That is the way it is in South Africa. In South Africa the first law is the security of the state. Anybody who threatens it has to suffer the consequences. They do not live under Western law as we do; they live under Roman law, and people should understand that. One of the things that people do not realise about the blacks is the religious problem. Many of them are what one would call bread and butter Christians. When the Catholics are there one day saying, `Here is health education, welfare and spiritual guidance', they say, `Yes, boss, we Catholics'. The next month when the Protestants are there offering the same thing, they say, `Yes, boss, we Protestants'. But all the time they are Moslems because Islam suits them very well. Polygamy particularly suits them. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth suits them. People complain about the fact that workers there have to go miles to work in the mines and are not allowed to take their families with them. It would overstrain every facility if the workers took five wives and 30 children around the country with them. They just cannot afford to do that sort of thing. I do not want to go into that fully; we need to take a bigger and deeper look at this problem. South Africa has a good relationship with the countries around it. When the front line states speak to the rest of the world, they speak with another tongue. I think a lot of countries are hiding their own problems by blaming a lot of things on apartheid. The Minister moved on to the Middle East, had a look at the Iran-Iraq war and said, `These two countries had better get to negotiating quickly'. That really is a superficial way to look at the problem which has been there for centuries-for millenia. If two sides to an argument both think they can win, there can be no negotiation. It is hopeless to say that Iraq and Iran have to start negotiating. Of course, a similar situation exists between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The solution suggested by Mr Hayden talks about independence for Israel, independence for the Palestinians and their own land here and there. If apartheid were included, the same solution as is being offered to Israel and Palestine would be offered. So no help was offered there at all. I do not want to go on with this except to say that this is a very predictable statement after a superficial run round the world. The statement opened with the mandatory comments about South Africa and apartheid and went on to deal with the Middle East. It offered nothing. I might mention the $100m aid to Mozambique for drought and famine relief. Plenty of drought and famine relief is required in Australia. Some areas have had one drought after another. Our farmers in those areas are not bad farmers and they are not crippled because of a downturn in world prices. They are crippled by drought, and drought alone. They could use a bit of help, but that is not forthcoming from this Government. They are not asking for handouts; probably they are just asking for an extension of time to pay back their loans. The statement represents a sad result to a long trip. I know that the Foreign Minister said that he intends to travel through Association of South East Asian Nations countries and hopes to maintain Australia's position in the Pacific. I think that we have a good position in the Pacific. The Minister said that the ANZUS Treaty was in good shape. However, we do not actually have one any more. We have a treaty with the United States and another one with New Zealand. The Minister talked about the nuclear free zone in the South Pacific, which is a zone unable to be policed. He attacked the Opposition for its attitude to that. The statement represents a superficial report of a big junket which has not done the country a lot of good, and I do not think that it was worth the money. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(4.03) —I agree with Senators Hill and Sheil that the statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) is a very thin and superficial document. It is virtually his travel diary with an occasional remark-not always very perceptive-inserted into the travel diary. His only other approach seems to be `When in doubt, attack the Opposition, whether relevant or not'. That does not seem to be a very useful performance from a Minister reporting to Parliament on his overseas tour and the conduct of our foreign affairs, for which he is responsible to this Parliament. This particular Minister seems to be all over the place in more ways than one. He has just visited Mauritius, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Kenya, the Yemen Arab Republic, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Israel, the Maldives, Singapore and Indonesia. Next month he is to visit Japan, Korea, Hong Kong and the Philippines. Later in the year he will go to Japan again, China and the Association of South East Asian Nations countries. If we are to have a Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade doing this and, presumably, not administering his Department while he is doing so, why do we have ambassadors? Why are we constantly denigrating our ambassadors who could do this job? It is not helped by the appearance of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade dashing in, making a few flippant comments and dashing out again. We want to get a proper administrative structure. I do not believe that we will get it under this peripatetic Foreign Minister. He is a very dangerous man. The maxim that Mr Hayden seems to be following is that now he has lost sight of his objectives, he must redouble his efforts. He is redoubling his efforts all right, but his purpose, direction and coherence are totally lacking. He seems to have a most peculiar hang-up about South Africa. The Government even managed to insert into a Commonwealth Day message a few days ago a vilification of South Africa. What is extraordinary is not that it criticises South Africa-it deserves criticism-but why there is so much on that particular country and that particular system and so little on others that are almost equally abhorrent. I must make it clear that I believe that apartheid is an absolute outrage in human affairs. My problem is, the nature of the Afrikaners being what it is, I cannot see how South Africa could possibly have a peaceful transition from apartheid to a system where there is accepted dignity and equality on the basis of race, ability and politics. I just do not see how it could happen because of the nature of the Afrikaners. I would like to think that had I been a black South African I would have been a revolutionary. I would not mind too much where my submachine gun came from-whether it was a Russian one, a Western one or an Israeli one, I would want one-because there is no way in which there will be a peaceful transition to a fair and equitable system in South Africa. The problem is that if one looks to the models in Africa to which perhaps South Africa might be changed, would it be a better and fairer system than the totally unfair system it has now? Since decolonisation, the performance of African countries has been deplorable in terms of peace, prosperity and stability. Twenty-nine of the 52 countries of Africa were poorer in 1986 than they were in 1960. Africa has the highest illiteracy rate-75 per cent-in the world and the shortest life expectation, 47 years. Twenty-eight of the 52 countries of Africa are classified as impoverished. It is customary, although I think most misleading, to blame the colonial legacy for this. Certainly there was much that was bad and divisive in the colonial system. Nevertheless, in nearly all the colonies of Africa, they were left a system of ports, roads, railways and schools which gave them a chance to have something to build on. But because of the political system-the approach they have adopted-nearly all of those have been wasted away. Let us take one country-Zaire, the former Belgian Congo. In 1960 it had 85,000 miles of reasonable roads. Now, after 25 years of Marxist rule, it has 12,000 miles of usable roads. The figure has gone from 85,000 to 12,000 in 25 years of Marxist rule. The level of political stability has been very unsatisfactory. Since 1958 there have been 20 major wars in Africa and 42 coups. Half of the world's 10 million refugees are in Africa. What has been happening, for reasons that one could argue about, is that nearly all African countries have adopted a socialist Marxist approach to their problems which has proved an utter disaster. In Africa at the moment 50 to 55 per cent of the people work for the government. Since 1960 employment by the state has increased by 160 per cent, but agricultural productivity has declined by between 20 and 25 per cent. Most of the countries have chosen the wrong path to peace, good government and prosperity. I would like to look at two countries that chose different paths-Tanzania and Kenya. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table from a World Bank report. I have shown it to the Minister. Leave granted. The table read as follows- AFRICA SINCE INDEPENDENCE: WHAT WENT WRONG? TWO DIFFERENT PATHS Tanzania (1961) and Kenya (1963) achieved independence about the same time. Both have a similar climate and geography, and similar population size. Both enjoyed stable government. Both inherited an unproductive tribal land system. Each, however, chose different political and economic paths. Tanzania Kenya Geography One of the highest averages of arable land per person in the world. Desert, semi-arid; farmland-per-citizen is amongst the lowest in Africa. Government One-party socialist state. Capitalist economy. One-party state only since 1982. Land Nationalized land and collective farms. Privatized the land, families granted title to their land. Farming Seeds, fertilizer, chemicals and farm equipment controlled by government monopoly. Farmers buy from a variety of private companies. Prices Products are subject to government price controls. A free market functions. Foreign Investment Tanzania spurned the West and looked to China and East Germany for its models. Kenya invited foreign investment. Independence Dependent on charity from abroad (almost all of it from the West). Self-reliant; a major force in world agricultural trade. Political Climate A closed, xenophobic society. A degree of democratic pluralism exists; however, a number of political problems have emerged in recent years. The Economy Stagnant, poverty-stricken; a mendicant state; queues and shortages; political oppression; social restlessness. Impressive national growth and prosperity; miles of smooth roads, rural electricity, large quantities of goods in shops; abundant business opportunities. SOCIAL INDICATORS Year Tanzania Kenya Infant Mortality Rate (under age one per 1,000 live births) 1985 110 91 Child Death Rate (per 1,000 children aged 1-4) 1985 22 16 Physicians (per 10,000 population) 1980 0.6 1.3 Nurses (per 10,000 population) 1980 3.3 18.2 Primary School Enrolment (percentage of age group) 1984 87 97 Secondary School Enrolment (percentage of age group) 1984 3 19 Source: World Bank's World Development Report, various years. BASIC ECONOMIC INDICATORS (annual growth rate in percent) Year Tanzania Kenya Gross Domestic Product ... 1965-85 3.1 5.6 Agricultural Production ... 1965-85 1.4 4.4 Industrial Production ... 1965-85 2.0 7.8 Annual Inflation Rate ... 1980-85 20 10 Indicators of Modernity Energy Use (kg of oil equivalent per capita) 1985 39 103 Fertilizer Use (kg per hectare of arable land) 1984 4 38 Service Sector (percent of total economy) 1985 33 49 Source: World Bank's World Development Report, various years. Senator HAMER —Kenya and Tanzania became independent, decolonised, at roughly the same time-1961 for Tanzania and 1963 for Kenya. They have similar populations and, roughly, a similar climate and geography. However, each chose a different path politically and economically. The results have been very dramatic. If we look at the geography of Tanzania and Kenya, we see that Tanzania has one of the highest averages of arable land per person in the world, whereas Kenya is desert and semi-arid. The government system adopted by Tanzania was a one-party socialist state. Kenya adopted a capitalist economy, although it has been a one-party state, a capitalist state, since 1982. Tanzania, disastrously, nationalised land and introduced collective farms. Between 5 million and 6 million people were forced onto collective farms, which was a total disaster. They are now dribbling back into their previous farms and occupations. Kenya privatised land. In every other area the comparison of two countries of equal potential is a dramatic example of what happens if the wrong political path is chosen. The table I incorporated in Hansard showed the social and basic economic indicators. In every respect Kenya is doing incomparably better than Tanzania which was once held up as the ideal of an African socialist state. Kenya is doing better in everything-infant mortality and the child death rate, the number of physicians and nurses, and primary and secondary school attendance. In every respect now Kenya is way ahead of Tanzania. The gross domestic product of Kenya has been growing twice as fast as that of Tanzania. Agricultural production has been growing more than three times as fast in Kenya. The inflation rate in Kenya is half that in Tanzania. I make these points because when we are asked for aid we have to be clear on what sort of aid we are giving. In many cases we are propping up thoroughly incompetent, wrongly directed governments. We should be working to get those governments and their systems functioning properly so that they can look after themselves. Some countries in Africa-not many, but some-are going reasonably well. I mentioned Kenya before. Ivory Coast, a small country with a population of 9.5 million, has done extremely well. Cameroon is also working successfully. Malawi, a country with almost no resources, which has privatised its activities, decentralised its government and removed the dead hand of government, is prospering. In Senegal, there have been five scrupulously fair elections since 1963. That is a country which deserves our admiration. The final success of Africa is Botswana, a country which, by the way, has been much pilloried but which has had an extraordinary success rate with a growth in gross domestic product of 11 per cent a year since independence in 1966. We must recognise that the problems of Africa are not, as we seem to be told, the result of the old colonial history. It was a factor, but not much. Those countries have had plenty of time to sort themselves out since then. In fact, in most cases the colonial powers left these countries with a fairly good infrastructure. The problems do not result primarily from drought, although drought does affect these countries. The reason that drought affects these countries so badly is that their governments and farming systems are in such a shocking state. The problems do not arise primarily because of South Africa, although the activities of South Africa in Mozambique and Angola are extremely destabilising for those two countries. They are very comparable to, for the same reasons, the activities of Israel in the Lebanon. They are an attempt to try to root out or suppress potential terrorist groups operating from outside their borders. Such South African activities are destabilising but, on the other hand, South Africa does give a great deal of economic support to the so-called front line states. I think that on balance the activities of South Africa are helping more than hindering the other countries of Africa. If the problems do not result primarily from things such as drought, the colonial legacy and South Africa, what are they a result of? The dominant reason is the political system-the governmental and administrative system-that these countries have adopted. Our greatest assistance to them-I do not think it would be easy to do-would be to persuade them that they must adopt a more open, freer and more efficient society. They will then not need the aid they now need. Much of our aid at the moment is going to prop up inefficient governments. We have to help people in this world who are starving. But what we must also do at the same time is try to get their governments to organise things so that they will not continue to need the aid. The only other point I wish to deal with concerns the remarks of the Foreign Minister in regard to Israel and the Palestinians. We are not a direct party to this but we have 60,000 Jews in Australia, most of whom have a deep feeling for Israel and we have something over 100,000 Moslems in Australia, many of whom also are bound up in the same problems. What we must do if we are urging solutions-as we do from time to time-is recognise that we cannot invite Israel to commit suicide. No country can possibly contemplate any action which would involve its suicide or which it might reasonably think would do so. We have to look at the security of Israel. Israel has an enormously powerful, almost unquestioning, ally in the United States. Nevertheless, Israel is a tiny country and one has to take into account its genuine security problems when looking at any possible solutions. I think that we must press for two things to be done simultaneously if our influence is to be effective. One is that the Arab states, and the Palestinians in particular, must give an undertaking that they will accept and respect the right of Israel to exist. That includes refraining from any terrorist attacks or comparable things that make life unbearable in a small country. Simultaneously, in fairness, the Israelis must accept that the Palestinians on the West Bank of the Jordan and in Gaza have a right, as they claim for themselves, to self-determination. Ultimately, whatever mechanism is produced, the problem will have to be solved by face to face negotiations between the representatives of the Israelis and the Palestinians. I do not think it is sensible or appropriate for either side to attempt to veto who those representatives should be. Once we start saying that people will not be acceptable because they are former terrorists or control terrorist operations, the ranks on both sides will be substantially thinned. That is not appropriate when negotiating. The point is that such people must be representatives. I think that point should be made very clearly. A final point and, in many respects the most difficult, is that somehow the Israelis have to sort out the rights of the Palestinians who lived in Israel but fled in the various wars-most of them in the first war in 1948-and who are now not allowed to return to their homes. That is a very difficult problem because their homes have been expropriated. I believe that they have a right to return or, if they wish, to have compensation in place of a right to return. This will be very difficult to negotiate. I think that we have to look at this whole problem. It is not our problem; it is not a problem to which we are a principal party. However, if we are asked for advice we want to give sensible advice that is fair to both sides in an immensely complex problem. That is all I wish to say about the issues. The Foreign Minister has given us a sort of Cook's tour of his mind which would have been of absorbing interest but for the abysmal darkness that seems to exist there. He has not told us anything. All he has done is give us a narrative of his tour. Unfortunately, it has been a very superficial and occasionally flippant account of his visit. I think that this Parliament has a right to a better report on foreign affairs from the Foreign Minister responsible to this Parliament. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(4.18) —I endorse the views put by my eloquent colleagues in describing the statement of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) as shallow, superficial, lacking any depth or any sensitive insight into the events referred to in it. At the outset I would like to refer to the first part of the ministerial statement in which the Foreign Minister referred to apartheid. He said: In Lusaka, I attended the first meeting of the Commonwealth Foreign Ministers Committee which was set up by the Vancouver Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in order to bring about Commonwealth action to hasten the end of apartheid. By any measure that statement is breathtaking in its arrogance, in the simple assumption that sanctions inevitably, certainly and absolutely will bring an end to apartheid. Of course, there are those people who take quite a different view. In so doing, they take a quite proper view. I always find it interesting to see that those who plead the cause of sanctions are invariably people who are both isolated and insulated from the effects of those sanctions. They are isolated from the economic, political and, of course, the inevitable social effects of those sanctions. I can only imagine that it is their subliminal guilt that causes them to be absolutely stunningly silent on the devastating effect of sanctions on those whom it is intended to help. As long as the United States of America, Great Britain, West Germany and Japan, just to name four countries, are not prepared to accept the imposition of serious and substantial sanctions, we can be certain that our efforts, at best, will be a token gesture of alleged righteous indignation. I suppose there is no more absurd example of that than the Government's decision to terminate landing rights in Australia for South African Airways. That action has done nothing except increase the passenger load of Qantas Airways Ltd planes flying into Zimbabwe. Of course, the Government understands, though it is silent on it, that 90 per cent of passengers flying from Australia to Harare are travelling to South Africa. They disembark in Harare and promptly fly into Johannesburg with airlines operated by the black African nations or, alternatively, they take a flight operated by South African airlines which travels regularly between the so-called front line states and South Africa itself. The Australian Government's action does absolutely nothing other than considerably inconveniencing South Africans and Australians. Of course, the reason that one is able to fly regularly between the so-called front line states and South Africa is that those nations are very much dependent on South Africa for their economic survival. In fact, the economies of those countries are deeply integrated with the economy of South Africa. If sanctions are to prevail, if they are to work, if they are to have a significant effect upon the economy of South Africa, of course it is inevitable that that will have devastating effects on the economies of the front line nations. The survival of those economies is dependent upon the strength, vitality and virility of the South African economy. Another aspect is the millions of dollars that flow from the people of front line nations working in South Africa back to their homelands; they repatriate a significant part of their salaries back to their homelands. If sanctions have the desired effect, the first thing that will happen is that those people will find themselves on the unemployment list, on the scrap heap, and they will be repatriated back to their own countries without money and without hope. That will further plunge those nations into economic chaos. One cannot help noting the comments that are made by Mr Hayden about apartheid in his statement. In a very subjective, emotional and bigoted way he states: Apartheid is the most deplorable example possible of the infringement of fundamental human rights. Unlike the Opposition, the Government will not tolerate compromise over this great moral imperative. To me that is a classic example of the subjective and arrogant nature of the Australian Labor Party, and in recent days that arrogance has plunged it into the political chaos in which it now finds itself. The arrogance of the Government is absolutely breathtaking. The Government suggests that anyone who does not agree with sanctions must support apartheid. Senator Maguire —What is your position? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I am opposed to sanctions and I am opposed to apartheid. Senator Maguire —How are you going to change it? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —So far sanctions have not prevailed and there is no indication that they will. However, if they do prevail, it will certainly plunge into economic chaos those people in South Africa whom we are seeking to relieve of the economic, social and political disadvantages of apartheid. They will be the first people hurt. Senator Maguire —But they want the sanctions; they are asking for them; they are demanding them. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Senator Maguire says that they are asking for sanctions. Public opinion polls that have been conducted by international bodies among black South Africans, both employed and unemployed, show that more than 70 per cent of those people are opposed to sanctions. They understand that, basically because they are the least skilled, they will be the first to lose their jobs. Of course, that will have a devastating effect upon their capacity and ability to sustain themselves and their large families. It is not without significance that, without exception, the front line states utter private support for sanctions, but they conspire with South Africa to maintain the strength of their economic links with that country. So, while on the one hand they publicly and in principle support sanctions, they are not prepared to contribute to the imposition of sanctions. Those governments, whether they be dictatorships-by and large they are-or, with exceptions, democracies, would come under enormous pressure from their own people in view of the economic consequences of such an action. For me the sad thing about this debate is the obsessive subjective bitterness that prevails upon those of us who have a view that sanctions will be debilitating and non-productive in achieving the objectives which presumably all of us in this chamber would wish to see achieved. I judge the debate on South Africa and apartheid to be perhaps the most intellectually barren debate that has been conducted in this Parliament in the eight years that I have been a member of it. We are all agreed that we are opposed to apartheid. What we are not agreed on is how to overcome the problem. The great debate that rages in this chamber is about method. We all accept the disease; we simply argue about the medicine to combat the disease. It seems that if anybody in a logical, objective, intellectual way puts the proposition that sanctions will not help, that they will only hinder, it is immediately assumed by those who have a different view that that person supports sanctions. By any measure that assumption is barren on intellect and reeks of arrogance. It seems to me that people who make that assumption do not have the will or the capacity to debate logically the implications of such a proposition. Some time ago I was moved to say that it is all right for Archbishop Tutu to call for sanctions, but those honourable senators who have driven through the area where he lives will have detected the mansion in which he resides, which by any measure would be recognised in Australia as an exclusive residence. He is insulated from the effects of his call for sanctions. He has the privilege of knowing that at the end of the day he will still be the Archbishop. The same cannot be said of the poor souls who kneel in his church with heads bowed and who will starve and whose families will starve if the call that he makes prevails. I have yet to hear an intelligent proposition put in this chamber about overcoming the problems of the millions who will starve, be dislocated and deprived if the effects of sanctions are to prevail, as would be the wish of this Government. It is a great pity that this Government is not prepared to apply itself in a more constructive way. We have to ask about the Government's object or purpose when we learn that the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade in this Government has never met the South African Ambassador. So much for dialogue and communicating one's point of view. So much for persuasion. Senator Maguire —They are not going to change their view, though, are they? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —We can only ever hope. I would have thought that there would be something to be said, if we are relying on world opinion to persuade South Africa, for acknowledging those steps, modest as we in our country might think them, that have taken place in South Africa in moving towards dismantling apartheid, whether it be the mixed marriage Act, the carrying of cards or the dismantling of apartheid in public transport and in shops, restaurants and hotels-the sorts of things we take for granted. Perhaps that is why we are blind to the significance of them to those people in South Africa who have lived without them all their lives. If we are prepared to acknowledge that South Africa has moved towards dismantling apartheid and, in some part, has responded to world opinion, there is some hope and prospect that it will take a further step. But because there is a democracy among the whites, the Government of South Africa has to be always mindful of its own constituents. I cannot imagine any altruistic issue which would cause our Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, to so legislate that it would cause him to lose government-with his knowing that he would do so. He is quite capable of legislating to lose government without knowing it. But we are asking the South African Government to lose government on an issue. Perhaps there is something to be said for being there to fight another day, in as much as a government can move only as fast as, or marginally faster than, its electorate will allow. Senator Maguire —It is only a minority electorate. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Of course that is true. In terms of those who vote it is a minority electorate. But the truth is that for the time being those people are the economic heart and political soul of that country. They are the people who will decide in the short to medium term whether apartheid prevails in South Africa. They are the people we have to appeal to. There are people in South Africa who, for whatever reason, are not happy with the movement of that Government, who see that the response of the rest of the world is to show more rigidity, demonstrating to South Africa that it is more isolated than it was at the beginning of the day, and who will simply go back into the laager and assume that their efforts are in vain. Perhaps the answer for this Government is more dialogue with South Africa and recognition of the steps it has taken, while being prepared to condemn it publicly for the steps it has not yet taken. I will move on in a general sense to some other matters raised by Mr Hayden in his statement. This Government has taken great credit for its level of compassion and its concern for the underprivileged, whether at home or away. Let us not forget that it was Mr Hawke and Mr Hayden who presided over the most severe cuts in Australia's aid program since World War II. In the five years of the Hawke Government, the annual aid budget has been slashed progressively to its lowest level in 25 years. Our aid is now a mere 0.36 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP). That figure means that Australia, for the first time, will have slipped below the international average for donor countries of aid. Our aid is only marginally above half that recommended by the United Nations of 0.7 per cent of GDP. Yet it was Mr Hawke who drafted the 1982 statement in the platform of that year. He promised an immediate target of 0.5 per cent of GDP by 1985. Although aid was given in 1984-85 up to 0.5 per cent of GDP, the Hawke Government since has presided over real cuts of 4.8 per cent in 1985-86, a massive 12.4 per cent in 1986-87 and 3.4 per cent in 1987-88. Of course, as we all know and as has been the subject of considerable debate in this Parliament, aid to Papua New Guinea (PNG) has been cut back dramatically in 1987-88 to levels below that of 1983-84. Expenditure has been cut back from just over $325m in 1986-87 to $300.9m in 1987-88. The decision to cut back aid to PNG is inconsistent with the recent decision of Mr Hayden to give $100m to the so-called African front line states. On the one hand, while we are cutting back by about $25m to PNG we can find $100m to give to these front line states. It is interesting how we have made that commitment just prior to Mr Hayden's visiting Mozambique. There is an Australian missionary, Ian Grey, there who, from the information I have, by any measure is thoroughly innocent of any act. He is in gaol and was to go to trial without a lawyer. Mr Hayden, with his cheque book in his pocket, could not even get to say hello to him. Senator Stone —He simply passed by on the other side. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —That is right. He could not even get to see him. Mr Hayden tells us about human rights abuses in South Africa. He should have spent more time in Mozambique looking at its economy and its economic and political structure. Budget Paper No. 4 tells us that a major initiative in southern Africa will commence in 1987-88 and, at the same time, that aid for the South Pacific region has been cut back from $69.7m in 1986-87 to $68.2m in 1987-88. This is the last year of the five-year arrangement in which Australia pledged $300m for development assistance to the South Pacific region. The nature of future aid arrangements for the region is still to be considered. We can only speculate as to what that might be. Tragically for all of us, the Hawke Government has taken the South Pacific region for granted. It is time we started concentrating on acting like a regional partner. There must be a reorientation of Australia's aid program in the South Pacific. We have spent something like $400m in the last decade in the Pacific islands without any marked improvement in their economies or social conditions. I cannot help but notice what the public accounts committee of the Western Samoan Parliament had to say. It has recently described our gift of a patrol boat to the country as a burden as it would use more fuel in one year than the entire country's police force. Of course, this patrol boat is one of a number that have been given to the South Pacific islands and in one case we know that they tried to send them back, but a little political muscle put a stop to that. They are not wanted, they cannot be manned adequately and effectively and, of course, these countries simply cannot afford them. But we are telling these countries-and we are good at this-what is good for them, and they are finding that they have to accept our gifts. Senator Maguire —Was that not built in Perth? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I thought it was subsequently built in Queensland. Am I wrong? Senator Maguire —No, it was not. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I think it was built in Queensland. There was a great deal of contention about the boat. The honourable senator might remember that a tender was accepted from a plan sight unseen. Senator Maguire —I thought they were being built in Cockburn Sound. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Not that group, if my memory serves me correctly. This statement has nothing of substance in it. It does not express a definitive point of view. It is simply a catalogue of trivia as to the places the Minister travelled to. Rather than being a statesmanlike and objective document it is simply an opportunity for the Government to seek to score cheap political points in a very inadequate way. If this document is to be the fruit of Mr Hayden's visits, we can only despair for the future. Senator STONE(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(4.36) —I would not normally rise to speak on a matter of this kind but, having received a copy of the statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) in the other place during the luncheon period-there was no luncheon break today, it being Thursday; there was not even any lunch available today, as I recall-I really feel that I must record a few views about it. As Senator Hill, who opened the debate on this matter from our side of the House, said, it is really hard to know quite what to make of this statement by a man who, after all, is the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Commonwealth of Australia. I have read this document in full. It runs to 20 pages, and there is nothing in it. There is a recitation of where Mr Hayden has been and, as Senator Hill again very tellingly said, there is a tirade of abuse-I think it is fair to describe it as no more than abuse-of certain views in the foreign affairs area put forward particularly by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and, most notably, in Mr Howard's recent speech in Hobart. It is a deplorable document for a ministerial statement purporting to describe what the Minister then effects to portray as a series of important and significant discussions in 13 separate countries conducted recently during his visits to them. As Senator Crichton-Browne has very properly pointed out, the document contains what has now apparently become the ritual breast-beating on the Government's part about South Africa. I should say that that is not confined to the Government. Yesterday the Senate was held up for a couple of hours by a process of that kind initiated by the Australian Democrats and there is no party more active than the Democrats when it comes to breast-beating. On the first page of the statement we have in that regard some stuff of a totally imprecise kind about sanctions and how the Government is concerned about them. But it is not explained in Mr Hayden's statement what exactly the Australian Government's initiative-which he refers to in three or four paragraphs-is meant to do or what effect it is likely to have. The only conclusion to which one is led is that this study, which is what this Government contributed to this great matter when in Lusaka, `will provide better understanding of possibilities for financial sanctions against the apartheid regime'. Bully for you, Bill. Mr Hayden goes on to say: Australia will continue to contribute to this study, which will be considered at a future meeting of the Commonwealth Foreign Ministers. It is rather like a Canberra inter-departmental committee. One study leads to another. What are we really supposed to obtain from all that verbal posturing? There is a further instance of a rather different technique on page 9 of the statement. There is a reference to a matter which was actually the subject of considerable discussion here yesterday-the matter I have already referred to initiated by the Australian Democrats-of the unhappy case, to use no stronger words, of the six black people in South Africa who are under sentence of death there. This is what the Minister for Foreign Affairs has to say about that matter on page 9 of his statement: Six people not directly involved in a violent incident are about to be hanged . . . I leave aside entirely, because it is not the subject we are debating this afternoon, the question of the appropriateness or otherwise of those matters. That was debated at great length yesterday afternoon and I have no more to say about it; but I have something to say about the presentation of that matter by Australia's Minister for Foreign Affairs. He says: Six people not directly involved in a violent incident . . . What a total travesty of the truth. Yet this is set down in a statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. One would think from that statement that these people were not even present. As I have said, I do not want to continue on that subject. I raise it only to draw attention to the total misrepresentation of the truth by our Minister for Foreign Affairs and to underline the point made earlier by Senator Crichton-Browne about the extent to which discussions of these matters have gone on in this country today where a Minister of the Crown can put himself in a position like that on a matter of such seriousness and gravity. The Minister refers in passing to the situation in Mozambique, one of the so-called front line black African states. On page 2 of his statement he describes briefly the terrible position in that country-it is a terrible position-a position made the more terrible by drought and by the continuing state of insurrection. At no point does the Minister for Foreign Affairs refer to the fact that that country is under the control of, not a Marxist regime, but a communist regime. Let us call these spades spades. I hope that honourable senators will not think that a pun is intended in that usage. But the leader of the Government in Mozambique, Mr Machel, was well known as one of the most violent black African leaders in that unfortunate and unhappy continent. According to a statement put down today in another place by our own Minister for Foreign Affairs, one would think that we are describing a respectable government in whose interests our heartstrings should be plucked. While I feel great sympathy for the unfortunate people of Mozambique, I feel no sympathy whatsoever for the administration of that country and the tyrants who are in charge of its affairs. For Australia, through the instrument of Mr Hayden, to be announcing during the course of his visit to southern Africa a foreign aid program amounting to $100m over the next three years is shameful in view of the kind of regimes to which that money will be directed. It is interesting and I think significant that in discussing Mr Hayden's visit to Mozambique as such on pages 2 and 3 of his statement he at no stage refers to the tragic case of Mr Grey, which was also referred to earlier by Senator Crichton-Browne. It is true that Mr Grey's case is mentioned later, on page 8 of the statement, but only by way of what the Minister for Foreign Affairs is pleased to call, `the Opposition's tacky philosophy (as shown in its statement on the Grey case in Mozambique)'. Mr Hayden goes on to describe that philosophy as one whereby `humanitarian aid should be used as a tool of political pressure'. However, we are not talking about humanitarian aid but, rather, aid to a front line African state which, directly or indirectly, will be used by that state to maintain its present levels of armed pressure upon its own citizens, as well as to maintain its covert and overt activities against the neighbouring country of South Africa. Leaving aside that total misdescription of what we are talking about, one would at least have hoped that where the life of an Australian citizen is concerned, Mr Hayden would not have thought it appropriate to describe even the use of humanitarian aid in an attempt to save a life as being a tacky philosophy. Later in the statement the Minister for Foreign Affairs said that in the course of other discussions in Mauritius, Kenya, and Zimbabwe in particular, he and his officials identified agricultural development and minerals exploitation and processing in those countries as areas of great interest and commercial potential in which Australia could be of assistance to those countries. A few paragraphs later on page 4, Mr Hayden said: My Department for instance, will be extending such assistance to exporters in Zimbabwe to help them promote their products in Australia. We have an interesting situation whereby the Government's policies towards land use-a matter that was discussed in the Senate earlier today, yesterday and the day before during the debate on the heritage legislation-include closing down Australia and denying land use to miners, timber workers, farmers and others. Yet despite those policies it is about to embark upon a process of assisting agricultural development and minerals exploitation in those African countries. I very much hope that in the course of that process our Government will not undertake any rape or pillage of the environment in those countries-- Senator Sheil —I hope they do not find any uranium. Senator STONE —I very much agree with Senator Sheil in hoping that they do not find any uranium. Already our uranium industry has lost sufficient ground because of the activities of governments in this country, particularly the Whitlam Labor Government as well as the present Government. We do not want any more handicaps or competition in that field. I have to say that on page 5 of the statement there is one paragraph in which honesty breaks through. Mr Hayden concedes, `Australia's influence on regional political events is naturally limited'. That is a most remarkably uncharacteristic touch of modesty from any representative of this Government. However, having made that concession, I have to say that further into his statement the Minister rather quickly forgot that restriction. On page 7 he said: Striking the right balance, judging the trade-offs costs in competing national priorities, deploying scarce government resources in the maximum national benefit: these are complex, connected strands in our diplomacy which have to be pursued with subtlety as well as energy if we are to protect and preserve Australia's vital interests. That is rather redolent of Paul Keating talking about the way he is playing monetary politics like an organ these days. Is there no limit to immodesty by Ministers of this Government? What pomposity there is contained in such a paragraph. On the same aspect I turn to page 17 of the Minister's statement where he talks about the nuclear disarmament process, a matter in which for some time now the Government has attempted to strut the international stage, but in which it has no place at all, and about which nobody takes the slightest notice of it despite its having spent a great deal of money on it for five years now. However, in passing, I notice that that particular section of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is now in the process of being cut back; not nearly enough to size, but to at least something like half of its previous magnitude. The Minister said: That Australian Government has done all it can to facilitate this process- that is, the process of multilateral nuclear disarmament- in multilateral forums such as the UN General Assembly, Security Council and the Conference on Disarmament. I suppose, taken quite literally, it is true that the Government has done all it can. However, the truth of the matter is that the Government cannot do anything. As it has done nothing, it has therefore done all it can. So, literally that is a factually accurate statement. Mr Hayden said further: We have actively encouraged the process which has produced the INF Treaty, the first treaty actually to reduce the number of nuclear weapons. I am well aware that everyone in this chamber greatly welcomes that treaty, although perhaps it is not nearly as much the answer to all our prayers as some would have us believe. Nevertheless, it is very much to be welcomed. What does our Minister for Foreign Affairs say about it? He said, `We have actively encouraged the process'. Well, one can only say that if that is the full sum and achievement of our efforts it does not say much for the millions of dollars that we have spent in the process of maintaining a separate ambassador for peace and disarmament and having a major section of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade directed simply to regurgitating or reshaping pieces of paper produced elsewhere in the world. As my reference a moment ago to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, as the Department is now called, indicates, it is now, of course, appropriate for the Minister to refer not merely to foreign affairs issues but to trade issues. On page 14 of his statement the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade waxes somewhat eloquent on the significant results, as he sees them, of the policies of this Government in achieving significant growth in exports, particularly to countries within our region. The paper contains a set of statistics as to the rate of growth of exports. These statistics relate to China, Japan, Korea and the Association of South East Asian Nations during the period 1983-84 to 1986-87, compared in each case with the period 1975-76 to 1982-83. Despite all this, our balance of payments situation today continues to be in a fearsome mess. Indeed, it would be in an even greater mess were it not for the fact that our international terms of trade have improved by something like 7 per cent in the course of the current financial year. But for that development, our balance of payments deficit this year would be even worse than it was last year. We have a situation where our net international debt reached $86.77 billion at the end of last December and is still rising quite fast and where, of course, the cost of servicing that debt is rising commensurately. I suggest that before representatives of this Government, including the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, start boasting about the success, if that is what it is, of our export performance, they should have a look at the bottom line, which is the balance of payments deficit. There are two sides to the merchandise trade account. One is exports and the other is imports. Of course, the current account deficit also contains not merely merchandise trade but trade on services and the net deficit on property income and other income. There is an important statement in this document. On page 19, the Minister speaks of the increasing complexity of his task and his Department's task-and I would not necessarily want to reject that view. But in supporting it, the Minister says something which I think is perhaps more significant than he has realised. He says: Issues have created themselves: human rights, for example, and its impact on the doctrine of national sovereignty and the domestic affairs of multicultural countries such as Australia. We should think about that paragraph. Mr Hayden goes on to say: There is not a conflict between states or an infringement of human rights anywhere in the world that does not resonate in some ethnic community in Australia. I think that is true. I think it is profoundly true. What I think it suggests is that this Government should begin to think very hard about the policies of so-called multiculturalism to which it and, indeed, its predecessor Government have committed this country, and the longer term consequences of many of the divisive aspects of those policies. This is not the place to pursue that line of thought, but I want to put it on the record in this place that I think those two paragraphs in this statement represent almost the only passages in it which generate thought. I can only say that I rather doubt whether, in putting them down, the Minister realised quite what thoughts they might generate. Finally, I come to the heart of this statement. The heart of it is, as Senator Robert Hill quite properly stated in the opening remarks of his speech on this statement, the attack that it contains on the Leader of the Opposition. On page 15 the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade refers to a speech made by Mr Howard-I think in New York but it may have been Washington-in 1986. In that speech the Leader of the Opposition made some perfectly proper and accurate remarks about the economic performance of this country under the Hawke-Keating Government, or perhaps we should now say the Keating-Hawke Government. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has seen fit to say that to make remarks of that kind while overseas is a shameful and unpatriotic act. I think it was Samuel Johnson who said that the appeal to patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. I put it to you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that it is indeed that scoundrelly approach which has been adopted in that remark by our Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. On page 19 of his statement the Minister, with that penchant for the well chosen phrase for which he is renowned, says that Mr Howard's recent Hobart speech `is redolent of this abject and lickspittle mind-set'. I do not have any objection to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade criticising Mr Howard's speech. It is perfectly proper for him to do so; he is perfectly entitled to do so. However, if I may say so, it would have been preferable for him to do so in rather less vulgar language than that and on the basis of reasoned argument and not merely the abuse which is contained in that phrase. The piece de resistance in this area with which the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade concludes his remarks is the following statement: The Opposition clearly has no pride in this country . . . This comes from a Minister in a government which has done more to foster the growth of the guilt industry in this country than any other entity in Australia. Not so long ago our Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), at a time when he was still talking about the off the top of the head idea that he voiced in Alice Springs about the compact-or was it a treaty or form of words?-with Aboriginal Australians, spoke in the House of Representatives about the shame which we should all feel in this country. We have had a whole industry built up among members of our academic fraternity, prominent among whom is the husband of Senator Reynolds. I do not think we should blame Senator Reynolds for her husband, but it happens to be the case that Professor Reynolds was one of the leaders of the pack which set upon one of our most distinguished Australians, Professor Geoffrey Blainey, a couple of years ago when Professor Blainey had the courage to raise the immigration question in this country. That question has become a great deal more topical since and will become more topical in the days to come. In the course of doing so, Professor Reynolds and his colleagues gave a tremendous boost to the guilt industry in Australia, to how Australians should feel ashamed of themselves for their performance and achievements-that is my word, not his-over the past 200 years. For the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade to tell us that the Opposition clearly has no pride in this country was a fitting note on which to end a speech as lacking in substance and as hollow in rhetoric as his was. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(5.12) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. There are several reports within this paper relating to the Australian Capital Territory: the annual reports of the Consumer Affairs Council, the Consumer Affairs Bureau, the Administration of the Credit Ordinance and the Administration of the Sale of Motor Vehicle Ordinance. I specifically wish to refer to the Administration of the Credit Ordinance, which came into being, I think, in 1985 and was subsequently amended. It is one aspect of the amendment which is causing difficulty, not just to the industry but also to people who seek to borrow money. One of the requirements of the 1987 amendment was that any transaction had to be witnessed by people who were not in any way associated with those who were borrowing money. Of course, it meant that employees of a financial institution could not act as witnesses; it meant, in theory, that others who were clients of the same financial institution could not act as witnesses. I think it has been agreed by the Australian Finance Conference, its members and everybody concerned that this has been ill thought through and that it is not operating as people intended-that is, to provide greater protection for those borrowing. I believe that it is generally agreed that it needs to be amended so that it can operate in a way which is less restrictive for all parties concerned, particularly borrowers and those who want access to loans in a way which is convenient to them. So far, there has been no response from the Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories in producing an amendment. The Credit Amendment Ordinance No. 4 of 1986 amended the original ordinance in relation to the signature of documents. The Finance Conference wrote to the Minister for Territories on 12 February 1987 pointing out in considerable detail the difficulties that were being experienced with the new section which came in in 1986, which required that the signature be witnessed and that the witnesses should sign as witnesses. That section adds: A person signing on behalf of the debtor shall expressly state in writing that he or she does so by authority of the debtor. It is quite clear what was intended: people were attempting to intervene to ensure that borrowers had an opportunity to be sure of what they were doing. I do not think any of us would disagree with the concept. But as I said it has turned out to be inconvenient not only for those lending money but also for those seeking to borrow. The provision requiring the independence of a witness means that members of a financial institution, whose number may be vast, are ruled out as being a witness to a document for a person seeking to borrow. I ask the Minister for the Arts and Territories (Mr Punch) to give this matter his attention. This report refers to the changes, the objectives and what has gone on. I would not be critical of what is contained in the report but this is an aspect of it which has emerged and which has been brought to the attention of the Department and the Minister. I suggest that an amendment to the Ordinance should be dealt with quickly in consultation with the industry so that the present situation can be relieved and the business of borrowing and lending can proceed in a way which does not cause as much inconvenience to all parties as is the case, at present. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.16) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This is a document of about 170 pages entitled Local Government Initiatives: A Strategic Approach. There are some 52 recommendations contained in the document. It deals with a number of questions that I think most of us have considered for a period-that is, how best to deal with all the organisations and persons who are interested in ensuring, in this time of fairly high unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, local employment initiatives. I think the Senate would agree that one of the major problems that is not being faced up to at present when consideration is given to unemployment statistics is just where the unemployment is and amongst whom it is most significant. If we look at the figures we see that in the country districts both unemployment and youth unemployment are high. This paper attempts to solve one aspect of the problem-that is, local employment initiatives. It deserves to be read by all honourable senators because in the time which I have I would not do it justice if I sought to go through all of the points. But in passing I mention that it goes into some schemes and initiatives that have been undertaken internationally, such as the Mondragon experiment, which of course is no longer an experiment but a very successful operation, in the Basque district of Spain. I take the opportunity to mention this since the Minister for Justice, Senator Tate, is in the chamber and I know he knows about this matter. We know of a person in Tasmania who has $80,000 to give away for a local employment initiative. One of the problems is that, while the bureaucrats realise that this is unique, it is so much so that they do not know how to handle it. Normally people go along to them and say, `We want a loan for this, that and the other thing to set up this particular employment program'. Here we have a man-a consulting engineer and a successful building surveyor-who is a public spirited gentleman, motivated by Christian social principles who wants to give away $80,000. All he asks is that both State and Federal governments match that so as to establish a manufacturing plant for youth, hopefully in the Huon district. As I have said, the people in the Public Service just cannot handle that. There is no guideline into which that sort of thing fits. It is a unique situation. I am sure that my friend and colleague from Tasmania, Senator Tate, the Minister for Justice, also appreciates this. It is important to deal with this matter as a unique matter. In addition to all of those Commonwealth and State funded projects that are available to any entrepreneur, if matching funds could be given by Federal and State governments in a case such as this, where a person is prepared to put in money with no strings attached provided that it goes to a properly determined local employment initiative, it could well be that other people with money to spare would follow such an example. I just raise that in the expectation that that will assist Senator Tate to do something. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(5.23) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The 1986-87 annual report of the Australian Capital Territory Bush Fire Council is a most comprehensive document which deals with the activities of the Council. It indicates that staff attended 98 fires during this period. Of course, the Council has several employed firemen, but they are predominantly volunteers. It has 200 volunteers on its books and it provides a very valuable service to this community. Of course, there is a lot of rural area in the Australian Capital Territory which is subject to bushfires and, as I have indicated, they do occur. I want to refer specifically to the item on page 5 under the heading `Vehicles, Plant and Equipment'. Under the signature of the Chairman, Mr Val Jeffery, the report states: A major replacement programme for firefighting apparatus has not been possible as the capital expenditure allocation has always been insufficient. As new items become available the displaced older equipment has traditionally been issued to Volunteer Brigades to cover the areas not manned by paid personnel. As a result about 25 per cent of the major fire suppression fleet is now over 20 years old. The cost involved in maintaining safe and efficient equipment is increasing dramatically as the fleet ages and labour costs increase. I suggest to the Senate that it is important that proper equipment be available for firefighting in the rugged areas that the men have to go into. It is important that adequate funds be made available for a proper replacement program. It is very easy-this is not the first case where we have seen this-to cut back on maintenance and replacement programs when money is short. I can understand that. But, in the end, it really is false economy and one is not then able to provide the service as well as if the equipment had been properly maintained. It would be a pity if the activities of the Bush Fire Council were impeded by reason of its not having equipment of the necessary standard. I am not suggesting that everything be thrown out and replaced. But, when we are warned in this report that a major portion of the fleet is over 20 years old, we need to take notice of it and not just let this report pass through the Senate. We need to make sure that proper arrangements are made for the funding of real maintenance and real replacement as it is necessary. On page 7, under the heading `Publicity', there is one sentence which may not mean a lot to some honourable senators here. It says: Alexander Bunyip has been adopted as Council's mascot and was seen at many public events. Alexander Bunyip is a lovable creature, a monster which ate Canberra, in a book some years ago by Michael Salmon, who created the character. I say to Michael Salmon, `Thank you for allowing Alexander to be adopted as the Council's mascot'. To promote fire safety and the safe use of fire, it is necessary to use publicity that is meaningful, especially to young people. This has been a valuable donation and contribution. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(5.25) —Lest anyone should think that I am not interested in the bookmakers of the Australian Capital Territory, I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I can tell the Senate that I keep contact with the bookmakers. I attended their annual dinner just recently, so I know of the matters that are of concern to them. When there is anything of great concern, I shall be sure to let the Senate know. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(5.26) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The important thing mentioned in the report of the Australian Capital Territory Racecourse Development Fund Advisory Committee is that the facilities at the Canberra racecourse have been very significantly upgraded. In the report, Mr Uren is given credit as the Minister who set up the Racecourse Development Fund. That is true, but the real development of the proposal was under the direction of the previous Minister, Michael Hodgman; I think that would be acknowledged by those involved in the racing industry in Canberra. It has meant that the racing club has been able to provide much better facilities for patrons. As honourable senators will know, racing provides many jobs. It is a big employer, and it is an important part of our tourist industry. Recently, the Black Opal was a huge success and brought many people to Canberra. The facility that has been created is to be opened by the Queen on 8 May this year, which is another event which will bring many people to Canberra and be an important event in the life of the racing club. I congratulate it for what it has achieved with this money and I suggest that the development fund should continue, as it does in other places, to enable the facilities to be upgraded and maintained in the way that they ought to be. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(5.27) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I did not control the listing arrangements for today; it is quite coincidental that there happens to be a number of Australian Capital Territory reports. We are now dealing with the National Exhibition Centre Trust annual report for 1986-87. In some places this sort of facility is known as the local showground, but in Canberra it is the National Exhibition Centre (NATEX). But we also know that the Royal Canberra Show is held there. There is good reason for its name because of the range of activities that are held at this very splendid facility. It is used throughout the year. When one contemplates the capital cost of facilities such as this it is necessary that they be used; otherwise one pays out a great deal for not much return. The report indicates some of the major events held there. In addition to the Royal Canberra Show, there is the National Wine Show. Harness racing is held at this facility. The Australian Capital Territory Amateur Basketball Association Inc has its headquarters there and plays there. Other shows held have been the International Motor Show, the Canberra Money Show, Office Expo '87 and the Oktoberfest, which is a big event. I could go on to list the numerous activities covered in some six pages of this report. Of course, the biggest event in this financial year was the Papal visit and the mass that was held in this facility, with the splendid backdrop of the hills which Canberra provides. The management of NATEX is to be congratulated for the use to which it has put the facilities, and we need to encourage it and others to continue to do so. I mention that specifically because, again, the activities held there are a very important part of the tourist industry in this city. The events held at NATEX always involve a lot of people coming to Canberra, which is important for our economy and for the variety of jobs they offer. I encourage others to use the facility and to find out what is available there. Of course, this weekend there is the veteran car show, as part of the Canberra Festival, and I hope that all honourable senators will take the opportunity to see the facilities, and that and the other events of the Festival which are dominating life in Canberra at present. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator PATTERSON(Victoria)(5.30) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Morris) —The President has received the following message from the House of Representatives: MR PRESIDENT,...Message No. 147 The House of Representatives returns to the Senate the Bill intituled ``A Bill for an Act relating to the transfer of certain proceedings from the Federal Court of Australia to the Family Court of Australia and the exercise of certain jurisdiction and powers of the Family Court, and for other purposes'', and acquaints the Senate that the House of Representatives has agreed to Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 made by the Senate, and has agreed to Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 9 and 20 with the amendments indicated by the annexed Schedule. The House of Representatives desires the concurrence of the Senate in the amendments made on Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 9 and 20 of the Senate. JOAN CHILD Speaker Motion (by Senator Tate) agreed to: That consideration of the Message in Committee of the Whole be made an order of the day for a later hour this day. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Tate) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(5.33) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill will amend both the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Act 1967 and the Consular Privileges and Immunities Act 1972 which give legislative effect to the provisions of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations respectively. The Bill provides that tax imposed under any of the various sales tax Acts is not payable in respect of goods intended for the official use, and not resale, of a diplomatic mission or consular post of a prescribed overseas country provided the goods are purchased from a registered sales taxpayer. These amendments have become necessary due to increasing criticism which Australia has received in relation to our interpretation of particular provisions of the two Vienna conventions. Under those conventions the personnel at foreign missions and posts are exempt from direct taxes but must pay indirect taxes of a kind which are normally incorporated in the price of goods or services. The Government has consistently maintained that the Australian sales tax system is, due to its manner of operation, an indirect tax and as such is payable by foreign missions and posts. However, the Government also takes the view that the sales tax and value added tax systems operated by the United States of America and certain Western European countries are direct taxes from which Australian personnel are exempt. This interpretation has been disputed and on a number of occasions other countries have sought to collect sales and value added tax not only from Australian personnel but also from missions and posts. In order to maintain our exemption overseas it may therefore be necessary while maintaining our interpretation of the conventions to grant certain countries exemption from Australian sales tax in respect of their official purchases. At the present time it is not possible to accurately determine the financial impact of these amendments. However, it is the Government's intention that a foreign state will only be proclaimed a prescribed overseas country where Australia is receiving a reciprocal exemption from sales or value added tax and where the cost of providing sales tax exemption in Australia is outweighed by the financial benefits of such reciprocal exemption. Therefore, the Bill is not expected to have an adverse effect on government finances. I commend the Bill to the Senate and I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Tate) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(5.34) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to obtain parliamentary approval for Australia to take up an increase in its capital subscription to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Honourable senators will be aware that the main activity of the bank, which was established in 1947, is lending to developing countries. In 1984 IBRD governors agreed to implement a $US7 billion special capital increase. Capital increases allow the bank to expend its borrowing on the world capital markets and it is these borrowings which largely finance the bank's activities. Under this special capital increase, Australia was entitled to subscribe to an additional 745 shares. In addition, Australia received a further allocation of 70 shares under the first phase of a related supplementary share allocation designed to allow countries which had suffered a fall in their relative voting power under the special capital increase to maintain their proportionate share of capital stock. Australia has subscribed to these additional shares, and payment authorised under the International Financial Institutions (Share Increase) Act 1986 commenced in December 1986. In May 1986, governors approved a resolution authorising a further share allocation in the final phase of the supplementary share allocation. Australia was one of the countries affected by this resolution. The text of the resolution, including the number of shares to which affected members are entitled to subscribe, is included in the explanatory memorandum to this legislation. Australia voted in favour of the resolution authorising the final phase of the supplementary share allocation. Members, including Australia, are entitled, but not obliged, to subscribe to this authorised increase. Even though most of the concerned members are developing countries they have indicated their willingness to take up in total about two-thirds of the authorised increase of 1,528 shares. Australia is entitled to subscribe to 178 shares. Under this capital increase, 8.75 per cent ($US1.88m) of the subscriptions is to be paid-in and the other 91.25 per cent is to remain on call. Of the paid-in portion, 10 per cent ($US0.19m) has to be in the form of gold or United States dollars, while the balance ($US1.69m) can be in Australian dollars. This $US1.69m can be paid by means of a promissory note which is drawn down over a period of about 4 years. The initial 10 per cent cash payment would be made by 1 September 1988. Subject to agreement with the Bank, the promissory note would be encashed in eight equal biannual instalments of $US0.21m over the four financial years commencing 1988-89. In 1986, following the adoption of a revised standard of value for bank capital, maintenance of value payments were reintroduced by the bank. These payments have the effect of adjusting the value of national currency subscriptions to bank capital to allow for long run changes in the relative value of national currencies and the United States dollar. Maintenance of value obligations are calculated annually based on amounts outstanding on national currency subscriptions. A promissory note denominated in Australian dollars would attract significant maintenance of value payments by Australia. It is therefore proposed to utilise a United States dollars promissory note which would not be subject to maintenance of value. The callable portion of Australia's subscription to the supplementary share allocation (91.25 per cent valued at $US19.59m), which acts as security for the bank's borrowing, is most unlikely to be called. No calls have ever been made on this part of bank capital. The IBRD is an effective and efficient institution in the provision of development assistance to developing countries, and it plays an important role in the South East Asian region. This has been recognised by Australian governments over the years since the bank's establishment. Up to the end of June 1987, the bank had lent about $US120 billion to its member countries. This money was largely borrowed from international financial markets. The cost to taxpayers in member countries in terms of paid in capital subscriptions was only $US7.2 billion. Projects financed covered all the major sectors of economic development with an emphasis on infrastructure facilities in the transport and communications, industry and energy sectors, as well as projects for agriculture, education and water supply. The World Bank and its soft loan arm, the International Development Association, have a comprehensive and systematic project evaluation system which shows that most bank and IDA projects-85 per cent of those evaluated in 1986, for instance,-achieve all or most of their objectives. The estimated average return on projects evaluated in calendar years 1985 and 1986, measured by the flow of net economic benefits over time, was 14.8 per cent. Australia's membership of the IBRD brings substantial commercial benefits. On a cumulative basis Australia has received more from procurement by the IBRD including IDA than it has given in contributions to the bank and IDA. I believe it to be in Australia's interest to continue its policy of support of the IBRD by taking up, in full, the increase in our capital subscription to which we are entitled. I commend the Bill to honourable senators, and I now present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Debate resumed from 25 February, on motion by Senator Puplick: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(5.34) —I wish to take this opportunity to raise what is yet another example of the Government's maladministration of the tendering process. The matter arises in relation to the duty free concession which operates at Sydney's Kingsford-Smith international terminal. Mr Acting Deputy President, you will recall that some years ago a tender was awarded under the Airports (Business Concessions) Act for the operation of a duty free shop at Kingsford-Smith airport. The successful tenderer on that occasion was a foreign firm by the name of Allders International Pty Ltd. It was successful on the basis of a tender which was awarded after tender invitation No. N668 which closed on 30 August 1983. The lease authority, which was an appendix to the tender document, said in part: . . . the Commonwealth its officers servants and agents shall not be answerable to the Concessionaire for any loss of profit or diminution in business resulting from any relocation extension or redesign of the airport or the terminal building . . . Subsequently it was decided that the duty free shop at the airport should be relocated. The concessionaire, Allders, approached the Government and said that, under those circumstances, it believed it was entitled to some compensation. The report before us, which was prepared by Mr A. F. Rainbird, a Deputy Secretary of the then Department of Aviation, records that what Allders said to the Government was: Allders suggested that this compensation- that is, compensation for the relocation of the shop- would take the form of either relief from concession rent during the period of disruption; or a period of extension to the contract to enable the concessionaire to recoup revenues lost during the period of disruption. In the event, the period of disruption was zero. The shop was moved and relocated overnight. Nevertheless, the Government proceeded to give Allders a two-year extension to its contract without calling any competitive tenders. Mr Rainbird at page 8 reports: The Australian Government Solicitor's office advised on 2 June on the question of the Commonwealth liability for payment of compensation if Allders was prevented from trading from premises covered by its existing lease. I wrote to the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) and asked him for a copy of the advice received from the Australian Government Solicitor and indicated that I was making a Freedom of Information Act request. The Minister wrote back and told me that I was not entitled to have the document. Under this Government, freedom of information is a fairly delicate flower; it is constantly abused. However, the Minister did indicate one extract from that advice from the Australian Government Solicitor which is in the following terms: My view- presumably, the Australian Government's Solicitor's view- is that should the Authority, in effect, prevent Allders from trading from the demised premises then some compensation could be claimed and might well be payable. The facts of the matter are simply these: Allders won a contract according to a tender document which clearly indicated that the Commonwealth was not liable for any loss if there was to be a relocation, extension or redesign of the airport. Allders was asked to move. It moved. It suffered no loss because it moved overnight and resumed trading the following day. Nevertheless, without calling tenders, and I believe in breach of the provisions of the Airports (Business Concessions) Act, the Minister or his Department granted a two-year extension of the contract to Allders-an extremely valuable commercial resource. It is true that Australia has the best duty free shopping in the world. An article by Gareth Powell in the Sydney Morning Herald in 1986 indicated: And some of the best duty-free bargains in Australia are to be found in Sydney. Most of the credit for this splendid state of affairs lies with Sterling Nicholas Duty-Free- which pioneered off-airport duty shopping. I agree with that. Yet, the same year, in an article in the Daily Telegraph, we were told: Incoming travellers buying duty-free alcohol and cigarettes at Sydney Airport pay up to 90 per cent more than they would at similar shops in the city. So it cannot even be claimed that the Sydney airport concessionaires are providing the best service at the minimum cost. I am concerned about the way in which this matter has been handled. It is another example of the cavalier approach which this Government takes to the very important process of government tendering. A contract was let which I believe should not have been let. I believe that the Minister should be required to give a far greater explanation to the Parliament and to the disadvantaged concessionaires than has been given. I believe that this is quite clearly an example of continuing problems with government tenders and specifically the maladministration within the Minister's Department-like the Amann affair-and any number of examples one cares to bring to mind at the moment. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 15 March, on motion by Senator Jenkins: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(5.41) —We move now to an entirely different debate from the previous one. The report of the Committee of Inquiry into Folklife in Australia is very interesting and extremely informative. It deals with the folklife of Australia which includes things such as children's games, rhymes, family sayings, old yarns, tunes, stories, songs, poems, birthday and marriage customs, popular superstitions, old recipes, craft skills, dancing, Christmas ceremonies and all other parts of the living cultural tradition of Australia. It is an excellent report and I very much commend the authors for it. For instance, it contains something that I have never seen before-the original words written by Banjo Paterson to Waltzing Matilda. These words, in fact, are not well known and, if one tries to sing them, are virtually incomprehensible, given the current music. Nevertheless, the report brings forward several important recommendations. I refer in particular to the recommendation in regard to the conservation of folk art in Australia. I think that this is worthy of very considerable and favourable examination. However, I must say that I profoundly disagree with the main thrust of the recommendations of the report. Folk traditions cannot be institutionalised in the way in which many arts and art forms can be institutionalised. Folk traditions have a natural and organic quality. Occasionally, they die out. Indeed, part of the process of the renewal of folklife and folk art is the occasional dying out of traditions. I believe that they should not be required to be incorporated into some false system of preservation in a way which in fact no longer renders them truly folk in their character. We cannot preserve folk traditions by institutionalising them in the way in which I think this report basically suggests. Equally I do not believe that one can teach folklife in the way in which this report suggests in chapter 4. It is something one is either born into or is brought up with by one's parents and grandparents, community leaders, community elders and community peers. It is not something which is capable of being taught in the way in which this report discusses the teaching of folklife. I think the report also is slightly deficient in three areas. One concerns the integration of folklife in to the broader stream of Australian cultural and artistic activity. Secondly, the report fails to discuss the nexus between the folk traditions of Europe and Asia and the folk traditions of the Aboriginal people-although I concede that that was not central to its terms of reference in its charter. Thirdly, as in many such reports it is slightly dismissive of what one might describe as the Anglo-Celtic folk traditions. For instance, there is a great deal in the report about recipes and food and all the rest of it, but no mention of roast beef and Yorkshire pudding as if they do not constitute as much of a folk tradition in many ways that the more ethnic foods are described as doing. I refer also in this respect to Morris dancing or the traditional English Christmas carols and customs which are just as much part of a folk tradition as those which come from other parts of Europe. In that respect I find the report somewhat disappointing. As I said, there are a number of specific recommendations in the report. Time does not permit me to go into many of them but there is one with which, again, I indicate my significant disagreement. I refer to the recommendation that the National Film and Sound Archive review its priorities with a view to placing greater emphasis on documentary records of Australian life. I do not believe that the primary responsibility of the National Film and Sound Archive is for documentary preservation in that sense. Our film heritage and our sound recordings are at the stage that they need much more urgent attention in respect of preservation than some of the documentary material in the possession of that archive. Nevertheless, having said that I fundamentally disagree with the thrust of the report and in particular, the institutionalisation of folklife and teaching of folklife-the institutional, financial and bureaucratic solutions which are profferred in the report-I believe that it is a valuable resource document. It is an extremely good work of both scholarship and investigation. It deserves careful reading and understanding. I believe that it puts before those of us who are particularly interested in arts policy and matters of our cultural heritage some very significant issues which need to be addressed. It has some very significant discussions of important parts of Australian life, particularly those which are relevant to communities maintaining some degree of original or folk identity. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator TAMBLING(Northern Territory) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) -I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(5.47) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. When one reads the 1986-87 annual report of the Milk Authority of the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), one finds that it is signed by Stuart F. Wilcox, Chairman of that Authority. One will find on looking further into the report that Mr Wilcox was: . . . reappointed for a three years term commencing 20 March 1987 . . . However, the fact is that today as we consider this matter, he is no longer the Chairman of the Milk Authority. In my opinion that is a matter which requires some comment. I think it is also necessary to thank him for the work that he did while he was on the Authority and from the time he was appointed Chairman in 1981. All Canberrans will know that during the time he was Chairman the price of milk in Canberra was significantly lower than in places surrounding the ACT. That is something that we have been very grateful for indeed. I think that we owe him a great debt for the work he did as Chairman. The reason that he is no longer the Chairman of the Milk Authority arises from an incident that occurred during the last election. The honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow) claimed considerable credit in a television advertisement for the contracts negotiated between the milk producers in his area and the Milk Authority. This was done in a way that made it look as though somehow he had some particular influence with the Authority and that he had achieved all that. The Chairman of the Milk Authority, in my opinion quite properly, made a statement denying that there had been any such interference and claiming that the Authority was independent and had acted quite properly. It was quite obvious to everyone who knew the then Minister for Territories that this would get the Chairman of the Milk Authority into considerable trouble. In the end, prior to the Chairman being dismissed by the Minister, he tendered his resignation. The position became vacant on 2 October. It was an incident that ought not to have occurred. He was quite properly explaining the Authority's position on a matter he ought to have been explaining. In doing so, he ought not to have run foul of the Labor Minister. As I have indicated, it was not surprising to many of us that having placed the matter on the record this would in fact result. It was to the loss of the community here that Mr Wilcox is, as a consequence, no longer chairman of the Milk Authority. Other people have been appointed to the Authority. Ms Rosemary Follett was appointed in November 1986. As stated in the report, she is an officer of the Commonwealth Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. She is also President of the ACT branch of the Australian Labor Party. One might wonder which of her occupations was the most influential in her being appointed to this position. This sort of situation has arisen before in Canberra. In October 1987 the terms of two members of the Canberra Theatre Trust expired, quite properly. One of them was Mrs Elinor Grassby and the other was Ms Libby Smith. As was stated in the Canberra Times of 25 October 1987, Ms Smith was a long time and tireless worker for the performing arts in Canberra. Interestingly enough, Mrs Grassby's term on the Trust was renewed. Ms Smith received a short note from the Minister, as others have done, which indicated that she was not to be reappointed and, presumably, that her services were to be terminated. Having consideration for her qualifications for the job and the expertise that she brought to it, the two appointments that were made to the Trust were very surprising. She was replaced on the Canberra Theatre Trust by Mrs Ingrid Murphy. So, the sorts of things that happened in Canberra under the ministerial responsibility of the former Minister, not the present Minister, made the incident that occurred with the Milk Authority regrettable but expected. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 16 March, on motion by Senator Patterson. That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator PATTERSON(Victoria)(5.53) —The tabling of the annual report of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation provides me with an opportunity to speak about research in Australia in general and the CSIRO in particular. Honourable senators should be aware that the CSIRO has been operating on a succession of reduced budgets in real terms over the past 10 years; also that chiefs of divisions in the CSIRO have been encouraged to increase the external sources of their funding, and that that has implications for the research being undertaken by the CSIRO. The funding for the divisions of the CSIRO has also been redistributed away from rural research to manufacturing and information technology research. These factors are seriously affecting Australia's ability to be first in the field of scientific developments and, in particular, in developments in agriculture and the rural area. Funding of the CSIRO, unlike many other areas of government expenditure, has the potential for financial return. A recent example given by Dr Peacock of the CSIRO-by the way, he was the recent winner of the 1988 Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd award for the Pursuit of Excellence in Science-is the development of a new variety of cotton called siokra. The breeding program cost $2m to $3m over the past 10 years and has netted the Australian economy $45m in the past year. It is estimated that this financial year that figure will be significantly larger. That is one example of how such expenditure can reap large gains. I wish to add my concerns to those of some of the senior research staff in the CSIRO about the perception which prevails in some government quarters that continued investment in agricultural research is likely to be of little benefit to the Australia economy. I wish to take this opportunity also to express my concern at the current climate of an emphasis in our research institutions, including the CSIRO, on applied rather than pure research. I acknowledge the value of external funding to research institutions, but I wish to highlight the concomitant and inherent danger or risk of an overemphasis on applied as opposed to pure research-an emphasis on short term goals and outcomes at the expense of long term goals and outcomes. I conclude my remarks by congratulating the staff of the CSIRO on its achievements during the 1986-87 period, despite a reduced budget in real terms. As is indicated in the annual report, the divisions in the CSIRO are to be restructured. As we all know, restructuring of this nature and of such a magnitude is disruptive to the research endeavours of the staff in the Organisation. It is very wearisome for one to be torn away from research to pay attention to the minutia of administration. I strongly concur with the statement of Dr Peacock of the CSIRO which was quoted in the recent article of Mr Grahame O'Neill in the Future Age entitled `Australian Scientist: Excellence in Adversity'. That statement reads: If we stifle opportunities to carry out longer term research, we condemn Australia to a second class future. Senator TAMBLING(Northern Territory)(5.56) —Like Senator Patterson, I have some concerns about the research priorities of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). Even if we appreciate that the budget allocated to the CSIRO is similar to that of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation-we could perhaps put it in terms of 8c a day-we still need to be sure that the programs, priorities and the administration of the CSIRO are very effective. The report that has been tabled, which bears the signature of the Chairman of the CSIRO, Neville Wran, QC, states: It is vital not only that CSIRO operates at maximum effectiveness but that it gets its research priorities right. Further on in his report Mr Wran states: There will be tighter monitoring of research to maximise its economic or social value to the Australian community, while maintaining the scientific excellence for which CSIRO has a world-wide reputation. I am concerned that in that tightening and monitoring process we should not lose sight of long term objectives and that we should not lose sight of those industries which have come to depend for their very future on the work of the CSIRO, which has been so excellent in the past. For example, in the Northern Territory funding for rural research undertaken by the CSIRO has just been slashed very heavily. Research into tropical horticulture has been totally reviewed and is to be downgraded, replaced and changed about. This action is very short-sighted and out of kilter with our expectations for our economic future and the relationships that we hope to have, particularly with the Asian markets in the area of grains and grain crop development. The Northern Territory Grain Growers Association has expressed very serious reservations about the course that the CSIRO is taking. The Association has entered into discussions and correspondence with the CSIRO. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a letter written by the Northern Territory Grain Growers Association and the reply from a Dr E. F. Henzell of the CSIRO. Leave granted. The letters read as follows- NT GRAIN GROWERS ASSOCIATION Dr E. F. Henzell Director Division of Tropical Crops and Pastures CSIRO Brisbane Dear Ted, I wish to express my concern at recent remarks made by yourself on the ABC Country Hour program of Thursday, 4th February, 1988. In the course of the interview you linked the question of the viability of the Grain Growers to your organisation's decision to withdraw from the Northern Territory. Such statements, coming from yourself-an acknowledged expert in the field, has had a dramatic effect upon my members and their commercial suppliers, particularly financiers. As you partially acknowledge in the interview, the reasons for the CSIRO withdrawal from the North have very little to do with the probable financial future of the grain industry, and I quote ``. . . its' just that we can't justify a continuing effort unless we see more commercial development. These days CSIRO has to be hard nosed like the rest of the community where it spends its money''. The future of the grain industry is only being assessed this year, and I believe it is not possible to make any definite statements on viability, as you have done, until that analysis is complete. Your remarks, while reflecting your concerns for the future, were quite unfounded, detrimental to our industry and damaging to the credibility of individual farmers. I hereby request your clarification of the CSIRO withdrawal and a retraction of your comments regarding the viability of the grain growing industry. Yours sincerely, JOHN VIDLER President PO Box 225, Dickson, ACT 2602 Telephone (062) 48 4211 Telex AA 62003 Facsimile (062) 47 3832 CSIRO Institute of Plant Production and Processing Limestone Avenue, Canberra, ACT Director E F Henzell DGT:PR Mr John Vidler President NT Grain Growers Association PMB 55 WINNELLIE NT 5789 Dear John Thank you for your letter of 11 February 1988 about the remarks I made on the ABC Country Hour program on 4 February concerning the decision to phase out grain crop research in the Northern Territory by the Division of Tropical Crops and Pastures. You ask for clarification and for a retraction of my ``comments regarding the viability of the grain growing industry''. First, I wish to make it quite clear that I do not question the viability of the existing grain growing industry in the Northern Territory. There is a significant, though small, industry meeting the important needs of the local market. My concern is that there is little scope for expansion through exports. This is an aspect that I am sure has engaged your Association for some time, and I am also sure that you have been disconcerted by the heavy production and delivery costs removing the competitive edge on the export market. For CSIRO to justify continuation of its grain research into the 1990s, it would have to see good prospects for a much bigger industry than there is now. Quite frankly, we think it will be extremely difficult for Northern Territory farmers to make a good profit from exporting grains such as maize and sorghum. I hope for Australia's sake that we are wrong. The reason why I was forced to phase down the grain research and other work was simply one of economics. During the last few years, Government funding for the Division's work has declined steadily, and the prognostications are that the Divisional appropriation budget will be further reduced between now and 1990. The lead-time required to cease rural research activities without waste is inevitably long, and unless I took action when I did, the Division would be in increasing difficulty over the next three years. The cuts I initiated before transferring to Canberra will be felt throughout the Division, in Queensland as well as in the Northern Territory. I trust that this clarification will help your Association to understand my position. Again, I wish to make it quite clear that I continue to support a grain industry to supply the local market in the Northern Territory. My views on that have not changed since the AD 2000 discussion. You are quite free to make public the contents of this letter. With regards Your sincerely E F Henzell cc Acting Chief Division of Tropical Crops and Pastures Senator TAMBLING —These letters highlight the fact that the Northern Territory Grain Growers Association is relying heavily on the continuation of the research projects, particularly those being undertaken into tropical horticulture in northern Australia. In his reply to the letter from the Northern Territory Grain Growers Association, Dr Henzell said: The reason why I was forced to phase down the grain research and other work was simply one of economics. It is disgraceful that that is the way in which research projects have had to be approached. I foreshadow some questions that I would like the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) to address very seriously, in particular about the CSIRO. If the answers to these questions are not forthcoming before the Senate examines the Budget Estimates, I will certainly pursue them at that time. For example, what was the basis of the decision to close down the Tropical Crops and Pastures Division of the CSIRO? What degree of consultation has taken place with the industry and the relevant government departments over the closure? What alternatives were looked at? What arrangements are in place to ensure that the Northern Territory continues to have access to CSIRO crop research? Was any consideration given to transferring equivalent resources to other CSIRO divisions working in the north of Australia? How does the CSIRO address research into adjustment issues faced by rural industries generally and the Northern Territory specifically? How has the CSIRO extended the results of its research into agricultural industries? Has it been done in a manner that has permitted the timely adoption of new technologies with integrated farming management practices? I believe that these issues have to be addressed very seriously. Looking at the scant resources applied in northern Australia by the Government, let alone the CSIRO, the fact that the CSIRO has been forced by economic issues to pull back and rein in on this area makes me very suspicious of the motives. It is certainly one area where we must put the CSIRO under the microscope. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales)(6.01) —It has to be well and truly noted in the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation report, which is before us today, that the cuts that have been made in the CSIRO budget in the environmental, scientific and mining sectors are very worrying to everyone. I think they are rather short-sighted, to say the least. I think Senator Tambling has already made some mention of that. I do not think this Government has taken into account the valuable work that sections of the CSIRO have done. There is virtually nowhere else in Australia that research work can be done of the nature and magnitude of that done by the CSIRO. Its work in areas such as blowfly control, pesticides, the effect of chemicals on the environment and animals and parasite control-not to mention its research into environmental issues such as ozone depletion and the weather pattern-is of enormous to the rural sector. If works such as this do not continue Australia will fall well behind in rural production at a time when we have a great need for rural production to make sure that our balance of payments is correct. This annual report paints a very rosy picture for the CSIRO and its various divisions but it marks the fall in morale that has occurred with the cutbacks and with the political appointment of Neville Wran as the Chairman. I think this appointment was a particularly inappropriate one, given that Mr Wran has no background in things scientific and there is no previous evidence of his interest in such work. Neither did he, as a Queen's Counsel, have any particular expertise or flair in the business world. So his appointment must be seen for what it was-a retirement bonus for an old Premier. I doubt whether the incoming National-Liberal Party government will provide a similar position for Barrie Unsworth when the election in New South Wales is won by the coalition on Saturday. However, it is interesting to note that the Australian newspaper this morning showed a large photograph of Mr Wran, the CSIRO Chairman. The article states: Mr Neville Wran came to Canberra yesterday to blow the CSIRO's trumpet. Instead, he was persuaded to wax lyrical about other subjects including jobs for the boys . . . As far as jobs for the boys are concerned that is a very well known subject in Canberra at the moment. Senator Short —And he said they were right into it, too. Senator BROWNHILL —They are right into it, too. He also mentioned that the Australian Labor Party would have trouble losing the election on Saturday because of the redistribution that he put through. Of course, he has also waxed lyrical about that over time. But at least he is sticking to the things he knows about, which are jobs for the boys. He would not even make a good public relations officer for the CSIRO when he comes to Canberra as he talks about politics rather than about the CSIRO. Fortunately, the report gives Mr Wran little space and it is probably just as well that that has happened. The report talks about the new challenges and the bright prospects for the CSIRO but, with some subtlety, it gives an inkling of the anguish present when the Chief Executive says, `The year has been a particularly difficult one for me'. I suspect that that statement is something short of the full story. Of course, the trend in the CSIRO is to become more industry and profit oriented. I have already alluded to what is happening to research in the rural sectors. I can accept that statement but I am concerned that because the rural research projects are not as commercially viable as others, such as robots for car manufacturing plants, these other projects will take precedence. My concern is shared by research scientists and people in the rural industries. I think the Government has engaged in penny pinching. Even its own Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business, Mr Barry Jones, bleated loud and long about how appallingly the CSIRO had fared in budget cutbacks. The people in rural Australia are concerned. If the Federal Government does not pay more attention to the functions of the CSIRO the annual report next year will say nothing; it will just refer to a few challenges ahead of us. It might well say how the CSIRO has been forced to close down. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 16 March, on motion by Senator Chaney. That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator PANIZZA(Western Australia)(6.06) —I pointed out last night that the Royal Commission into Grain Storage, Handling and Transport is probably the most important royal commission we have had into the agricultural industry for quite a number of years. I will point out briefly again the proposed savings that the Commission found on the handling and transport of grain. The figure for New South Wales was $10 per tonne; Queensland, $15 per tonne; South Australia, $6.50 per tonne; Victoria, $11 per tonne with perhaps another $1.50 per tonne if we can clean up the disputes on the Australian waterfront and another $2 per tonne if we get foreign ships to stop treating Australia as a war zone when they are loading grain. Those savings are stretched across a broad Australian base. I am taking Australia's grain production of wheat, oats, barley, et cetera to be about 22 million tonnes, so a saving of $15 per tonne represents an immediate saving of $330m for the agricultural areas of Australia. Of course, this came about because of something that we on the western side of the continent have always known and about which we have always told various governments: we need deregulation of our transport along with deregulation of the bulk handling authorities. In that part of Western Australia where grain transport was deregulated in that transport was not limited to rail but was opened up to road transport tendering, we got an immediate drop of 20 per cent on grain freight rates. The Commission has also recommended that we deregulate the grain handling authorities. In all six States the handling authorities have had sole rights up to date. In fact, in Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland, the State governments own the handling authority installations so that is an added burden in terms of regulation. The Royal Commission recommended that the governments in those three States get rid of the bulk handling authorities to some private concern or to co-operatives, as is the case in other States. That will not be the end of those handling authorities because even though they will be deregulated, they will be in a far better position to compete in the market for the handling and storage of grain as the installations are already there and paid for. So there will be no worries on that score. Of course, certain co-operatives in Western Australia, South Australia, and probably Tasmania-I am not quite sure of it-own the bulk handling authorities. In a lot of places, given time, many of these co-operatives turn into dictatorships as is the case with the Western Australian handling authority. No doubt it will start shooting from the hip immediately that it should retain control. We have got to the stage with this Royal Commission where a lot of recommendations have been made and we have been shown lots of places where costs can be saved and money remitted to growers or not taken from growers at all in the first place. It is one thing to find out what is wrong and another thing to recommend what can be done, but, of course, the most important and final thing is to implement the findings of the Royal Commission. My strong message to the Government and the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy is that, the Royal Commission having sat for two years and having cost a vast amount of money, the Government should appoint a person responsible, perhaps Mr McColl himself, for seeing the recommendations through to fruition and satisfactorily overcoming the problems that have existed in grain handling, transport and storage for many years throughout Australia. I recommend to the Government that it do exactly that. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales)(6.11) —The report of the Royal Commission into Grain Storage, Handling and Transport has been awaited by everyone for a long time. The Royal Commission has uncovered some major shortcomings in the present system of grain handling. The report says: For the most part, the current system of grain distribution does not meet the criteria of economic efficiency, cost effectiveness and integration, the three assessment criteria provided in the Commission's terms of reference. As a wheat grower myself I am aware that quite considerable costs are associated with the handling of grain. I could quote for example industry charges for a wheat crop from my particular area. The bulk handling authority charged $16.70, freight charges accounted for $20 a tonne and there are other charges. Consequently many people have considered how the grain handling system could be made more efficient. I have heard talk that at a national level the improved efficiency could result in a $10 per tonne reduction in resource costs if some of the Commission's recommendations were implemented. The report states: A detailed, quantitative evaluation suggests that, from a national perspective, resource costs savings of approximately $10 per tonne can potentially be achieved by the adoption of this system. The basic changes involved in the system included the removal of the requirement that the bulk handling agencies have the sole receival rights for the major grains and the removal of restrictions on the road transport of grain. That latter aspect could result in considerable problems if much more grain transport was conducted by road. That would result in damage to roads, and any government has to be mindful of the fact that money would have to be put into roads if grain were transported by road rather than by rail. The report refers to the introduction of charges for port services and sea transport which reflect the actual costs of these activities to growers and other participants in the grain distribution system. Some people say there will not be an instant $10 saving. A report on a meeting held on this matter recently referred to the mood of the observers after attending the Federal Government's Rural and Allied Industries Council in Melbourne. It said that grain growers hoping for instant savings of $10 a tonne in the storage, handling and transport of their grain will be disappointed. If people of the quality who attended that meeting are worried about the $10 coming through the system, I also am worried. As Senator Panizza mentioned, one of the problems with grain handling is that of industrial relations, particularly at the ports. It has been estimated that work practices in Australian ports delay ships by some 25 per cent, costing something in the order of $100m a year to all industries on the seaboard. The Maritime Services Board has listed 99 restrictive work practices which, if overcome, could save between $15.5m and $28.5m. It is worth noting that port workers were granted a $4.6m second tier wage deal last December. On the subject of industrial relations the report said: However the underlying factor which has allowed this to develop and continue is the shielding from competitive forces of many of the organisations in the distribution system. I believe most probably there is a place for privatisation of some parts of the handling chain. The report continued: There is no legal doubt that the statutory authorities are owned by the State governments and could be sold off if desired. However, a case may be made on equity grounds that growers should share in the ownership of any future organisation. In New South Wales, of course, most of the grain handling system has been built with funds provided by grain growers. If there is to be any return to the grain growers they should not have to pay for that. Rather, the grain growers should have the facilities returned to them free of charge so that the grain can be handled in a more efficient way. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 24 February, on motion by Senator Walters: That the Bill be now read a second time. (Quorum formed) Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —by leave-While the Labor Party organises itself, I will make a brief statement. I inform the Senate that when the Bill is considered in the Committee of the Whole, I intend to move an amendment to insert a new clause to define ownership. I have asked that the amendment be circulated so that honourable senators participating in the debate are aware of the proposed definition. Sitting suspended from 6.20 to 8 p.m. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(8.00) —The Australian Democrats will not support the Australian Heritage Commission (Notification of Owners) Amendment Bill 1988 or the amendment which I understand will be moved by Senator Walters. We feel the Bill is absolutely unnecessary. In fact, the Bill would impede greatly the already necessary actions of the Australian Heritage Commission. I think it is essential in discussing this Bill to establish exactly what the Heritage Commission does and what it was set up to do. The Australian Heritage Commission was established in 1975. Incidentally, at that time it was recommended that it should have a staff of 50. At no time since then has that recommendation been fulfilled. In fact, generally it runs on about half of that staffing level. Another difficulty in terms of the operation of the Commission is that the number of technical advisers who actually assess the environmental values of areas to be listed is limited to only three at present. Only three people are actually employed to look at the various factors, and they are heavily overworked. If the Government were really serious about its environmental concerns and commitment, it would take immediate steps to upgrade the staff of the Heritage Commission and in fact fulfil the original intention of the government of the day to staff the Commission with 50 people. So I urge the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson), who is not in the chamber at the moment, to take that into account. Even though the Heritage Commission does an excellent job, it would do a far better job if it had its full complement of staff. In some cases, the Commission is 11 years behind in investigating nominations simply because of a lack of staff. The Heritage Commission has provided the Government with most of its technical advice on major environmental issues, such as the Franklin dam, the Tasmanian forest issue, the wet tropics and Kakadu National Park. The Commission identified the wet tropics area as having World Heritage value at a time when the Government did not recognise the incredible diversity of the plant life and the uniqueness of that environment. The Commission fulfils its responsibilities by preparing and maintaining a Register of National Estate places, by advising the Commonwealth Minister responsible for the environment and other Commonwealth Ministers and departments on all matters relating to the National Estate, and by developing policies and programs for research, professional training and public education. A part time chairperson and six part time commissioners with various skills and interests in the natural and cultural environment, all of whom are appointed by the Government, make up the Commission. The Commission is supported by a small number of office staff based in Canberra. What about the Register of the National Estate itself? Much has been made of this Register and listing on it. We have heard in this chamber and certainly outside it-in the Press and in the streets-great concern, alarm and furore over listing on the National Estate. What does it really mean? It appears that the implications, or perceived implications, of having a place listed on the Register have led to much of the criticism of the Commission in recent times. The Register is the national inventory of Australia's National Estate-that is, it is a list of places defined in the Australian Heritage Commission Act as: . . . those places, being components of the natural environment of Australia, or the cultural environment of Australia that have aesthetic, historic, scientific or social significance or other special value for future generations as well as for the present community. Compiling the Register is a lengthy process and it will take many years to complete. There are now 8,290 places listed on the Register and there are another 390 on the interim list. The chief value of the Register is that, as a national reference for places with the National Estate values described earlier, it is a resource for planners, researchers and decision-makers. It means that planners and decision-makers, who have long taken economic, social and other data into consideration, can now refer to National Estate data before making their decisions. This should help reduce the loss of places from Australia's heritage, destroyed simply because their value was unknown. What about listing on the Register? This is the contentious point. It is the point that Senator Walters's Bill would make far more difficult and perhaps impossible, as we shall see later. The process of listing a place on the Register of the National Estate combines both democratic and scientific elements. Anyone, including Senator Walters, can nominate a place for listing on the Register, provided it is within Australia or its Territories, the territorial sea or continental shelf. However, after doing this, the nomination then goes through a very detailed process of assessment by specialists, according to particular criteria. This is the area that I mentioned earlier in which the specialists are few in number and highly overworked. The Commission's staff first check that they have detailed information on the place proposed for nomination. Then, the National Estate significance is assessed. This is done by referral either to an expert panel or to government or voluntary expert bodies, or by review of existing information. What about the implications of a listing? We have heard over and over that National Estate listing deprives people of their rights over their property, that it is fascist, socialist or whatever, and that it amounts to a takeover of property. Actually, once a place is on the Register, it does not mean that it is then subject to numerous constraints and controls. In fact, no particular form of land use is imposed by entry in the Register. There are no legal constraints on owners of private property or on State or local government caused by the entry of a property in the Register. One wonders why Senator Walters and those on her side of the aisle are so vociferous about this listing. In fact, it is an honour to be listed because it identifies one's property. I would be quite proud if my house or a patch of land I owned were listed. In fact, I would want it to be protected anyway. But if it were listed, I would still have the right to do anything I wanted to the land. I think that that is unfortunate in many instances, but that is the law. Senator Walters and her friends have no cause to be alarmed about a listing in the Register of the National Estate because such a measure will not affect them in any way. If they want to tear down a building which has been listed and put up a block of flats, they would be absolutely free to do so under the Commonwealth legislation. The Commonwealth Government is the only level of government subject to legal restraints on any of its actions which may affect places on the Register. Section 30 of the Act requires Commonwealth Ministers and bodies to ensure that their actions do not adversely affect National Estate values of places on the Register, unless there are no feasible or prudent alternatives, and to consult with the Commission about any proposed activities which could affect such places. The importance of the Register lies not in any large scale formal prohibitive function, but in its being an alert to all Australians of the existence of places of National Estate significance. So one wonders why Senator Walters is really proposing this Bill. In fact, owners are now notified in the Press and, even if they cannot be found, the listing in no way inhibits development of their property. Why is Senator Walters actually bringing up this Bill? What does it mean? The Bill would seem to be an attempt to thwart National Estate listing because, under the Bill, if one owner cannot be found the area cannot be listed. For instance, if one could not find, say, one owner out of 50 families living on a rural property, the area could not be listed under this Bill. In fact, this has been pointed out by the National Environmental Law Association of Australia, which commented on Senator Walters's Bill. This organisation states: However, the Association foresees significant practical problems where owners cannot be identified or contacted. Under your amendments, the listing of a property could be invalidated by the failure to notify the owner. You will agree that it is often impossible to identify or notify all owners of property. This may mean that listings which ought to be made could not be made, simply because an owner or owners could not be contacted. In the Association's view, your amendments would require to have included in them a provision to the effect that failure to contact any owner or owners after a bona fide attempt to do so will not invalidate any subsequent listing. The Association does not believe that the provisions in your amendments permitting owners access to the Commission's files are appropriate. This organisation has serious doubts about this legislation. So does the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties. One of the main thrusts of Senator Walters's Bill was to preserve civil liberties. In fact the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties commented adversely on the Bill. It said in a letter: There are, however, two drafting problems I foresee with the Bill. The first is that it does not appear to provide for the service of notices. Presumably, service can be valid if it is effected by post to the owner's rating address. This should be expressly provided. Secondly, persons who are tenants, share farmers or owners of profits a prendre may be equally affected by the listing of the property. Perhaps there should be an obligation on owners, once they have been notified by the Commission, themselves to notify such persons of the Commission's proposal. The letter went on to say: I should add that none of the above should be taken as a reflection upon the Australian Heritage Commission. I do not know whether they presently undertake these tasks, and if the Commission's decisions affect rights then it is probable that if no opportunity for a hearing is given then the Commission's conduct would be reviewable by the courts in any event. So neither the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties nor the National Environmental Law Association of Australia is enthusiastic about this Bill. Therefore, the Australian Democrats join with the Government in opposing this Bill. We see it as nothing but a fairly thinly masked attempt to thwart the Heritage Commission in identifying places of national importance and putting them on the list. We feel-as I am sure the Government feels-that the people of Australia have the right to have their heritage preserved and they certainly do not deserve to have this right taken away from them by a Bill which would make it almost impossible to make any future listings on the National Estate. Motion (by Senator Tambling) agreed to: That the documents quoted from by Senator Sanders be tabled. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(8.13) —The Senate is debating the Australian Heritage Commission (Notification of Owners) Amendment Bill, which amends the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975. The Bill, which has been put forward by my colleague Senator Walters of Tasmania, is extremely important and eminently reasonable. Therefore, I am disappointed to hear the comments of another Tasmanian colleague, Senator Sanders, that the Australian Democrats cannot agree to this Bill and believe it is unnecessary. While it might be good to have a national inventory of the National Estate, this Bill does not intend in any way to thwart the listing of property; it is just an attempt to obtain a procedure which acknowledges common courtesy-that if a property is listed there is notification to the landowner. That is one of the basic thrusts of the Bill. Not everybody in the country has a daily paper delivered; not everybody reads the Press, particularly the sorts of columns where these things get listed. When one looks at some of the descriptions such as `approximately 4.5 hectares located nine miles south-west of a certain area comprising that part of a reserve lying between a straight line joining AMG points 8413' and so on, even the ordinary landowner might not identify his own property from that sort of description. Therefore, although there is a listing of properties in the Press, in most cases I would say that the ordinary property owner is not aware, until some time later, that his particular property has been listed on the National Estate. I believe it is an act of discourtesy. Furthermore, I think it is wrong that the Australian Heritage Commission will not advise the landowner of the reasons why his property has been listed. If it is good enough for the Australian Heritage Commission to list that particular property it should be good enough for it to give reasons for that listing if the landowner requests them. Thus, I believe that Senator Walters's Bill is important and eminently reasonable. As we have been told, the Bill seeks to amend the principal Act in such a way that it will require the Australian Heritage Commission and the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories to notify landowners in writing of any intention to include their property on the National Estate Register or an interim list for consideration for inclusion in that Register. I am aware of people who after six to 10 years suddenly discover their property is on the Register. It is true that some people might be proud that their property is on the Register but that is not the point. The point is that there should be adequate notification. I would go further and say that the reasons should be stated for that particular property being listed. I can see no justification whatsoever for any opposition to this Bill which seeks only to guarantee what should be a very basic right and a common courtesy-that is, the right of landowners to be advised of changes in the status of their property in the eyes of the Federal Government. In a document produced by the Australian Heritage Commission which describes how the National Estate operates, a notation has been made that says: The identification and protection of the National Estate is the responsibility of every Australian. That is fair enough. It continues: You must decide which places in your community should be kept for future generations of Australians. That has a certain ring to it. It is really more than an inventory because the assumption is made that it should be kept for future Australians. If a person is not advised that his property is on the Register-and it might happen to be an old barn-what is to stop him quite easily bulldozing that barn down? He might have been completely unaware of its listing. If it were listed, being a genuine guy, he would be more likely to keep it than put the dozer through it. Apart from the common courtesy reasons, I think there are some practical reasons why people should be notified. The document continues: You must ensure that the places worth keeping are not destroyed. If one is to accept this statement the logical concomitant is that the property owners must know of the listings, particularly if it is a common responsibility for every Australian to ensure that these places are worth keeping and are not destroyed. Therefore, the property owner must know and should be told of the listing so they can be preserved. The whole concept of the National Estate is undermined if there is a situation where the owner of land is unaware of the listing. Surely, if we are to preserve certain areas of importance it is fundamental that the owner should know of this. The fact is that existing procedures for the notification of a National Estate listing are quite inadequate. That listings have occurred without the knowledge of the property owner testifies to this. I have already given an example of a couple of people who were unaware of the listing of their properties-one for six years and the other for 10. I will give a couple of examples in my State as it is full of cultural heritage properties. It has not been uncommon in Tasmania for landowners to find out years later that their properties have been listed on the National Estate Register. It has come as quite a blow to a number of people who have owned and cared for their properties for decades. I would like to quote some comments from just two Tasmanians who have had that experience and been bold enough to put it in print. For example, Ned Terry of Dairy Plains said: I feel quite bitter and disappointed by the way the Australian Heritage Commission goes about their business. Have all the ethics and unwritten laws of common courtesy gone by the board in this day and age? Another, Jeffrey How of South Mole Creek, said: I have just recently learnt that approximately half my property at South Mole Creek is already in National Estate along with parts of properties west of Liena and bounded by Liena Road and the western tiers. There are controls on timber harvesting on private land and Crown Land in this area, but what about fully developed rural properties? I wonder what sort of controls we can expect to see placed on it? The uncertainty and disillusionment created by the inadequacy of existing arrangements is so easily remedied just by passing this Bill. There are no problems with it. I turn to the growth of the National Estate. Already in Tasmania 31.7 per cent of the State is included on the Register of the National Estate-a very large proportion indeed. Senator Richardson —It is a very special State. Senator WATSON —It is a very special State and a very important State. Senator Richardson will always be welcome down there. One need only look at the revisions of the Australian Heritage Commission maps of Tasmania to see how this area is constantly growing. If we see a continuation of this trend, private land and property will more frequently be proposed for listing on the Register. So, naturally, all property owners are starting to become a little concerned. This in itself is a little bit disconcerting because I believe there may be some unnecessary reaction to this. While the constraints imposed on Commonwealth Ministers and agencies with regard to National Estate listing remain unchanged, unfortunately there is a hidden agenda because the implications of such listings are now evolving. There are concerns that the listing on the National Estate is the first step in the chain of introducing greater restrictions through other means. This is the hidden agenda that we all should be aware of. Experience in Tasmania has shown that great pressure can be brought to bear on property owners, industry and government to prevent the development of National Estate areas. Public demonstrations by a vocal minority seek to prevent any development activity in National Estate areas. Community perceptions of the National Estate are being transformed. We have to acknowledge that. This is despite the fact that the Australian Heritage Commission maintains that the National Estate `is not directed at actions of State governments, local government or private owners and institutions; nor does it imply a particular attitude by the Commission to the ownership, management or the use of the place'. The Bill presented by my colleague Senator Walters merely seeks to remedy an anomaly. It is anomalous that private land, including a private home, can be listed on the Register of the National Estate without any reference to the owner, without the owner's prior knowledge or without the owner being given any chance to make a submission to the Commission, either to support the inclusion of the land or to object to it. I would have liked Senator Walters to provide in her Bill that the reasons for the inclusion of a property should also be notified to the owner. I do not think Senator Walters has gone as far as that, has she? Senator Walters —Yes. Senator WATSON —Perhaps that should be the next step. Senator Walters, in her second reading speech on this Bill, concluded with a reminder that this is about a great principle that this chamber, and indeed the Parliament and the people of Australia, are renowned throughout the world for holding high; that is, the principle which we call natural justice. The average Australian is known for several characteristics. He is known for his egalitarian or classless attitude. He is known for his tolerance of the points of view of others. Above all, he is known for giving the other person a fair go. This Bill will give landowners-I think all senators fall into this category, as do millions of Australians-simply a fair go. It will give landowners the right to know that their property is under consideration for registration on the schedule of the National Estate. There is a great deal of concern within the community on this issue, particularly in my State of Tasmania where such a large proportion of the island is on the national Register. The passing of this Bill would be one step in the direction of allaying some of those fears. I therefore urge all senators, including the Australian Democrats, to recognise the anomaly in the present Act and the confrontation that this anomaly has fuelled. The unfortunate part is the confrontation that it has aroused and will continue to arouse. I appeal to the Minister and strongly urge him and his colleagues to support this Bill. I for one commend it to the Senate. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(8.26) —I rise to speak to the Australian Heritage Commission (Notification of Owners) Amendment Bill 1988 presented by Senator Walters and to indicate the Government's opposition to it. In doing so I would like to indicate what has gone on in the last few weeks in the lead-up to this debate. It gives an appropriate tone to tonight's proceedings. In a letter dated 29 February 1988 Senator Walters wrote to all local government councils across Australia. I add that the letters were all addressed `Dear Sir'. It might have been appropriate for her to have at least acknowledged the possibility that someone in authority in all of the local government areas right across Australia could have been a member of her own sex. Nevertheless, the third paragraph of that letter is worth reading: Inclusion of property on the register of the National Estate of Australia imposes severe limitations and restrictions on the future use of the registered property. I find the current situation completely alien to our way of life and contrary to our basic human rights of property ownership. It is that sort of furphy and misrepresentation that renders this Bill useless. Having listened in the last few moments to Senator Watson, proof of that was provided by him. I do not need to rely on Senator Sanders or anyone in the Australian Labor Party or the Australian Heritage Commission, I can rely on Senator Watson; he is a very reliable fellow. Senator Watson said that he is aware of people who suddenly found out that their properties had been on the Register of the National Estate for six or 10 years. I think they were his words. If their properties had been on the Register for 10 years without their knowing about it, I wonder just what severe limitations and restrictions had been imposed upon them. For 10 years they did not know about it and continued on with their lives and their property was just fine. However, suddenly, after 10 years they found out that their property was on the Register and I am led to believe by Senator Walters's letter that severe limitations and restrictions had been placed upon them all along. Apparently, in those 10 years they were labouring under the terrible yoke of oppression that this registration had brought, however, they were never aware of it. I have to say that this yoke of oppression must have been a light load indeed, even for a Tasmanian. It would be of some assistance if we could get some perspective into this debate. Registration on the National Estate means nothing more than having a property appear on a register of special places. It means that there is a recognition, at a national level, of the significance of a property. As far as I am concerned, that is something of which people should be, and most often are, very proud indeed. There are people who display their certificates of registration on their mantelpiece. There are citizens all over this country who are delighted to see their property put on this list. But for those who are not delighted, one wonders just what impositions are placed upon them. In spite of questioning person after person who has complained about this to me, no-one has ever been able to nominate even one of those restrictions and limitations. That does not surprise me. Senator Walters —You have not been Minister long enough or you have not been listening. Senator RICHARDSON —I have not been a Minister for very long. I have been a Minister for about eight months. That is a lot longer than Senator Walters will ever be a Minister. During that time I have probably learnt a little more than Senator Walters. I must say that tonight, once again, she is likely to display just that to those who are unfortunate enough to be listening to this debate. When Senator Walters wrote that misleading letter-that letter which contained, I think, some inappropriate misrepresentations-to all those councils, a false impression was created. One example of a council which might have believed in what she had to say was the Wollondilly Council in New South Wales. One would have thought that a council in New South Wales would have known better. However, it wrote: Apparently properties can be included on this Register without the owners notification. Because of this owners can be denied their right of objection to the inclusion of their properties. That totally denies the existence of the three-month period specified in the Act. Senator Walters —Come on! They would have to be able to see it in a newspaper. Senator RICHARDSON —I assume that most people can read newspapers. It may well be the case that those who vote for Senator Walters would have difficulty in doing so. I want to quote from two organisations which have offered comment on Senator Walters's proposed legislation in a somewhat different way from the local government body which I quoted a few moments ago. The first is the National Environmental Law Association of Australia which says: The Association foresees significant practical problems where owners cannot be identified. Under your amendments- this is in writing to Senator Walters- the listing of a property could be invalidated by failure to notify the owner. You will agree that it is often impossible to identify or notify all owners of property. This may mean that listing which ought to be made could not be made, simply because an owner or owners could not be contracted. In the Association's view, your amendments would require to have included in them a provision to the effect that failure to contact any owner or owners after a bona fide attempt to do so will not invalidate any subsequent listing. Perhaps I should elaborate on that. Senator Puplick —Would you be good enough to incorporate the whole of the letter? Senator RICHARDSON —I do not have a copy of the entire letter on me, but if someone wishes to table it he or she is more than welcome to do so. Senator Puplick —I will seek leave to incorporate the full text of the letter. Senator RICHARDSON —Leave will be granted with glee. There is a problem when it comes to identifying all owners of property and it is a problem which I have experienced in recent times. Personal experience is often the best kind in these situations. I think that most honourable senators-even Senator Walters-would have heard of the World Heritage listing of the wet tropic rainforests in north Queensland. Senator Walters might also be aware that the Queensland Government was not all that happy with the proposal; nor were some of the local government bodies in north Queensland. Senator Sanders —Is that right? Senator RICHARDSON —It is indeed a sad but true fact, Senator. As Minister, I asked officers of the Department to go forth and multiply to ensure that they notified all the owners of property in north Queensland for which World Heritage listing was being considered. The difficulty was that the State authorities gave no assistance whatsoever in helping to identify those who have an interest in property. I do not want to be too exact about this, for fear of misleading the Senate, but I think that three or four-- Senator Puplick —Too exact for fear of misleading us! Senator RICHARDSON —Fear of misleading! I note these days that misleading parliaments does tend to get one in a bit of strife. Three or four councils out of 13 would not cooperate at all. Therefore, it was impossible to identify all those who owned or had an interest in property. Despite that, I made sure that officers of the Department went out in vehicles of all descriptions to attempt to find, to identify, those owners. That is not always easy to do. Nonetheless, I think that we succeeded admirably and almost all were notified. A tremendous effort was made. But I would hate to think that the World Heritage listing could have been invalidated because we missed a couple in an area as big as that. Yet, when it comes to National Estate listings, if we were to agree to the Bill which Senator Walters has proposed tonight, that is what would happen. Listings would fail, not because the Australian Heritage Commission attempted to act behind closed doors to keep what it was doing a secret, but because it would be physically impossible to identify every owner. That sort of imposition on any statutory authority, such as the Heritage Commission, would be impossible. I now refer to a letter from the Fremantle City Council. Its Manager, Mr G. J. Pearce, wrote to me on 10 March and referred to Senator Walters's letter. I think that reading three paragraphs of that letter might be of assistance to the Senate. The letter states: It is our understanding that the Australian Heritage Commission takes all reasonable steps to notify owners of an intention to include a property on the register as well as advertising this intention in newspapers throughout the country. All local government authorities would know that where the registered proprietor of a property is a corporation or other entity, or is a complex group of beneficiaries such as a family estate, or is long since deceased, it is difficult or even impossible to effect the delivery of a notice. The imposition of obligations of that kind would impose a serious burden on the Commission and would have the effect of precluding the registration of places where the owners are uncertain or cannot be located. It seems to us that this does- Senator Sanders —That is the intention of the Bill. Senator RICHARDSON —Of course it is the intention- nothing for property rights, but rather relieves the Commonwealth of an obligation to protect places which should be part of the National Estate. That is the nub of the problem. The reality is that Senator Walters's proposal-I am even led to believe that Senator Puplick, the Liberal Party's champion of the environment, agrees with her-is a ruse to render the Heritage Commission unworkable and to make sure that the National Estate cannot be added to. The Fremantle City Council knew that the Heritage Commission had cooperated, in terms of work and money, in some enormous endeavours over the last couple of years not only with the Bicentennial but also the tremendous work that was done there for the America's Cup and the facelift that was given to Fremantle. A close working relationship developed between the Council and the Heritage Commission. It is no wonder that it would reply in the terms which I have just indicated. Let us go to exactly what Senator Walters is about. Her legislation would change the Act so that the Commission would be required to provide a copy of the public notice of intention to enter a place in the Register to all owners. It is interesting to note the need already for a public notice. This is part of the consultation process. The Commission would have to give reasons why such action was proposed and give owners the opportunity to examine any material it might have and to make submissions concerning the proposed entry. In the time available to me, I will look at just some of the arguments that can be mustered against Senator Walters's proposal. My first argument is that the Bill is both pre-emptive and premature. It is well known that a review of the Heritage Commission is currently under way. In fact, it will be placed before Cabinet in the next couple of weeks. Not only are we not dealing with something way off in the future; we are dealing with something that will come about very quickly indeed. The results of that review are in fact before Government Ministers now. I think that at least a number of the issues canvassed in this debate will be dealt with in the review. I hope to be able to announce the Cabinet's decision on that very shortly. The major implications of the proposed amendments for the Commission will be that the process of compiling the Register will be totally dependent on the identification of owners, irrespective of significance. That is what Senator Walters is about. I am afraid that it is just not on. The prospect of registrations being rendered illegal or void is real and alarming. No-one with a concern for the National Estate can afford to ignore that. One would hope that that would include Senator Puplick. There are no provisions in the Bill to cover a failure to advise the owner, even if all reasonable efforts and attempts have been made by the Commission to identify that owner. Senator Walters appears to ignore the current situation where the Commission writes to identifiable owners just before a notice of intention to register is published, provided a copy of the data is presented and owners are advised of their right to object. I must say that one particularly annoying thing about this Bill is that there is a total failure to acknowledge what the Heritage Commission has done for years and years-that is, to ensure that whenever an owner can be identified that owner is provided with all relevant information. In fact, any people who query the Heritage Commission about a nomination are provided with the information that they ask for. The Commission has always done that as a matter of course. The effect of Senator Walters's proposal would be to make that current practice mandatory and, presumably, void listings where the owner is not properly advised. I do not know how often it will be necessary to tell Senator Walters-it is very often necessary to tell her the same things a number of times to get her to understand-but she will need to understand at some stage that there is a very real concern right across the country that any attempt to water down the National Estate listing will be seen for what it is. Senator Stone —Come on! Senator RICHARDSON —Senator Stone has arrived in the chamber. I find that interesting indeed because those of us who have witnessed Senator Stone's actions in the short time he has been here have just discovered that he has an interest in the National Estate. That is an interest that has never been displayed previous to this. I am delighted to see Senator Stone's interest. I hope that we can see it time and time again. I look forward to his informed contribution to this debate. The Commission cannot be locked into a requirement to notify owners of nominated properties. People of course can nominate, and occasionally do nominate, whole suburbs for the National Estate. One wonders how the Commission would then go about identifying all of these people who own or have an interest in property in the suburb. I think that that would impose something of a difficulty on the Commission. However, it gets worse. There are those people who propose whole cities. Indeed, I am led to believe that at times the Commission has received some applications to have States and even Australia entered on the National Estate. I think that at that stage of the game we would start to get into very real difficulties in notifying all of the owners. Let us face it: a lot of them are overseas these days. That in itself would require a pretty extraordinary effort on the part of the Commission. It should be noted that the recording of changes in title and interest in properties is, in most cases, the responsibility of local authorities. It is not instantaneous. It is time consuming. For the Heritage Commission to have to chase owners of so many thousands of properties, as is the case in some places, would place on it a ridiculous burden. There are some suburbs in some of our major cities which have particular heritage value where, as an example, the preservation of historical buildings may mean a great deal. If in some of those spectacular suburbs there were to be a nomination of even a section of that suburb quite obviously the effect of Senator Walters's Bill would be to make the job of the Commission impossible. It would not be difficult to contrive to put in spurious nominations to make sure that the Commission's job was impossible. I would like to think that that is not even in Senator Walters's mind. I would hope that regardless of what is in Senator Walters's mind that is something to which she might give some consideration. The whole question of national heritage would be skewed completely if Senator Walters's Bill were ever implemented. It should be noted that the vast majority of land that has been entered on the Register of the National Estate is in fact crown land in one form or another. Not much of it at all is private land. The Commission expects those ratios to remain the same in the future. There is not a great likelihood of that sort of ratio changing. If we were then to go into private land in the way that Senator Walters has suggested I think that we would be putting a pretty stupid bias in the process. It is not what is happening. It is not what is intended to happen. I would have thought that that is a good enough reason not to commit the Commission to that sort of role in the future. I referred earlier in my introduction to a rejection of Senator Walters's contention that entry to a property on the National Estate imposes severe restrictions and limitations on the owners. It has to be remembered that the listing of a property on the National Estate imposes no obligation whatsoever on the owner. Senator Stone —It imposes restrictions on them. Senator RICHARDSON —It imposes no restrictions either, unless the owner of the property is the Commonwealth of Australia. I would have thought it appropriate that if in fact the Commonwealth of Australia were the owner of land it would be quite reasonable for the Commonwealth to wish to take heed of its own Act and act accordingly. In fact, in recent weeks I have asked the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to write to all Ministers to make sure that that practice is kept up. There are times when even the Commonwealth has not, in my view, acted entirely properly in that respect. There have been some examples of that in the recent past. Listing does impose obligations on the Commonwealth to look after the National Estate. Those responsibilities do not extend to private owners. Therefore, that makes me wonder why we need Senator Walters's Bill. It has to be remembered too that places are removed from the National Estate if, for any reason, there is no longer a real purpose in including them. At the moment in Tasmania there is a property which has been destroyed by the State Government and, therefore, there is not much point keeping it on the Register. There will be no difficulty for anyone who might own that property because it will be taken off. It we turn to the State of Queensland, from which Senator Stone very recently comes, we get an even longer list of properties that were entered on the Register of the National Estate which subsequently were destroyed and which have since been removed. This talk of owners' rights being affected is just nonsense. What I would really like to hear in this debate from Senator Puplick, who will champion Senator Walters's cause in a moment, is some examples of how these restrictions operate. I will be fascinated. I can only wonder at what sort of a mind can conclude that the process is, as Senator Walters said, completely alien to our way of life. I would have thought that the great majority of Australians had a respect for their history and their heritage and that they would always like to see that heritage, in so far as is possible, notified so that the community may understand the significance of it. I point out also that in some respects Senator Walters's Bill is technically defective. It will not even do what she wants it to do. The Walters proposal in proposed new paragraph (aa) of section 23 of the Act regarding the copy of the public notice of intention to register is confusing. What does that provision require? Does it require the sending of a copy of a public notice that has already been published? If that is the case, property owners will be placed in a much worse position than they are now, because under the regime proposed by Senator Walters the property owner will read in the newspaper about what is proposed and then hear about it from the Heritage Commission. Because of the way in which the Heritage Commission currently operates, that owner would have already received from the Commission a letter in which all of the details would have been explained. I wonder whether Senator Walters is really doing property owners a favour in battling on. If she intends to propose these sorts of Bills, she should at least have some idea in her mind of what she is trying to achieve and she ought to ensure that the Bill is drafted in such a way as to achieve it. It we were to adopt this proposed Act, the net effect would be that the Commission would have to write to the owner three times in the ordinary course of events: prior to entering the listing following a decision being made, after interim listing to provide the notice, and at the time of registration. One wonders what sort of burden this will place on the Heritage Commission. It is not a body with abundant staff. Senator Sanders —It needs more staff. Senator RICHARDSON —It badly needs more staff, as Senator Sanders and others have said previously. I will see what I can do about that in the course of the discussions that I will have over the next few weeks. Senator Stone —Why not? It is not your money. Senator RICHARDSON —No, it is certainly not my money. However, it is, at least in part, made up of money that I have paid in taxes. One wonders how much avoided tax Senator Stone really ever wanted people to pay. I conclude by pointing out that the additional tasks to which I have just referred and which Senator Walters would like to see imposed on the Heritage Commission would make impossible the task of continuing to compile and keep a proper Register of the National Estate. The integrity of that Register has never been more important as an inventory of those places in Australia, both natural and built, that are of importance to our heritage. We always need more reminders of them. If the Heritage Commission can ensure that more Australians are made aware of those places, it will indeed have lived up to every inch of the charter which the Whitlam Government proposed for it 15 years ago. I hope that nothing done in this Parliament, either tonight or in the future, will ever in any way weaken that charter. I should have referred earlier to the amendment that Senator Walters moved at the beginning of the debate. Once again, it is just another attempt to make the job of the Commission impossible. The Bill which has been introduced by Senator Walters and which will be supported by some honourable senators during the debate is yet another attempt to ensure that National Estate legislation is watered down. Those people do not like the Register of the National Estate; they do not want it to be kept and they will do anything to prevent that from occurring. However, I am more than hopeful that once again they will fail in the Senate tonight. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(8.55) —The fundamental issue being addressed in this debate is the need to balance-that is a word which one hears frequently in debates about conservation and the environment-the rights of properties to be protected and of the nation to have its heritage protected and the rights of individuals to enjoy the use of private property in a sensible and constructive way. When one has to balance rights, it happens to be my belief that the rights of individuals ought to be regarded as a primary right. In the course of this debate I propose to address some remarks to that aspect, as well as to specifics of the legislation which is before us. I start, therefore, by commenting briefly on a couple of remarks that Senator Sanders made in his address. He said that this matter was about the status of listing and the processes of listing. I do not believe that is an accurate assessment. As I have said, I believe this debate is about the rights of individuals. He went on to say that the simple entry of an item onto the interim list or onto the Register of the National Estate did not affect the use of that property. Indeed, that may be technically correct. However, it does not address the question of the value of that property, both in a commercial and, indeed, in a very real sense, once it has been entered on an interim list or on the Register, because the value of a property may in fact be substantially affected by the mere inscription of, or the indication that there is an intention to inscribe, that property on a particular list. Both Senator Richardson and Senator Sanders said that a mere listing does not in fact mean that things cannot be done to a property. That may be technically correct, but in that context I wish to refer to a very specific case. I live in a property that I happen to own; that is to say, the bank happens to own it. However I reside in a property which was constructed in 1904. The local council for the area in which I live has in place regulations which state that those properties which are listed on the Register of the National Estate, or its equivalent in New South Wales, can be dealt with only in a certain fashion. Specifically, for my particular purposes, such properties can be painted, for instance, only in what are described as heritage colours. I cannot paint the property in which I live in colours other than those which are prescribed as heritage colours by the local government authority for the area in which I live because that property has a certain National Estate listing. That is the sort of situation which specifically arises. I was asked by the Minister to give an example; I give an example from my own very personal recent experiences. I come to a couple of the points that Senator Richardson made. I start by addressing a threshold question which applies just as much to this Bill as it applies to the protection of the tropical rainforests of north Queensland. Where one can achieve protection of the environment without frightening and upsetting the citizens directly affected, one will get more adequate and committed protection. To the extent that the whole approach adopted by the Government is one which causes fear, uncertainty and distress and which threatens economic loss or threatens people with the loss of their personal rights and freedoms, the real security of, and the real capacity to protect and conserve, that environment is significantly reduced. All Senator Walters's Bill is attempting to do is bring about a situation in which those areas which are listed on the Register of the National Estate will have an element attached to them which they currently do not have, namely, a degree of support and a degree of commitment from the people who are directly affected. Under those circumstances, the preservation of that built environment will be considerably greater than it is under current circumstances. Senator Richardson quoted from a letter addressed to Senator Walters by the National Environmental Law Association of Australia. During the debate he admitted that he had only an extract from that letter which he quoted. By selectively quoting he has misquoted because the second paragraph of that letter reads as follows in terms of its introduction: The Association, while not commenting in detail on your amendments, has no objection in principle to their tenor; the amendments aim to give statutory recognition to what the Australian Heritage Commission already does. Mark those words: `has no objection in principle'. Similarly, Senator Sanders, who was anxious to imply that there was some opposition to the legislation from the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties, failed to quote this sentence: For very many years my Council has supported legislation which confers upon persons affected by Government decisions the right to know the nature of the decision and the right to make submissions to the relevant decision maker. Again, selectively quoting or, indeed, implying something when the substance of the letter, taken as a whole, says otherwise, is disingenuous to say the very least. In order to set the record straight-Senator Richardson has already indicated his consent-I seek leave to have copies of these two letters incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The letters read as follows- NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA National Address: Level 32, MLC Centre, 19-29 Martin Place, Sydney, N.S.W. Australia, 2001 16 March 1988. Senator Walters, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600. Dear Senator Walters, Australian Heritage Commission (Notification of Owners) Amendment Bill 1988 Many thanks for your correspondence and for giving this Association the opportunity to comment on your suggested amendments to the Australian Heritage Commission Act. The Association, while not commenting in detail on your amendments, has no objection in principle to their tenor; the amendments aim to give statutory recognition to what the Australian Heritage Commission already does. However, the Association foresees significant practical problems where owners cannot be identified or contacted. Under your amendments, the listing of a property could be invalidated by the failure to notify the owner. You will agree that it is often impossible to identify or notify all owners of property. This may mean that listings which ought to be made could not be made, simply because an owner or owners could not be contacted. In the Association's view, your amendments would require to have included in them a provision to the effect that failure to contact any owner or owners after a bona fide attempt to do so will not invalidate any subsequent listing. The Association does not believe that the provisions in your amendments permitting owners access to the Commission's files are appropriate. We hope that these comments will be of some assistance to you in your continuing deliberations on this Bill. Please note that a copy of this letter has been sent to each of Senators Richardson and Haines. With best wishes, Yours sincerely, JOHN TABERNER Secretary NEW SOUTH WALES COUNCIL FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES 149 St Johns Road, Glebe 2037 Telephone:(02) 660-7582 Fax: 221 6036 Office Manager: Gillian Church 15 March 1988 Senator Shirley Walters, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Senator, Re: Australian Heritage Commission(Notification of Owners) Amendment Bill 1988 Thank you for your letter of 4 March 1988 which we received last week. For very many years my Council has supported legislation which confers upon persons affected by Government decisions the right to know the nature of the decision and the right to make submissions to the relevant decision maker. Indeed, even in the absence of legislative provision the courts will frequently infer such rights under the umbrella of the rules of natural justice. Your Bill gives expression to these rights by providing the machinery for their exercise. There are, however, two drafting problems I foresee with the Bill. The first is that it does not appear to provide for the service of notices. Presumably, service can be valid if it is effected by post to the owner's rating address. This should be expressly provided. Secondly, persons who are tenants, share farmers or owners of profits a prendre may be equally affected by the listing of the property. Perhaps there should be an obligation on owners, once they have been notified by the Commission, themselves to notify such persons of the Commission's proposal. I should add that none of the above should be taken as a reflection upon the Australian Heritage Commission. I do not know whether they presently undertake these tasks, and if the Commission's decisions affect rights then it is probable that if no opportunity for a hearing is given then the Commission's conduct would be reviewable by the courts in any event. Yours sincerely, TIM ROBERTSON Secretary Senator PUPLICK —I thank the Senate. Senator Richardson approached this debate in a very cavalier fashion when he said, `There have been proposals to list whole cities, proposals to list whole States, proposals to list the whole of Australia on some sort of a register and we could not possibly notify all the owners and, as a result, the process of listing will somehow be set at nought'. To approach the debate with that sort of attitude I think is simply symptomatic of the way in which Senator Richardson has addressed all these matters in terms of the environment debate-the flip, smart alec remark intended to divert attention from a real, significant and individual problem by trying to confuse and by trying to make ridiculous a situation which is of real substance, and I reject that sort of approach entirely. Senator Richardson came into the chamber and said to us during this debate-I think these are his exact words-`Australians should have more respect for their history and their heritage'. Let us just examine the sorts of things his Government has done about the built environment in the last couple of years. As part of the assets sale mentality a large number of properties of relevance to Australia's heritage are to be sold off. Senator Walsh —Like what? Senator PUPLICK —For instance, Shaftston House in Brisbane, Amity House in Brisbane, Nos 5-7 Hickson Road in Sydney, the property known as Nangunya in Melbourne, the Williamstown rifle range, Point Nepean and Swan Island. The Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) asked, `Like what?'. He will get a few `like whats' as far as this is concerned. Shaftston House in Brisbane is a single storey house of rendered masonry built in 1883, which happens to be a particularly important townhouse, which happens to have important townscapes and is visible from the Brisbane River. Amity House is significant historically for its associations with Thomas Welsby and its architectural style and design are typical of the 1890s. The area in Sydney, 5-7 Hickson Road, which is known as the former Australasian Steam Navigation Co. was built in 1883-84 to the design of the significant architects, William Wardell and Walter Vernon. In Melbourne, the Italianate mansion known as Nangunya has fine ornamental detailing in cement render and is an important surviving example of the decoration of the late Edwardian period. Let us look at comments in an article in the Australian towards the end of last year: Some of Australia's oldest military establishments and foreshore lands may go in a $300 million defence property sell-off aimed at reducing the federal Budget deficit. . . . The list includes such historic sites as Victoria Barracks in Melbourne, part of the barracks at Manly overlooking Sydney Heads and the Artillery Barracks at Fremantle in Western Australia. Studies have already been completed on the redevelopment value of the Melbourne site. Its NSW namesake, Victoria Barracks in Sydney, is also thought to be under threat for its land value. There was a report in the Australian newspaper in May last year about the significant development on Swan Island, including the historic lighthouse. I look at the February 1987 issue of Victorian Trust News dealing with Point Nepean, which says in part: The Trust also became aware that the Commonwealth Government has investigated the possibility of subdividing land in the north-west section of the Park, which includes some of the Quarantine buildings. The Trust is extremely concerned at the implications of these proposals for the management of the Park as a whole, and the access problems they may create. We have not even started the debate about foreshore parkland around Sydney harbour. So for the Minister to come into this chamber, full of pious views about the extent to which the Commonwealth wants individuals to be more sensitive and more respectful of their history and their heritage when, under pressure from Senator Walsh he has engaged in a significant sell-off of large parts of Australia's heritage, I think is important. I am grateful that the Minister for Finance is in the chamber this evening to confirm the extent to which he is precisely pushing in this direction and is anxious to cover up some of the financial mismanagement which he and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) have engaged in by making this asset sale of various significant Australian heritage properties a part of the way in which they want to cover up for their own financial mismanagement in this matter. Let me take another example which arises from Senator Walsh and Mr Keating-that is, the application of the fringe benefits tax to properties and to people who are involved in conservatorial work in national heritage buildings. After all, if a trust owns an historic property and a person is put in as a guardian or conservator in order to ensure that the place is protected from vandals, whether they happen to be financial vandals like Senator Walsh or some other form of vandal around the place, that trust will end up having to pay fringe benefits tax on the notional value of providing the accommodation for that person, and this is despite repeated assurances from Senator Richardson that he was going to fix this matter up. He may be very good at fixing up the Enmore branch of the Australian Labor Party but he is certainly no good at fixing up Mr Keating or the Minister for Finance when it comes to discharging his responsibilities as the Minister who is actually supposed to be in charge of the protection of Australia's heritage. This Bill raises a certain number of other issues. Senator Stone —He didn't fix things up in Balmain. Senator PUPLICK —My colleague Senator Stone says that Senator Richardson has been good at fixing things up in Balmain! I would not be in the least surprised when the Labor Party loses the seat of Balmain on Saturday to Dawn Fraser if the Minister sends in the bulldozers in order to make sure that the whole thing is properly dealt with in the usual sort of approach that the Huns and the Visigoths always took to areas once they had slipped from their allegiance. But as I have said, this debate allows me an opportunity to make a couple of comments about the operation of the Australian Heritage Commission and about significant issues in Australian heritage policy. I do so not only as a participant in this debate but also because this will be an important commitment and centrepiece of the Opposition's policy on matters of heritage which we will put in place after the next election. First, I make it absolutely clear that the Australian Heritage Commission Act will be rewritten lock, stock and barrel. It has to be. It is not good enough for Senator Richardson to say that there will be a review, that he will get a report shortly. We have been hearing that sort of drivel about Australian museums for the last 15 months, and we know precisely what is at stake there. We know that Senator Richardson's Department and Senator Walsh's Department each have conflicting views about the commitment of resources to Australian museums and collections. Because of that conflict the review has been stymied. It is simply not good enough for Senator Richardson to come along and say, `Well, at some time in the not too distant future I hope to take to cabinet a submission about the Australian Heritage Commission Act'. The Act needs to be repealed and it needs to be totally rewritten. The key point of rewriting it will be the need to establish clear priorities within the list. It is simply not good enough to have a list which places all the buildings, all the sites and all the significant places on some sort of equal footing. There are areas of absolutely unique significance which should be protected at all costs. Conversely, there are items on the list which ought to be taken off the list, and taken off quickly. Further, the list ought to be reviewed regularly. It is an absolute joke for Senator Richardson to tell us that items are de-listed. They are de-listed when they burn down, when they fall over, when they are vandalised because it is too expensive to employ a caretaker, or indeed when some further evaluation takes place. However, insufficient attention is paid to maintaining the currency of the list. The reason is that the resources which the Minister insists on providing, or not providing, for the commission are devoted primarily to building up lists, rather than evaluating the significance of what goes on the list or what should go on the list. Towards the end of last year the Heritage Commission's newsletter reported that there were now 8,290 places listed on the register and another 390 on the interim list. It may well be that there are now far more than that number. I bear in mind also in terms of the Commission and the departmental personnel who are responsible for things of this nature a speech that was given by Mr Galvin, a former head of the Department some time ago. He addressed a meeting held in, I think, Estes Park, Colorado. Mr Galvin basically said that he did not believe that development and conservation were compatible values. The permeation of that sort of attitude throughout the bureaucracy over which Senator Richardson presides, albeit temporarily, seems to me to be indicative of a significant problem which will need to be addressed. It certainly will be addressed by the incoming coalition government. A number of other heritage matters need to be addressed. One of the most important-I say so emboldened by the presence of my colleague Senator Stone-is the necessity to examine more carefully the integration of the taxation regime and taxation incentives with the capacity to maintain and improve the status of the National Estate. In the United States of America the operations of the Economic Tax Recovery Act 1982 have been particularly beneficial to the owners of private property. It has encouraged the redevelopment of properties within urban areas and ensured that the problem of urban blight-a major problem in the United States, though fortunately not yet a problem in Australia-is significantly addressed. A number of reports have been prepared on the subject. I refer particularly to people such as Peter Edwards and Norman Thompson who wrote a report entitled: Economic Activity: Regeneration Through Heritage. That report was published in Adelaide in October 1986. One of those authors is a management consultant and the other is the Dean of the Faculty of Economics at the University of Adelaide. In June 1985 they presented a report entitled: Fiscal Incentives for Heritage Conservation. In November 1986 a report was prepared by a working party to the Planning Ministers Conference held in Sydney in November 1986. That report was entitled: Tax Incentives for Heritage Conservation. I do not believe that the Government has significantly addressed itself to this matter. I believe we could encourage very substantial private sector investment in heritage conservation. That would not only be an economic benefit to the nation as a whole but also would represent a significant transfer of power out of the hands of bureaucracies and government departments. Further, it would provide an incentive to the private sector by which I believe these properties could be more effectively managed; indeed, not only managed but also kept as part of the living community by their being made an economically valuable resource. At present there is no incentive for that to happen. That matter will have to be addressed. This is important legislation. I make perfectly clear that although this is a private member's Bill introduced by Senator Walters, it has the complete support of the coalition parties. It is a private senator's initiative, but one which is enthusiastically supported by both of the coalition parties. The aim of the Bill is fundamentally to restore and preserve the rights of individuals. It is not surprising that that principle should ultimately turn out to be one that fundamentally divides the Liberal Party and the National Party on one side from the Labor Party and the Australian Democrats on the other side. That of course, is of itself a litmus test of the differences in philosophy and approach between the political parties. On the one hand, the Bill seeks to give primacy to the rights of individuals, and at the same time in no way derogates from the capacity of the community as a whole to identify those parts of the national estate which are significant and relevant in the historical or aesthetic sense to large numbers of Australians. On the other hand, the arguments advanced against the Bill by the Labor Party and the Australian Democrats are that the rights of some amorphous body known as `the community' or indeed as `the National Estate' should somehow be preferred over the rights of individuals, and should be given primacy over the rights of individuals. We say that the rights of individuals and the protection of the National Estate are not incompatible values. The Government and the Democrats say that they are. Because the Government believes the values to be incompatible, it suggests that one side has to be the winner and the other side has to be the loser. That is a typical Labor Party approach: one side has to win and one side has to lose. A priori, one knows full well from the Labor Party that the rights of the collective will prevail and the rights of the individual will be set aside. We do not believe that is proper. We do not believe that is in accord with the way in which we should do things in Australia. Equally we believe that is also fundamentally destructive of the heritage and the environment which is sought to be protected. That sort of attitude will only divide. It will only cause bitterness. It will only cause resentment. It will only cause animosity. Further, in the long run it will lead to the destruction of the very values and indeed the actual places which the proponents of such a view claim they are seeking to protect. As I say, Senator Richardson's approach to this debate has been to misquote, to quote selectively a number of sources and references and to attempt to make light of a problem which is indeed serious, and to claim for the Government a degree of virtue in this matter which, on the basis of any objective test that may be applied, it simply does not possess. I am pleased, therefore, to support Senator Walters's private senator's Bill and to indicate that the Opposition will be supporting and voting for the Bill. In Government, we shall be making quite significant changes to the Australian Heritage Commission, to its Act, and to the way in which it goes about its business. Meanwhile, we shall be continuing to keep under the closest of review those areas in which the Government has clearly failed-where it has failed on the question of selling off parts of the National Estate; where it has failed to look at ways in which the private sector can be more productively involved in the protection of the National Estate; and where the Government's own rapacious tax measures, such as the fringe benefits tax, have led to some threat being posed to the National Estate which need never have been posed. Therefore, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I commend to the Senate the passage of the Australian Heritage Commission (Notification of Owners) Amendment Bill 1988. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.21) —in reply-As Senator Puplick has said, the Australian Heritage Commission (Notification of Owners) Amendment Bill 1988 is a litmus test of the differences between the two major parties. As has already been stated many times tonight, there has to be a balance between individual rights and collective rights of the community. The Liberal Party, a coalition party, believes that the rights of the individual are paramount. Government members and, indeed, the Australian Democrats, believe that the community rights are paramount. If we need anything to remind us of that, I have only to quote what Dr Blewett said when he was speaking at the South Australian Labor Conference in June 1986, when he said: Let me say as a socialist that it is the interests of the community that should come before the individual right . . . We shouldn't get too hung up as socialists on privacy because privacy, in many ways, is a bourgeois right that is very much associated with the right to private property. That is the essence of why this Government and the Democrats are opposing this Bill. They have no concept of, and do not agree with, rights of ownership of private property. That was so clearly put by Dr Blewett at that South Australian Labor Conference-a `bourgeois right' to privacy `that is very much associated with the right to private property'. I have only a few minutes left this evening for this debate. As I shall not finish my speech, I shall continue it at some later stage. However, it is important for me to pick out a couple of very important matters about which the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, Senator Richardson, spoke to the Senate. As Senator Puplick has said, Senator Richardson made great play of the fact that there was no requirement in the Act that one's property must be treated in a certain way once it is on the National Estate Register. Senator Richardson said that I had misled local councils by saying that if one's place was on the National Estate there would be restrictions. Senator Puplick has pointed those restrictions in describing the restrictions placed on his own property. But I can give another instance in which a landowner whose place was merely on the interim list-he was not told about that; he just happened to find out-rang the local council and said, `What restrictions would you place on my property?'. The council said, `We would not allow you to subdivide'. I hope that the public servants sitting in the chamber who have given the Minister information are taking note of what is being debated here, because they may they have misinformed the Minister. The Minister either is not telling the truth in this place or has been misinformed by the public servants. There are restrictions. There are severe restrictions, and the letters I wrote to local councils were completely correct. Senator Sanders, who spoke this evening, also made that comment-but he does not understand; he does not know; he did not even bother to look at the Bill. Senator Richardson's excuse could be that he has not been a Minister for long; but he swears that he knows all about his portfolio. The point is that he does not listen. He made his speech in this place and then walked out; so he has not listened to the debate. He did not stay and listen to Senator Puplick. He did not stay to hear. He challenged us to give examples, and then walked out; he did not listen to the examples. We have given him examples tonight of exactly what happens. Senator Richardson brought forward a letter from the council of the City of Fremantle. I wrote and sent my Bill to local government bodies in Australia. I have received very many letters in reply. Only one letter from a local authority opposed my Bill. That was from the City of Fremantle. I wonder why that particular city council would oppose my Bill. Let us look at who is the Director of Planning of the City of Fremantle. It is Jeremy Dawkins, brother of John Dawkins, a Minister in this Labor Government. Senator Knowles —Really! Who? Senator WALTERS —It is Jeremy Dawkins, the Planning Director of Fremantle City Council. And what else is Jeremy Dawkins? Senator Knowles —He is John Dawkins's brother. Senator WALTERS —Apart from being John Dawkins's brother, what else is he? He is a member of the Heritage Commission, and Senator Richardson announced in December last year that Mr Jeremy Dawkins has a two-year appointment. Is it any wonder that I received a letter from the City of Fremantle saying that it does not agree with my Bill, and that it is the only local government council from which I received such a letter? Is it any wonder that Senator Richardson, who had just appointed Fremantle's city planner to the Heritage Commission, reads out that letter in this Senate? What a travesty! What a disgrace that Minister is! John Dawkins's brother, a couple of months ago appointed by the Federal Minister, writes me that letter, and is it any wonder? What is the Minister trying to pull? Did he think that we would not know? Did he think that we would not understand what he was doing? No wonder the Minister did not stay in the chamber. No wonder he walked out as soon as he had had his say. Is it any wonder that the Opposition side of the chamber treats him with such disdain? This evening from the Democrats we have had Senator Sanders, not knowing what he was talking about, reading the original Bill from cover to cover because he wanted to fill in a few minutes to make it look as though he had made a speech. He said that he would be honoured if he owned a home or property that was listed. Indeed, so would I. But I should like to be told about it. I should like to be told that my property was being listed on the National Estate. I believe it is part of the education of Australian people to be told, `You have a beautiful property. It is so good we want to put it on the National Estate list'. If this were done, the people who own those properties would take pride in them. They would then make sure that their property was treated properly and was not destroyed in any way. The trouble is that the Big Brother government in this place does not trust people. It does not want them to know that they own something of value. The Big Brother government here does not believe that people should own private property for a start. It does not believe in the right of the bourgeois to do so. The Big Brother government does not trust the people, so it will not tell them. It will not allow this chamber to pass legislation under which people will be told that their land is to be put on the National Estate list. I would like to put to rest a few other things that Senator Richardson has done. Senator Richardson also said tonight that very few private properties are listed. I asked for a list of the entries on the Register for Tasmania. Senator Puplick said that there are something like 8,290 entries on the Register. There seem to be a tremendous number in Tasmania. As I said, Senator Richardson said in this place tonight that there are very few private properties on the Register. Let me read from the first page of the list, which sets out the entries for the Bothwell Municipality. The list includes `Strathbarton'; Thorpe Mill; Mitchell's Cottage; `Cluny Park' homestead; `Ratho' homestead; Clifton Priory; the former tannery, now a residence; `Fort Wentworth'; Wentworth; stone residence and outbuildings; St Michael Church; the store and the shop; Bothwell Emergency Control Centre; Bothwell stores; stone cottage; Llanberis', formerly Carlton Hill; `Sherwood' homestead; St James Church; Steppes State Reserve; the post office and residence; Dr John Brennan's surgery; the barn on Steddles; `Strathborough', St Luke's Uniting Church; and the old post office. I turn to Hobart. I will not stick to Bothwell because that area might be an exception. Let us look at the properties that are on the list in respect of Hobart. The list includes the Girl Guides Association building; `Cananore' and the brick wall behind St Michael's School; `Talune', which is also private; St Anne's Hospital old buildings; cottages, the general post office; `The Belfry'; the antique shop; `Westella', Prospect House; the Baptist Church; Davis College; the Union Steam Ship Co. building; the old Marine Board building; St Peter's Hall; St Mary's College; St Mary's Cathedral; and the H. Jones and Co. building. Does the Minister want me to go on? There are lists and lists of private properties. Yet, the Minister stands here tonight and tells us that there are very few private properties. There is the Royal Engineers' building; Gifford's bulk store; A. G. Webster's building; the Town Hall; Ingle Hall; Alexandra Hotel; the Commonwealth Social Services building; the Deanery; St David's Cathedral; the Derwent and Tamar building; the J. Walch and Sons building; the Tasmanian Club; the stone buildings of the Perpetual Trustee; the Queen Mary Club and Legacy House. What on earth is the Minister talking about? I have only just started to read the properties in Hobart. Yet, the Minister tells us that there are very few private properties on the list. If the Minister trusted the people of Australia, if he was prepared to allow the Heritage Commission to inform the owners, the owners could be very helpful. An owner came to me and said, `The limestone caves on my property have been put on the heritage list, but they did not know the best ones. If they had asked me, I would have shown them the better ones. They have listed a couple that are not nearly as good'. As I said, the Minister will not trust the people of Australia. What is wrong with allowing people to know that their property has been put on the National Estate list? What is wrong with allowing people time to appeal, if they so wish, because the information may be incorrect? This has happened in the past. I know of an incident where a home was put on the list for the wrong reasons. The owners did not appeal because they did not know about it. When they finally found out they were able to prove that what had been said was not true. But, by then, it was too late to do anything. What is wrong with allowing people to understand that they own a valuable property? What is wrong with allowing people to know that their property has been put on the interim list of the National Estate? What is wrong with letting them know that their home or property is to be listed on the National Estate if it is decided that such a step is worthwhile? The only thing wrong is that the Big Brother government in Canberra-the Labor socialist government-does not trust the people sufficiently to let them have that information. I indicated earlier that I intend to move an amendment at the committee stage. My foreshadowed amendment reads as follows: Page 2, after clause 2, insert the following new clause: Interpretation ``2a. Section 3 of the Principal Act is amended by inserting in subsection (1) the following definition: `owner', in relation to a place, means: (a) in the case of a place that is the property of a State or the Northern Territory-that State or the Northern Territory, as the case may be; or (b) in any other case-a person who has an interest in the place that is registered under the law of the State or Territory in which the place is situated relating to registration of interests in land;''. It appears that the Government and the Australian Democrats have no intention of supporting the Bill before us. It is because of their lack of support that we find, for instance, that there was a 38 per cent fall in expenditure on field exploration in the mining areas of the west coast of Tasmania between 1984-85 and 1986-87. This occurred because the present Federal Government has created the situation where the mining industries do not have the confidence to go ahead and carry out their exploration. A 38 per cent drop should interest the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), who is in the chamber now, because that means a lot of dollars that otherwise would help our overseas debt. It is the lack of confidence that this Government is creating in its environmental policies generally which is at the heart of that sort of fall. Again, the Government's failure to support my Bill will create so much uncertainty and suspicion that I can only presume that it will further destroy any of the mining, forestry or exports with which our State is so closely associated. I thank my colleagues who have spoken in support of my Bill. I thank those many people who have written in support of my Bill. I am sorry that the Government and the Australian Democrats are so opposed to private ownership and so lacking in trust of the Australian people that they cannot see the need for my amendments. Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 34 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 4 —— Alston, R. K. R. McGauran, J. J.Archer, B. R. Messner, A. J.Baume, Michael Newman, J. M.Bishop, B. K. Panizza, J. H.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Parer, W. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Patterson, K. C. L.Brownhill, D. G. C. Puplick, C. J. G.Calvert, P. H. Reid, M. E.Chapman, H. G. P. Sheil, G.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Short, J. R.Durack, P. D. Stone, J. O.Hamer, D. J. Tambling, G. E. J.Harradine, B. Vanstone, A. E.Hill, R. M. Walters, M. S.Knowles, S. C. (Teller) Watson, J. O. W. Beahan, M. E. Haines, J.Black, J. R. Jenkins, J. A.Burns, B. R. Jones, G. N.Button, J. N. McLean, P. A.Childs, B. K. McMullan, R. F.Coates, J. Macklin, M. J.Collins, R. L. Maguire, G. R. (Teller)Colston, M. A. Morris, J. J.Cook, P. F. S. Powell, J. F.Cooney, B. C. Richardson, G. F.Coulter, J. R. Sanders, N. K.Devereux, J. R. Schacht, C. C.Devlin, A. R. Sibraa, K. W.Evans, Gareth Tate, M. C.Foreman, D. J. Vallentine, J.Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A.Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. MacGibbon, D. J. Bolkus, N.Lewis, A. W. R. McKiernan, J. P.Chaney, F. M. Reynolds, M.Teague, B. C. Crowley, R. A.Baume, Peter Aulich, T. G. Question so resolved in the negative. Consideration of House of Representatives message. Schedule of the amendments made by the Senate to which the House of Representatives has agreed- No. 4-Page 2, after clause 8, insert the following new clauses: Appointment, removal and resignation of Judges ``8A. Section 22 of the Principal Act is amended: (a) by omitting from subsection (2AA) `Subject to subsection (2AE), the' and substituting `The'; (b) by inserting in subsection (2AA) `, the Deputy Chief Judge' after `Chief Judge'; (c) by omitting from subsection (2AC) `5' and substituting `6'; (d) by omitting subsections (2AD) and (2AE); (e) by inserting in subsection (2AF) `or the Deputy Chief Judge' after `Chief Judge'; and (f) by inserting after subsection (2AF) the following subsection: `(2AFA) Where a person holding office as a Senior Judge or Judge of the Court is appointed Deputy Chief Judge or a Judge Administrator, the person retains that office as Senior Judge or Judge, as the case may be, and may resign the office of Deputy Chief Judge or Judge Administrator without resigning that first-mentioned office.'. Seniority ``8b. Section 23 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting subsections (2) and (3) and substituting the following subsections: `(2) The Deputy Chief Judge is senior to all other Judges of the Court other than the Chief Judge. `(3) The Judge Administrators and the Judges assigned to the Appeal Division have seniority next to the Deputy Chief Judge according to the days on which their appointments as Judge Administrators and their assignments to the Appeal Division (whichever first occurred) took effect. `(4) Where, because 2 or more appointments as Judge Administrator and assignments to the Appeal Division took effect on the same day, subsection (3) does not determine priority between the Judges concerned, those Judges have such seniority in relation to each other as is assigned to them by the Governor-General. `(5) The Senior Judges not assigned to the Appeal Division have seniority next to the Judges to whom subsection (3) applies according to the days on which their appointments as Senior Judges took effect. `(6) Where, because 2 or more commissions of appointment as Senior Judge took effect on the same day, subsection (5) does not determine seniority between the Senior Judges concerned, those Judges have such seniority in relation to each other as is assigned to them by the Governor-General. `(7) The Judges who are not Judge Administrators or Senior Judges and are not assigned to the Appeal Division have seniority next to the Senior Judges to whom subsection (5) applies according to the days on which their appointments as Judges took effect. `(8) Where, because 2 or more commissions of appointment as Judge took effect on the same day on or after the commencement of this subsection, subsection (7) does not determine seniority between the Judges concerned, those Judges have such seniority in relation to each other as is assigned to them by the Governor-General.'. Absence or illness of Chief Judge ``8c. Section 24 of the Principal Act is amended: (a) by omitting `the next Senior Judge' and substituting `the Deputy Chief Judge or, if the Deputy Chief Judge is unavailable, the senior Judge Administrator'; and (b) by adding at the end the following subsection: `(2) A Judge who is, under subsection (1), performing the duties and exercising the powers of the Chief Judge shall be called the Acting Chief Justice of the Court.'. Salary and Allowances ``8d. Section 25 of the Principal Act is amended by inserting in subsection (1) `Deputy Chief Judge, Judge Administrators, Judges assigned to the Appeal Division,' after `Chief Judge.'. Oath or affirmation of allegiance and office ``8e Section 26 of the Principal Act is amended by inserting `Deputy Chief Judge, Judge Administrator,' after `Chief Judge,'.''. Amendment amended by omitting proposed subsections (3), (4) and (5) from clause 8b and substituting the following subsections: ``(3) Judges appointed as Judge Administrators or assigned to the Appeal Division before, or not later than 3 months after, the commencement of section 8b of the Family Court of Australia (Additional Jurisdiction and Exercise of Powers) Act 1988 have seniority next to the Deputy Chief Judge, and have such seniority in relation to each other as they had immediately before that commencement. ``(4) The remaining Judge Administrators and Judges assigned to the Appeal Division have seniority next to the Judges to whom subsection (3) applies according to the days on which their appointments as Judge Administrators and their assignments to the Appeal Division (whichever first occurred) took effect. ``(4a) Where, because 2 or more appointments as Judge Administrator and assignments to the Appeal Division took effect on the same day, subsection (4) does not determine priority between the Judges concerned, those Judges have such seniority in relation to each other as is assigned to them by the Governor-General. ``(5) The Senior Judges not assigned to the Appeal Division have seniority next to the Judges to whom subsection (4) applies according to the days on which their appointments as Senior Judges took effect.''. No. 5-Page 3, clause 9, proposed subsection 26b (1), line 2, 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 with the following amendment: After ``other than an order'' insert ``until further order or an order''. No. 9-Page 7, paragraph 18 (a), proposed paragraph 46 (1) (b), lines 20 to 22, leave out ``the amount in relation to which the court has jurisdiction in an action for the recovery of a debt'', insert $10,000 and, where a motor vehicle is involved, ``$20,000''. Amendment amended by omitting ``$10,000 and, where a motor vehicle is involved, $20,000'' and substituting ``$20,000''. No. 20-Page 15, after part VII, 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 19877. 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'.''. Amendment amended by omitting ``$10,000 and, where a motor vehicle is involved, $20,000'' and substituting ``$20,000''. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(9.49) —I move: That the Committee agrees to the amendments made by the House of Representatives on Senate amendments Nos 4, 5, 9 and 20. I just want to clarify the position of the Law Council of Australia in relation to the transfer of Federal jurisdiction to the Family Court. The Law Council remains opposed to any such transfer, whether within the trade practices area or anywhere else and whether with or without associated jurisdiction. This has been clarified by Mr Bennett, the Secretary-General of the Law Council, this afternoon and I am happy to acquaint the Senate with that firm adherence of the Law Council to that position. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.51) —I thought the Minister said last time that the Law Council of Australia was perfectly happy with it. Is he now telling us that he was wrong? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(9.51) —What I said last time is that the trade practices committee of the Law Council of Australia had contacted the Attorney-General's Department with its worries about the associated jurisdiction in trade practices matters, that the Department had replied and that there had been no response from the trade practices committee. I said that it might be inferred from that that the trade practices committee was satisfied with the reply. Since then, Mr Bennett, the Secretary-General of the Law Council of Australia, has indicated, having written on 3 December indicating the Council's opposition to the transfer of jurisdiction, including associated jurisdiction, and having on 17 February in a circular to honourable senators indicated that it still had those objections, that the position is that the Law Council has an objection to the transfer of jurisdiction as a whole, including the question of associated jurisdiction. We received a communication from Mr Bennett this afternoon to that effect. I held discussions with Senator Durack about this this afternoon. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(9.53) —As I understand it, Senator Tate has moved that the Committee agree to the amendments now proposed by the House of Representatives to the amendments made by the Senate. It is worth noting that the House of Representatives has agreed to the majority of the amendments that were made in the course of a very extensive committee debate in the Senate. In particular, it has agreed with, and the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) seems to express some satisfaction with, the decision of the Senate to enable the judges of the Family Court of Australia to robe if that is their wish; in other words, we removed the prohibition on that and the House of Representatives has accepted our amendment. That decision of the House of Representatives, in accepting the amendment of the Senate, will be another very important step in the renovation of the Family Court and the bringing back of it into the mainstream of the judicial system. Having moved that amendment in the Senate on behalf of the Opposition, I must express my satisfaction that that will now become law. The House of Representatives has also accepted with a minor amendment the proposal from Senator Walters to limit the power of the judicial registrars in relation to contested custody and access matters. Honourable senators will remember that we had a very long debate upon that matter. Finally, in committee we persuaded the Minister for Justice to agree to that amendment on the basis that some tidying up might be required, particularly in relation to interim orders which would be suitably made by judicial registrars, but that any permanent orders would still have to be made by a judge. That particular amendment has been agreed to in principle as it was passed in the Senate, together with a suggested amendment making that qualification, so that judicial registrars will be able to deal with the minor matters that arise, the pre-trial matters, interim orders and so on. Therefore, I again express my satisfaction that the Government has agreed to the principle of those amendments and has recognised, as we recognised in this chamber, that some tidying up of that kind might be justified. However, the House of Representatives has not agreed to an amendment made in the Senate to limit the jurisdiction of magistrates to $10,000 in matters relating to the settlement of property, or to $20,000 where a motor vehicle is involved. This was the subject of a lot of debate in the Senate. We in the Opposition believe that the figure of $10,000 should be agreed upon in the Committee. The Government suggested $20,000. By way of compromise, the Australian Democrats, in their usual style, suggested an unworkable proposal of increasing the figure from $10,000 to $20,000 where a motor vehicle was involved. Of course, that was such nonsense. As was pointed out in the House of Representatives, and indeed here, if one wanted to increase the jurisdiction from $10,000 to $20,000 all one had to do was to buy an old bomb for $50 or less and the jurisdiction of the magistrate would be increased by $10,000. But the wisdom of that did not seem to prevail on the Democrats, nor indeed on Senator Tate and the Government here. When it got back to the House of Representatives, the stupidity of that matter was recognised. But, unfortunately, the Government wants to increase the figure now to $20,000. I therefore move: Leave out all words after ``amendments'' (second occurring), insert: ``Nos 4 and 5, and agrees to the amendments made by the House of Representatives on Senate amendments 9 and 20 with the following further amendments: Amendment No. 9-Leave out `$20,000', insert `$10,000'. Amendment No. 20-Leave out `$20,000', insert `$10,000'''. Of course, this was our original proposition. The figure of $10,000 is a very considerable advance on the jurisdiction that has been exercised by magistrates under the Family Law Act in this matter. The amount has been limited to $1,000. Taking inflation into account over those years, it is estimated that probably an appropriate figure now would be about $3,500 to $4,000 but we in the Opposition have taken into account the movement of costs in certain areas, which may be greater than the ordinary consumer price index rate of inflation, particularly in relation to motor cars. That is why we determined on a figure of $10,000, which in fact trebles the real jurisdiction of a magistrate in property matters. We think that is a suitable figure and see no reason why it should be extended to $20,000 when the jurisdiction of magistrates in a number of States is less than that. The Opposition has maintained its position consistently in this matter throughout this debate. We believe that the Senate should maintain the view that the figure should be $10,000, without any reference to the involvement of a motor vehicle, which only confuses the issue totally, would be easily subverted and probably unworkable. With those comments the Opposition agrees to the amendments, with the amendment that I have moved. I just add that further amendments have had to be made to amendments that the Government introduced in the committee stage dealing with the question of seniority of judges. The Government still was not able to get it right the second time around. I remind the Committee, yet again, that these are amendments to amendments to a Bill which the Government wanted to be passed about three stages ago in December last year. When the Opposition sought to have the matter referred to a committee, because of all the technical difficulties that obviously were there and which needed proper investigation, the Government, with the support of the Democrats, opposed the Opposition's sensible proposal. It re-emerged in the course of the lengthy committee debate that the Government had seen the need for a number of amendments and it brought in a whole raft of them which complicated and greatly extended the committee debate. Even then the Government still could not get it right and has since had to have another go at the thing. Heaven knows whether it is right or not, but at least it is a big improvement on the Bill which the Government wanted this chamber to pass in December last. I hope that the Minister, who has not been very familiar with the Department that he now administers with the Attorney-General, will learn some lessons from his experience. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(10.02) —I point out to Senator Durack that there is not particular virtue in consistency if it is only another name for bloody-mindedness or pig-headedness and say simply that, while I express disquiet at the behaviour of some parties in this place, I am not particularly impressed at the Government's reneging on this particular amendment. It seems to have been persuaded by some lawyers, who have difficulty in deciding what a motor vehicle is, to back off from what is a sensible compromise. New South Wales does not seem to have any difficulty in working out what a motor vehicle is because its legislation says precisely that the amount will be $10,000 or, where a motor vehicle is involved, $20,000. Apparently the Australian Labor Party has succumbed to this incapacity in some lawyers, as well as the hysterics-that is what it was-of the Opposition shadow in another place who dreamed up the idea that some people with $10,500 worth of property might abuse the system by going out and buying a $50 car in order to fall under the $20,000 limit if a car is involved. In the meantime apparently, the Labor Party is quite happy to see a lot of very ordinary families, low income families, which have a car and a washing machine-for heaven's sake!-the value of which amounts to more than $10,000 having to go to the Family Court to have their property distribution determined. I can think of nothing more ludicrous nor demeaning in this place that that we should fall for that sort of hysterical outburst from a member of another place and be prepared to disadvantage many people. I happen to believe that $10,000 is too low a limit. An assortment of ordinary family home items, such as a fridge, a washing machine and perhaps a freezer, plus a car-and most families have cars-adds up to at least $10,000. To make those ordinary people go to the Family Court instead of a court of summary jurisdiction is ridiculous. On the other hand, it could well be argued that $20,000 may be too high a limit. It was a sensible compromise when one considers that most families in this country have a car. With the price of cars today, $10,000 was a reasonable amount to take for the contents of a house, with the limit being pushed to $20,000 if there was a vehicle. Instead, we in this place are now forced to make a decision between $10,000, which will severely inconvenience a large number of ordinary families-simply because some Opposition members have hysterics at what might be abuse by a small group of people-and $20,000 which may well be too high. I find it absolutely outrageous that we are more concerned in this place with playing politics, not only between one side of this chamber and another but also between one chamber and another, and catching in the middle a whole lot of very ordinary families. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.05) —I have never heard such hypocrisy in all my life. Senator Haines —You stupid woman. You cannot even spell the word. Senator Puplick —Madam Temporary Chairman-- Senator Haines —I withdraw. She can't spell `stupid' either. Senator Puplick —Madam Temporary Chairman-- Senator Haines —I withdraw. Senator WALTERS —When Senator Haines gets over her petulance, I will continue. I have never heard such hypocrisy. When this debate started off several months ago, Senator Haines said that she would agree to a limit of $10,000. She reneged on that agreement. Now she objects strongly to the Government reneging on a supposed agreement she had with it. The absolute hypocrisy of that is unforgivable. Senator Haines —I raise a point of order. At no stage in this debate did I say that I would settle for $10,000. At no stage-- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Powell) —Senator Haines, I do not think that you have a point of order. Senator WALTERS —I take a point of order-- Senator Haines —I am on my feet on a point of order and I have not finished speaking. Senator WALTERS —A point of order. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Senator Walters, I have called Senator Haines on a point of order. I ask you to resume your seat. Senator WALTERS —On Senator Haines's point of order, Madam Temporary Chairman: The other day I was permitted by the Chair to take such a point of order. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —I would like to hear Senator Haines's point of order. Senator WALTERS —I have called a point of order on her point of order, Madam Temporary Chairman. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —I would like to hear Senator Haines's point of order, at which point I will-- Senator WALTERS —You have already ruled. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Senator Haines called a point of order subsequent to your standing a second time. I would like to hear Senator Haines on her point of order. Senator Haines —Thank you, Madam Temporary Chairman. Senator Walters has suggested that in this place I agreed to a $10,000 limit. I did not do so. And indeed-- Senator WALTERS —Madam Temporary Chairman, on a point of order-- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Senator Haines, I wish to hear Senator Walters's point of order to your point of order. Senator WALTERS —Madam Temporary Chairman, you have already ruled that Senator Haines's point of order was not a point of order. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Senator Walters, Senator Haines rose again after you rose again. I have now heard the full point of order. I would now like to continue to hear Senator Walters's comments in this debate. Senator WALTERS —As I was saying, Madam Temporary Chairman, Senator Haines agreed originally to support a $10,000 limit as proposed by the Opposition. She reneged on that agreement. For her to stand up in here and be critical of the Government for reneging on an agreement with her for $15,000 or $10,500-whatever the extra amount was-is absolute hypocrisy and nothing more. I think that Senator Haines should calm down and behave in a senatorial manner. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(10.09) —Since Senator Walters has decided to play this strange game, perhaps Senator Durack would like to relive a discussion that he and I had in this place with regard to what he agreed with me at the time was a sensible compromise, until a note came into this chamber from the Opposition shadow. If we are to play these silly games, Senator Walters had better check up on what discussions took place between me and her senior. Otherwise she will find herself looking sillier than usual. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(10.10) —I thank the chamber for its support for two of the amendments which were passed in the House of Representatives and sent to this chamber for our consideration and agreement. In particular, I refer to the amendment dealing with seniority within the Family Court of Australia. That amendment is necessary and, whilst it is complex, it will satisfy the requirements of several judges within the Family Court who may have been disadvantaged in the hierarchical arrangements had the original amendment passed by this chamber been passed into law. As to the question of interim orders relating to disputed custody matters, it is quite clear that the House of Representatives has made a very sensible amendment. It will enable judicial registrars to provide valuable relief to the judiciary in urgent matters which arise from day to day in each registry, particularly during court vacations, recesses and so on, when a prompt response is required. I thank the chamber for its support for that amendment. As to the question of the upper limit that might be placed on the jurisdiction of magistrates courts in dealing with the matters we have agreed may be dealt with by a magistrate, it is true-I can understand Senator Haines's distress at the fact-- Senator Haines —Try `anger'. Senator TATE —I will accept `anger' because it has been properly manifested. I can understand Senator Haines's anger at the fact that an amendment which she suggested in absolute good faith and which, I must say, I concurred in in good faith has not found favour in the House of Representatives. Nevertheless, the House of Representatives amendment does have the virtue of providing a jurisdictional limit which is simple to understand and which does not require definitions of motor vehicles. Such definitions, whilst they can be somewhat pedantic and petty, in fact vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In New South Wales they are set in order to determine questions of liability in relation to motor vehicle accidents and so on rather than the question of property distribution about which we are concerned. Therefore, I think that amendment has the virtue of simplicity and ought to commend itself to the chamber. For that reason the Government will be opposing the amendment moved by Senator Durack to amendment No. 9 and amendment No. 20. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.12) —I would like by way, I suppose, of personal explanation to make a comment in regard to Senator Haines's comments. I do not think it is any longer particularly relevant to the issues, but in view of Senator Haines's statement I would like to say that, as I recall the discussions that I had with her at the beginning of this committee debate, she indicated to me that the Australian Democrats would support the Opposition's amendment for an amount of $10,000 but would not support the amendment in regard to magistrates' jurisdiction in relation to undefended divorces. In the course of the committee debate Senator Haines put forward a counterproposal to the amendment for the $10,000 limit for a motor vehicle. I said that I would of course have to get instructions from the shadow Attorney-General, the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith), which I duly did. He pointed out the obvious difficulty with such an amendment. I have already indicated that difficulty here. That property settlement matter could easily be circumvented by the purchase of a bomb car for $50 or so. That is the record of the conversations as I recall them. I do not think that Senator Haines gave a true and accurate account of them in her so-called personal explanation. I felt that in fairness to Senator Walters I should give an account of my recollection of the events. I must say that the way in which this whole issue has been approached by the Government and the Australian Democrats has been entirely unsatisfactory. I reiterate that the Government's original proposals-which the Government and presumably the Australian Democrats were prepared to pass; certainly they were not prepared to have the matter examined in detail by a committee of the Senate back in December- were on a completely different track altogether; namely, that the jurisdiction of magistrates in regard to property settlements would be determined by whatever jurisdiction the magistrates had in debt recovery in the particular State in which they were sitting. Senator Tate has conceded that is a totally absurd proposition. The Opposition's approach has always been that there should be a set figure for the jurisdiction. We had amendments to that effect on the table. We have consistently maintained the figure of $10,000 through the various changes of attitude exhibited by the Government and the Democrats. Again, I remind the Committee that all these changes were to legislation which the Government apparently was happy to pass in its original form last December. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Durack's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 33 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 4 —— Alston, R. K. R. Messner, A. J.Archer, B. R. Newman, J. M.Baume, Peter Panizza, J. H.Bishop, B. K. Parer, W. R.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Patterson, K. C. L.Boswell, R. L. D. Puplick, C. J. G.Brownhill, D. G. C. Sheil, G.Calvert, P. H. Short, J. R.Chapman, H. G. P. Stone, J. O.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Tambling, G. E. J. (Teller)Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C.Hamer, D. J. Vanstone, A. E.Harradine, B. Walters, M. S.Hill, R. M. Watson, J. O. W.McGauran, J. J. Beahan, M. E. Haines, J.Black, J. R. Jenkins, J. A.Burns, B. R. Jones, G. N. (Teller)Button, J. N. McLean, P. A.Childs, B. K. McMullan, R. F.Coates, J. Macklin, M. J.Collins, R. L. Maguire, G. R.Colston, M. A. Morris, J. J.Cook, P. F. S. Powell, J. F.Cooney, B. C. Richardson, G. F.Coulter, J. R. Sanders, N. K.Devereux, J. R. Schacht, C. C.Devlin, A. R. Sibraa, K. W.Evans, Gareth Tate, M. C.Foreman, D. J. Walsh, P. A.Gietzelt, A. T. Zakharov, A. O.Giles, P. J. MacGibbon, D. J. Aulich, T. G.Lewis, A. W. R. Crowley, R. A.Reid, M. E. Bolkus, N.Baume, Michael McKiernan, J. P.Chaney, F. M. Reynolds, M.Knowles, S. C. Ray, Robert Question so resolved in the negative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Debate resumed. Senator ALSTON(Victoria)(10.23) —The Conservation Legislation Amendment Bill 1988, which is a very important piece of legislation, highlights where responsibility for and hypocrisy in this matter lie. In fact, I think it is fair to say that in recent times the Opposition has taken a very considered and responsible position in relation to environmental matters. Thanks to the good efforts of the shadow Minister for the environment, we now have a situation in this country where each of the States recognises that the Federal Government has a role to play in this important area. That is a breakthrough for which all Australians should be grateful. It is against that background that one must look very closely at the provisions of this Bill. On the face of it, the second reading speech in particular seems fairly innocuous. However, a closer analysis of it can only cause one to wonder what the real agenda is meant to be. One of the matters of most concern is the provision in relation to identified property. That regime is supposedly included because it provides a new definition so that the principal Act will follow more closely the World Heritage Convention. But the reality is that the Convention creates no duty to protect individual World Heritage property and make no mention of interim protective measures. I think the High Court of Australia, in its recent judgment, went almost as far as it can possibly go in terms of the limits of the external affairs powers. As a result, one is left wondering why there should be a need for this type of legislation. I shall refer for a moment to some of the remarks of Chief Justice Mason and Mr Justice Brennan who handed down the leading joint judgment in the matter. In that judgment they said: Here, however, we are not concerned with the making of a conclusive finding of constitutional facts necessary to support the exercise of a legislative power with respect to a head of power. Rather we are concerned to ascertain whether there is a basis for invalidating the legislative judgment that the area in question may possess world heritage characteristics which justify on an interim footing the freeze on activities . . . At page 18 of this unprinted judgment they said: The matters to which we have referred provide a basis for a legislative judgment that substantial parts of the area, the location of which cannot be identified at this time with any certainty, may conceivably possess world heritage characteristics which should be protected. Later in the judgment they used a similar phrase. The effect of that is to create real doubts about the extent of the power that is sought in this Bill, because the court has accepted that normal principles of interlocutory application should apply to this type of legislation. One cannot quarrel with the logic of that because it is a well recognised principle of equity that interlocutory relief should be available if irreparable harm is likely to be caused. If one were to stand back for a moment and look at the nature of this type of legislation, it should become clear that, within this whole idea of declaring something to be of outstanding natural or cultural value, we are not dealing with a transient piece of the environment or something that can be destroyed by a few simple movements of vehicles or men; we are dealing with something that is of enduring quality and, presumably, of outstanding significance. Against that background it is very difficult to imagine how something which, for perhaps thousands or millions of years-certainly for the past 200 years-has stayed in place without too much desecration or violation of its integrity can all of a sudden at the whim of a Minister be the subject of a court action on the basis that irreparable harm will flow unless an interim injunction, an interlocutory, is granted. That strikes me as passing strange because it has connotations of political opportunism, of wanting to up the ante, of somehow wanting to bring the court into a highly contentious area where it is forced to exercise its prerogative powers and to grant equitable relief when there is no good reason why the normal procedures should not be followed. When one examines the Act even more closely, I think it becomes even more apparent that what we have here is a very unhealthy admixture of law and politics. I turn now to the scheme that will apply not only for the appointment of inspectors but also in relation to the powers that they will be given. Inspectors are to be given a whole range of powers to enter and search, record occurrences, and inspect, examine, photograph and take measurements of an eligible thing. An eligible thing is almost self-defining. It is whatever the Government says it is. Inspectors are to be given enormous powers and are to be allowed, almost at will, to enter upon premises. One has to ask why they are to be given those powers. Is it to collect material for court cases? Is it somehow to preserve minute samples that might be used for archeological purposes? It is more likely that those powers are being conferred in order to provide the Government with very wide discretion to inject a sense of urgency and to create political issues where none exist and then to put the onus on the court to determine these matters. I think that is both invidious and insidious. An inspector will have the power to enter a property on a warrant granted by a judge. That is not an unusual situation. Judges are often asked to grant warrants. However, in normal circumstances the judges who grant such warrants sit in a practice court and are called upon in rotation to exercise the normal powers of the court. That is the very last thing for which this proposed Act provides. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Powell) —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., the debate is interrupted. Under sessional order, I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator CALVERT(Tasmania)(10.30) —I wish to speak on a matter that was initially engendered in my mind by my colleague Senator Parer. He made a speech on 16 December last year in which he expressed a great deal of concern about the Endeavour Foundation in Queensland which had had a funding cut under the Disability Services Act. Because of that I decided to make some inquiries in my own State and found, to my horror, that things have been happening in Tasmania and all round Australia that should be brought to the attention of this Senate. It is a subject that I have become very interested in; it is a subject that I have looked at, and I have spoken to many people who are involved in, and work with, handicapped people, people with disabilities and people in sheltered workshops in Tasmania. I have found that, since December, I have had the opportunity to observe many programs operating in my home State. Just to refresh the minds of honourable senators, in 1986 the Government changed the old Handicapped Persons Act to the Disability Services Act No. 129. Let me just read the objects of that Act: 3. The objects of this Act are- (a) to replace provisions of the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act 1974, and of Part VIII of the Social Security Act 1947, with provisions that are more flexible and more responsive to the needs and aspirations of persons with disabilities; (b) to ensure that persons with disabilities receive the services necessary to enable them to achieve their maximum potential as members of the community; (c) to ensure that services provided to persons with disabilities- (i) further the integration of persons with disabilities in the community, and complement services available generally to persons in the community; (ii) enable persons with disabilities to achieve positive outcomes, such as increased independence, employment opportunities and integration in the community; and (iii) are provided in ways that promote in the community a positive image of persons with disabilities and enhance their self-esteem; (d) to ensure that the outcomes achieved by persons with disabilities by the provision of services for them are taken into account in the granting of financial assistance for the provision of such services; (e) to encourage innovation in the provision of services for persons with disabilities; and (f) to achieve positive outcomes, such as increased independence, employment opportunities and integration in the community, for persons with disabilities who are of working age by the provision of comprehensive rehabilitation services, and this Act shall be construed and administered accordingly. In 1987-88 all those people in Australia whose funding for the proposed expansion of their equipment and capital works comes under the Disability Services Act have received no funding at all. We are now nine months into this financial year. I was quite shocked when I saw that. I have had the opportunity to observe programs operating at the Summit workshop in Devonport, Oakdale, Rosedale and at the Walkabout workshop. Thirteen major industries in Tasmania are creating employment for disabled people and those poor disabled people are making a very big contribution to our community and are salvaging some pride from their disabilities. They have a lot of pride in, and respect for, themselves and their fellow workers in those situations. Unfortunately, because of the lack of funding and the lack of direction by this Government under this Act I believe that, in some cases, the Government will rationalise some of the services. This will mean that a lot of these disabled people will not be able to be cared for. They will be thrust back into the situation they were before where they are not secure. I spoke to one person the other day who administered one of these workshops. He said that, when these people go on holidays, they cannot wait to get back to the workshops to do something to help their fellow workers. It gives them a sense of pride in, and respect for, their community. Of course, we should not forget and the Government should not forget the quite significant savings that these centres provide to the taxpayers of Tasmania. Most of them are managed by community committees. I feel sorry for those people who are giving of their time on a voluntary basis. Even the people who are being paid for their work are very dedicated to the needs of the disabled. They are really confused. I was speaking to some of them the other day and they said, `In 1986 when this new Act came in, we were given an undertaking by the former Minister Don Grimes at the Australian Council for Rehabilitation of Disabled conference in June 1986 that it would simplify things and that we would not be any worse off. In fact, we could be better off'. The fact of the matter is that, on looking around and on making some investigations, for example, the Summit industries in Devonport received $31,000 in 1984-85, $94,000 in 1985-86, and $44,000 in 1986-87-an average of $57,000 over the last three or four years. This year they will be receiving about $16,000. As another example I believe that the St Vincent de Paul sheltered workshop at Wynyard received about $42,000 last year to assist in the upgrading of its equipment. It applied for $42,000 and it received $46,000 and that has been the average for the last three years. As a result of its submission this year it got nothing. Madam Acting Deputy President, I assure you that the St Vincent de Paul Society not only was shattered at losing its leader in Tasmania this week, the Archbishop of Tasmania, Sir Guilford Young, who died very tragically, but also was shattered by being told this week that its funding for equipment this year is absolutely zero. What a disgrace it is that these people who give their time voluntarily, who are trying to do the right thing by the unfortunate people in our community, have been so disadvantaged. The Minister for Community Services and Health, Dr Neal Blewett, proudly espoused in a Press release on 10 March this year: The Government's newly-introduced Disability Services Act recognises that `People with disabilities have a right to be part of the community . . . Further on Dr Blewett said: . . . increased Federal funding would assist services reshape their programs . . . I can assure honourable senators that their programs have been reshaped all right. Most of the organisations that I have spoken to will be reshaping their situations in such a way that these unfortunate disabled people, who have been taking such a pride in their active role in the community, will not be working at all. They will be going back into a situation where they will become a burden not only on their families but also on the community. That is not what they want and I do not believe that that is what the people of Australia want. Another matter that came to my attention related to the St Giles centre in Launceston. This is Don Grimes's home town. I am sure he would be appalled to learn what is going on. The St Giles centre in Launceston runs two group homes accommodating seven severely disabled adults. These people cannot help themselves and need assistance with everything. The centre's annual recurrent costs are about $242,000. Its funding expires in June this year. It has received no word at all of any funding from this Government. One can imagine the distress this is causing to those disabled adults who rely on these homes for their shelter. One can imagine them trying to plan under these conditions. As I have said, there have been many promises of added assistance and statements to the effect that there will be increased funding. However, all of the organisations I have contacted have suffered severe cut-backs. I have asked the people running the programs why they have not said or done anything. They have replied that they have been promised funds. Last October they were told to wait until next month; that there would be a statement from the Minister in November. Then they were put off to December, and then to January. All this time the unfortunate bureaucrats who have received no direction at all from the Minister, have said, `Trust us. It will be all right' One can gauge the value of trust when organisations such as St Giles that rely totally on funds from generous people in the community receive no assistance whatsoever from the Government. I instance also Walkabout, Summit Workshops and Saint Vincent de Paul. They are just some of the groups in my State. Senator Parer referred to the Endeavour Workshop, one arm of the Endeavour Foundation. Recently I was told-I do not know whether it was correct-that the Endeavour Workshop is considering cutting back its program. It is one of the biggest organisations of this type in Australia. So, someone is telling lies somewhere along the line. I refer to another small matter of people telling lies. When I returned from Hobart tonight I received a nice letter from a politician called Duncan Kerr, the member for Denison. He wanted to know whether Bruce Goodluck and I attended the South African Embassy last night during the suspension of the sitting for dinner. He said: I am writing to you to give you the courtesy of allowing you to inform me that my information is not correct, should that be the case, or to explain . . . I do not know what he is on about. The fact of the matter is that I was there. But that is my business. I practise politics the way I want to. If I feel that I can be of some assistance in respect of the situation in South Africa by talking to some of the people in that embassy, that is my business. I do not inquire of Duncan Kerr what he was doing with the Russians down in the Antarctic, or whether he goes to the Russian Embassy and talks about Afghanistan. That is his business. If I, along with Bruce Goodluck or anyone else, believe I can do some good by talking to officials at the South African Embassy, why should Mr Kerr write to me? He knows perfectly well that I was there; otherwise he would not have written to me. I put the record straight by saying that of course I was there. I was there for about 30 minutes. Senator Gareth Evans —Did you do any good in relation to the executions tomorrow? Senator CALVERT —As a matter of fact, I spoke to a Mr Tramere from Sydney, as well as to his wife and a couple of other people. I do not know whether I did any good. But at least I spoke to them. I do not believe that a stand-off situation or throwing eggs from outside the embassy will do any good. I believe that the more that this Government and anyone else who is concerned about South Africa talk to these people and try to convince them, the better it will be. In conclusion, I return to my original topic and suggest that something should be done about the lack of funding for disabled people in our community. This is a matter of great concern to me and, indeed, to all Tasmanians. Senator BISHOP(New South Wales)(10.45) —Earlier today I spoke on the sad topic of jobs for the boys in the Labor Party in New South Wales. It is with a degree of sadness that I raise yet another instance of the jobs for the boys syndrome. Senator Collins —Sadness my foot. Senator BISHOP —Great sadness, because this affects Sydney University. The Sydney University Senate comprises 30 members. It now includes six members appointed by the New South Wales Minister for Education, Mr Cavalier, because recently the New South Wales Labor Government changed the Act so that the Minister could make more appointments. There are two further Government appointees: the Hon. Bryan Vaughan from the Legislative Council and Dr Refshauge from the Legislative Assembly. The membership of the Senate includes the Chairman of the Academic Board, three professors elected by the staff, three academics elected by the staff, one non-academic staff, 10 elected graduates, three students and one Vice-Chancellor. Whereas previously only five fellows were nominated by the Government, there is now a total of eight, including the delegates from the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly. On Monday, 4 April next, the University Senate will elect its new Chancellor. Sir Herman Black, a most distinguished Australian who has been Chancellor since 1970, will on those figures almost certainly be rolled by Gough Whitlam by 16 votes to 14. Senator Collins —And a distinguished appointment that will be. Senator BISHOP —Jobs for the boys yet again, with a stacked Senate. Senator Collins —Gough Whitlam-30 years in parliament; a former Prime Minister of Australia; a former Ambassador of UNESCO. Who are you kidding? Senator BISHOP —Not elected by the academic appointments to the Senate but by a stacked ministerial appointment to give a margin of two votes to roll a distinguished Australian, Sir Herman Black. The jobs for the boys syndrome will extend even further. Should Gough Whitlam become Chancellor of Sydney University on the stacked appointments of Minister Cavalier, the position of Vice-Chancellor undoubtedly will go to one Peter Wilenski. That Labor appointment will be another instance of jobs for the boys. There is only one reason why the numbers will favour former Prime Minister Whitlam and Mr Peter Wilenski: Very simply, once again the Labor Government in New South Wales has changed an Act to enable it in this instance, to appoint its people to the University Senate to give it the numbers to again provide a job for its fellows. It is interesting to look at the names of those appointed by Minister Cavalier. They include Ms Jenny George, President of the New South Wales Teachers Federation; Ms Alison Ziller, Director for Equal Opportunity in New South Wales; Mr Robert Winder, New South Wales Director-General of Education; Dr Amy McGrath, historian and noted graduate of the university; Mr John O'Neill, Managing Director of the State Bank; and Mr Whitlam. The reason I raise this issue is that previously there were denials that Mr Whitlam would stand against Sir Herman. After the concerned academics ran their own ticket for the first time in an academic election for the Sydney University Senate, they believed that the academics would have the numbers to prevail. As I said, it was only when Minister Cavalier chose to appoint a selected group of people that the numbers changed. I think it is important that this election not take place without people being aware of it. I refer particularly to undergraduates of Sydney University, people who care about the independence of a university, people who do not like politics being intruded into the activities of the Sydney University Senate. To quote the Australian, those people should be made aware of the spectre hanging over the Sydney University Senate. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(10.49) —I shall refer Senator Calvert's concerns to the relevant Minister. I am not aware of the matters that he raised in detail, but I shall do my best to convey his concerns. Senator Archer —Can you bring us a response? Senator RICHARDSON —I shall make sure that the Minister considers giving a response to Senator Calvert. I am not sure that I will be the appropriate conduit at the time. However, I shall deliver to Senator Archer a response about the Antarctic ship as soon as I can. As to Senator Bishop's remarks, I, like all honourable senators, will be very happy when 19 March is over and gone and we no longer have to go through this process. We have just heard an attack on the New South Wales Government over some appointments to the Senate of Sydney University and the possibility of there being a ballot between Herman Black and Gough Whitlam. Senator Bishop —Sir Herman Black. Senator RICHARDSON —I am terribly sorry, between Sir Herman Black and Gough Whitlam, QC, MP, about who might be-- Senator Bishop —MP? Senator RICHARDSON —Well, he was once an MP; I think he was a Prime Minister! I am not really concerned with the unseemly numbers games that go on in these quarters. I would not choose to soil my hands in getting involved in those matters. Rather, it should suffice to say that as an eminent lawyer, as a distinguished parliamentarian, as a Deputy Leader of the Opposition, as a Leader of the Opposition, and as a Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam has served his country well, and I should have thought that Sydney University could not look for a better person than Gough Whitlam to be its chancellor. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.51 p.m. The following paper was tabled: Public Service Act-Determination 1988 No. 31. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 194) Senator Vallentine asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 17 February 1988: (1) How many countries have now accepted invitations to the Naval Review in Sydney Harbour in October 1988. (2) What are the names of the ships coming from France. (3) What are the names of the ships of the Royal Navy. (4) What are the names of the ships coming from the United States. Senator Robert Ray —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) 12 nations have so far accepted the invitation. (2) French participation is as yet undecided. (3) The United Kingdom will be represented by HM Ships Ark Royal, Edinburgh and Sirius, and RFAs Fort Grange, Olwen and Orangeleaf. (4) The United States will be represented by a Task Group headed by USS New Jersey. The final composition of the group is still classified, but will be released as soon as possible after its program is decided. (Question No. 224) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, 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 numbers 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 Cook —The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) No apprentices have been employed in the Department since 1 January 1988. (2) No apprentices have been employed in Statutory Authorities since 1 January 1988. (3) NA. (4) NA. (Question No. 240) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 22 February 1988: Can the Minister provide details of how many employees of the Department are presently listed as unattached (to a substantive position within the Department). Senator Cook —The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Department has 252 unattached officers Australia wide.